IRREGULAR-SHAPED CAPACITIVE SENSORS AND LOCATIONS OF TOUCH EVENTS AT THE SAME

Application No. 18/337,359

• Filed: Jun 19, 2023
• Priority: Jun 20, 2022 — provisional 63/366,682
• Examiner: FORTICH, ALVARO E
• Art Unit: 2858
• Tech Center: 2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
• Assignee: Microchip Technology Inc.
• OA Round: 2 (Non-Final)

Office Action

DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.

Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 03/11/2026.

Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-8, 10-17, 20-30 and 33-35 are still pending.
3. Claims 9, 18, 19, 31, and 32 were cancelled.
4. Applicant's amendments to claims are accepted because do not introduce new matter pursuant to MPEP 2163.

II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.

6. Pages 10-12, the Applicant(s) argues that “The claims, particularly as amended, are not directed to disembodied mathematical manipulation or mere data conversion. Rather, they are directed to a specific technological solution for a specific capacitive-sensing problem. The specification explains that a touch controller pre-configured for a rectangular sensor may produce incorrect or inaccurate results when paired with a non-rectangular sensor, including reporting coordinates that differ from the actual coordinates of the touch event. The specification further explains that the disclosed technology addresses that problem by distorting a capacitive sensor design from a first, regular geometry to a second, irregular geometry and by transforming location identifiers associated with the regular geometry into location identifiers associated with the irregular geometry ... Claim 12 recites the same technological concept in apparatus form. These recitations are not abstract. They recite a concrete manner of modifying a physical capacitive-sensor design while preserving sensor-node characteristics that the specification identifies as important to capacitive sensing performance ... The specification also includes illustrative discussion of why those recitations matter technologically. It states that when the number of sensor nodes and the respective node areas are substantially uniform, the respective capacitances and capacitance values are substantially uniform, and the capacitive response to a touch is substantially uniform, such that a touch controller configured for a regular-geometry sensor may reliably detect touch events on the distorted sensor ... Accordingly, amended claims 1 and 12 are directed to a concrete improvement in capacitive-sensor design and touch-detection behavior ... As amended, claim 13 requires receiving measurement signals from an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor during a capacitive measurement process, the sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor exhibiting a substantially uniform sensor area and substantially non-uniform geometry. Claim 23 recites the same concept in apparatus form. Again, those recitations are directed to a particular sensor architecture and a particular touch-detection implementation, not to mathematics in the abstract. The specification expressly discloses ... Accordingly, amended claim 26 is likewise directed to a concrete capacitive-sensing system architecture that improves the operation of touch sensing for irregular-shaped sensors, rather than to a mere abstract calculation At least in view of the foregoing, the pending claims as amended are directed to specific improvements in capacitive-sensor design and capacitive-touch detection for irregular-shaped sensors. The claims are rooted in concrete sensor geometry, node-area relationships, touch measurement signals, firmware/controller operation, and coordinate transformation tied to a particular physical sensing context disclosed throughout ... They are tied to a particular physical sensor structure and to a particular touch-measurement and coordinate-conversion workflow disclosed in the specification ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, and MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, and 2106.05(b) III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE; 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.

6.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 6 above.

2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the
functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." … Thus, an examiner
should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the
claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis …
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. …
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334,115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59;
vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016). …

In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine that an invention is actually an improvement to an existing technology requires to meet two steps. The first-step is determining whether or not “a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (hereinafter mentioned as the “First-Step”) regardless the word “improvement” is explicitly set forth. The second-step is determining whether or not “the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Second-Step”), which is done by evaluating the full scope of the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) where the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Regarding to the First-Step, the specification by the Applicant(s) appears to contain a technical explanation describing with sufficient detail how to implement the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvements.
Regarding to the Second-Step, the full scope of the claim does not reflect the disclosed improvement in technology because the claims lack of detail description such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvements. Furthermore, the claim neither express any unconventional technical solution, nor identifies any realized technical improvements over the prior art, which needs to be included from the discussion of the specification in order for an ordinary skilled in the art would recognize such improvement.
Furthermore, in order for an invention to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery, and the claim(s) at issue does not include anything more than just instructions to be performed by the general computer in which a computer software executes the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-idea indicated the rejection below of the instant application.
Furthermore, the claims at issue as a whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Examiner has concluded that the disclosed invention does not improve technology.

6.2. SECOND Argument in support to response to number 6 above.

2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." … Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98 … Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) …

In summary, the MPEP and the courts have found that simply linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not sufficient for the claims to be eligible.
In the instant application, the abstract-idea/judicial exception above mentioned does not claimed any “Technological Environment” but simply to link it to the use of capacitive sensors, which appears not to be a “field of use” as determined by the courts. Therefore, the limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use, which in a general way is similar to Parker v. Flook where the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm is linked to chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in which the court found the claims ineligibles under 101.
Furthermore, the claims as a whole do not amount to more than estimating the result of an endurance test using conditions that are algorithms/equations themselves, using a general purpose processor that performs machine learning tasks such as executing said abstract-idea/judicial exception.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the abstract-idea/judicial are mathematical algorithms and formulas and is not implemented into a practical application but simply linking it to a particular technological environment or field of use.

6.3. THIRD Argument in support to response to number 6 above.

2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).

2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...

2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …

In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, or, if the additional elements.
With regards to the particularity of a machine, “... directed to a particular sensor architecture and a particular touch-detection implementation ... They are tied to a particular physical sensor structure and to a particular touch-measurement and coordinate-conversion workflow disclosed in the specification ...” is inaccurate under the 101 interpretation because the prior art teaches said sensor architecture and detection implementation because the instant application does not claim a particular machine. Moreover, the aforesaid claims simply recite a capacitive sensor with first and second geometries with a high degree of generality that could not be considered a particular capacitive sensor (see Roberts Pub. No.: US 2015/0234527 that is used in the previous rejection and current rejection below). For example, the said claims lack particular dimensions, configurations, structure, etc., of the capacitive sensor, which could make it particular and differentiated from other capacitive sensors.
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity, the instant application, the independent claims simply recites the additional claim elements “changing a geometry of a capacitive sensor design from a first geometry to a second geometry, the second geometry different than the first geometry, while keeping a same number of sensor nodes of the capacitive sensor design between the first geometry and the second geometry and keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform; and obtaining executable instructions to transform a location identifier of a touch event from a first location identifier associated with the first geometry to a second location identifier associated with the second geometry” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known in the field(s) and/or industry(s) related to the use of capacitive sensors (see Roberts Pub. No.: US 2015/0234527 that is used in the previous rejection and current rejection below), (see LESONEN Pub. No.: US 2014/0333570, abstract, Figs. 1, 4,6-9 and 14 and paragraph [0073]-[0074], and [0108]-[0110], which was provided in the previous office action).
Furthermore, the claims at issue as a whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities in a general way with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Therefore, the aforesaid claims simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to the capacitive sensors, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the use of capacitive sensors that is performed using well well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element or combination of elements fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.

III. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to the anticipation claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has been maintained.

8. Page 13-14, the Applicant(s) argues that “... Roberts does not teach or suggest, literally or inherently, that amended subject matter. The amended claims now recite that, during the geometry change itself, the same number of sensor nodes is kept and the respective node areas of the sensor nodes are kept substantially uniform. At most, Roberts describes a distorted version of a regular Cartesian grid and a transform between reported space and physical space, but Applicant can find no teaching or suggestion by Roberts of keeping node areas substantially uniform while changing the geometry of the capacitive sensor design ...
They are not a disclosure of keeping respective node areas
substantially uniform while changing geometry from a first geometry to a second geometry.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Roberts discloses each and every limitation of the independent claims pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning (I) and MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure.

8.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 8 above.

2111.01 Plain Meaning, I. THE WORDS OF A CLAIM MUST BE GIVEN THEIR "PLAIN MEANING" UNLESS SUCH MEANING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFICATION
“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention … the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification … During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow … This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” … “In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say””.

In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the case law, ordinary English words/terms must be given their plain meaning, unless the specification provide definitions for said words/terms in the form of glossary.
In the instant case, the claim limitation at issue broadly and ambiguously recites “... keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform ...” but does not explain how the “node areas” are to the “substantially uniform” with respect to each other.
Furthermore, the terms “substantially” and “uniform” are ordinary English words and could be reasonably interpreted by one ordinary skill in the art using any of their ordinary English meanings because the specifications do not provide any special definition for the aforesaid terms, which makes said terms consistent with the specifications of the Applicant(s).
Furthermore, the terms “substantially” and “uniform” are so broad and ambiguous that have many different definitions (see, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/draw; https://www.thefreedictionary.com/substantially) and/or synonyms (see, https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/drawn; https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/uniform), thus, could be reasonably used and/or interpreted to describe many different relationships between the elements of the claim (e.g. “similar”) such as being similar, alike, consistent, etc. Moreover, the claim terms “substantially” and “uniform” are to be interpreted together, which is not “uniform”. Since paragraph [0040] of the specifications by Applicant(s) provides different levels and broad language in order to interpret the degree for “substantially”, it still makes very broad and ambiguous.
Therefore, the Examiner reasonably interprets said limitation in three possible ways according to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as follows:
FIRST, the scaling-factors causes the sensing-area formed by the nodes be uniform/similar in another scale/level/degree the area of the sensor nodes 1-36 themselves being substantially uniform/similar and by multiplying scaling factor to dimensions x, y, and z (see Roberts, Fig. 5A and 5B with paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0073]). This is according to paragraph [0186] of the specification by the applicant(s) sets forth “wherein the setting respective node areas of the mapped reference design to be uniform comprises: obtaining a scaling factor; and scaling dimensions of respective node areas”.
SECOND, the area of the sensor nodes 1-36 themselves being 90% substantially uniform/similar (see Roberts, Fig. 5A and 5B with paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0073]). and
THIRD, the area between adjacent and/or non-adjacent sensor nodes 1-36 themselves being substantially uniform/similar (see Roberts, Figs. 5A and 5B with paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0073]).
Furthermore, the language related to “substantially uniform” is not claiming full uniformity.
Consequently, the Examiner’s interpretation of the limitation regarding “... keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform ...” is reasonable and consistent with the specifications of the Applicant(s).
Furthermore, the claim language is so broad and ambiguous that do not exclude Roberts’ teachings.
In light of the foregoing, the Roberts properly and obviously teaches all the limitations of claim(s) 1.

8.2. SECOND Argument in support to response number 8 above.

MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) …; In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) (Reference disclosure of a compound where the R-S-R¢ portion has "at least one methylene group attached to the sulfur atom" implies that the other R group attached to the sulfur atom can be other than methylene and therefore suggests asymmetric dialkyl moieties.).”.

MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof, “The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103..”.

In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the case law, the rejection must be based on express, implicit and inherent disclosure of the prior art references. In addition to the specific teachings of the reference, inferences are expected to be drawn from the reference-teachings by one ordinary skilled in the art are drawn.
In the instant case and with regards to the express-explicit and implicit disclosure of Roberts, the claim limitation at issue broadly and ambiguously recites “... keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform ...” and paragraph [0186] of the specification by the applicant(s) sets forth “wherein the setting respective node areas of the mapped reference design to be uniform comprises: obtaining a scaling factor; and scaling dimensions of respective node areas”.
In contrast, paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0073] explicitly/expressly discloses multiplying scaling factor to dimensions x, y, and z, that implies/suggests that there exist substantial uniformity/similarity in the location transformation of each node with respect to each node self-area and/or with respect to the other nodes, which both reads into the above claim language. In addition, Figs. 5A and 5B of Roberts depicts discloses sensor nodes 1-36 with areas substantially uniform/similar. Therefore, one ordinary skilled in the art implies/infers the aforesaid limitation being taught by Roberts regardless the fact that there is no explicit disclosure of the claim term “substantially uniform”.
Similar to the instant case but in a general way, the Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion affirming the findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning obviousness based on implicit disclosures in a prior art reference (See IXI IP, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 17-1665, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25533 (Fed Cir. Sept. 10, 2018) (Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the court, Reyna, Circuit Judge) in which the configuration of physical structures, which are not explicitly expressed in the prior art used for rejection but required by the invention of the prior art, were implied from said prior art by an ordinary skilled in the art such as it is implied by the Examiner.
In light of the foregoing, Roberts discloses each and every limitation of the independent claims.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

9. Claim(s) 13-17 and 20-25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically:
9.1. Claim 13 recites the limitations “the sensor nodes” in line(s) 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
9.2. Furthermore, claims 14-17 and 20-22 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim 13.
9.3. Claim 23 recites the limitations “the sensor nodes” in line(s) 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
9.4. Furthermore, claims 24-25 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim 23.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

10. Claim 1-8, 10-17, 20-30 and 33-35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.

11. Claim 1 is directed to “changing a geometry of a capacitive sensor design from a first geometry to a second geometry, the second geometry different than the first geometry, ...; and obtaining executable instructions to transform a location identifier of a touch event from a first location identifier associated with the first geometry to a second location identifier associated with the second geometry”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A method comprising: ... while keeping a same number of sensor nodes of the capacitive sensor design between the first geometry and the second geometry and keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform” is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

Independent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
11.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
11.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “changing a geometry of a capacitive sensor design from a first geometry to a second geometry, the second geometry different than the first geometry, ...; and obtaining executable instructions to transform a location identifier of a touch event from a first location identifier associated with the first geometry to a second location identifier associated with the second geometry”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
11.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine because the capacitive sensor and nodes are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies and industries using capacitive sensor. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
11.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method comprising: ... while keeping a same number of sensor nodes of the capacitive sensor design between the first geometry and the second geometry and keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform ...”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, prior art made of record and previous rejection). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).

12. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the first geometry is a regular geometry, and the second geometry is an irregular geometry”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

13. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “obtaining a reference capacitive sensor design and a target capacitive sensor design, wherein the geometry of reference capacitive sensor design is the first geometry , and the geometry of the target capacitive sensor design is the second geometry; mapping the geometry of the reference capacitive sensor design to the geometry of the target capacitive sensor design; and setting respective node areas of the mapped reference capacitive sensor design to be uniform”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

14. Claim 4 depends on claim 3 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “identifying, in the geometry of the target capacitive sensor design, constituent geometries that match predetermined geometries; dividing the geometry of the reference capacitive sensor design into rectangular sub-geometries, respective rectangular sub-geometries including respective identified ones of the constituent geometries of the target capacitive sensor design; for respective Y coordinates, calculating respective X coordinates of the identified constituent geometries; determining functions that describe relationships between the X coordinates of the constituent geometries and the X coordinates of the rectangular sub-geometries; and returning X and Y coordinates for the second geometry, and the functions”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

15. Claim 5 depends on claim 3 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “obtaining a scaling factor; and scaling dimensions of respective node areas of the mapped reference capacitive sensor design according to the scaling factor”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

16. Claim 6 depends on claim 3 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “finishing respective sensor node geometries of the mapped reference capacitive sensor design”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

17. Claim 7 depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 3 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “constructing rough sensor node geometries; smoothing curves of cut lines of rough node geometries; aligning respective crossover details of respective sensor node geometries; trimming gaps in cut lines; and returning finished sensor node geometries”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

18. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a scale of a reference coordinate line of the first geometry is different than a scale of a reference coordinate line of the second geometry”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

19. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “wherein changing the geometry of the capacitive sensor design comprises one or more of: stretching, narrowing, or skewing the geometry of the capacitive sensor design or respective geometries of one or more sensor nodes thereof”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

20. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “defining the second geometry according to a geometry of a target touch surface”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

21. Claim(s) 12 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim is drawn to a "storage device". The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 351 00212, Feb 232010.

22. Claim 12 is further rejected because is directed to “change a geometry of a capacitive sensor design from a first geometry to a second geometry, the second geometry different than the first geometry, ... and obtain executable instructions to transform a location identifier of a touch event from a first location identifier associated with the first geometry to a second location identifier associated with the second geometry”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “An apparatus, comprising: a storage device; and at least one processor to execute machine-executable instructions stored at the storage device ... while keeping a same number of sensor nodes of the capacitive sensor design between the first geometry and the second geometry and keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform” is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

Independent claim 12 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
22.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 12 is directed to an apparatus, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
22.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 12 recites: “change a geometry of a capacitive sensor design from a first geometry to a second geometry, the second geometry different than the first geometry, ... and obtain executable instructions to transform a location identifier of a touch event from a first location identifier associated with the first geometry to a second location identifier associated with the second geometry”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
22.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 12 does not claim a particular machine because the capacitive sensor, nodes and storage device are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and the processor is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies and industries using capacitive sensor. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
22.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 12 recites the additional element(s) “An apparatus, comprising: a storage device; and at least one processor to execute machine-executable instructions stored at the storage device ... while keeping a same number of sensor nodes of the capacitive sensor design between the first geometry and the second geometry and keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and made of record below). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).

23. Claim 13 is directed to “generating a location identifier associated with a location of the touch event; and changing the location identifier from a first location identifier value to a second location identifier value, the first location identifier value being associated with a regular geometry and the second location identifier value is associated with an irregular geometry”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A method, comprising: receiving measurement signals from an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor during a capacitive measurement process, the sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor exhibiting a substantially uniform sensor area and substantially non-uniform geometry; detecting capacitive changes indicative of a touch event at the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor” is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

Independent claim 13 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
23.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 13 is directed to a method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
23.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 13 recites: “generating a location identifier associated with a location of the touch event; and changing the location identifier from a first location identifier value to a second location identifier value, the first location identifier value being associated with a regular geometry and the second location identifier value is associated with an irregular geometry”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
23.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 13 does not claim a particular machine because the capacitive sensor and nodes are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies and industries using capacitive sensor. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
23.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 13 recites the additional element(s) “A method, comprising: receiving measurement signals from an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor during a capacitive measurement process, the sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor exhibiting a substantially uniform sensor area and substantially non-uniform geometry; detecting capacitive changes indicative of a touch event at the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and made of record below). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).

24. Claim 14 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “generating a further location identifier having the second location identifier value associated with the irregular geometry”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

25. Claim 15 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “calculating the second location identifier value by applying a transform function to the first location identifier value”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

26. Claim 16 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the first location identifier value and the second location identifier value are XY coordinates”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

27. Claim 17 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is a non-rectangular capacitive sensor”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

28. Claim 20 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a spacing between sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is non-uniform”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

29. Claim 21 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 21 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a number of sensor nodes in respective rows of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is uniform”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

30. Claim 22 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 22 is further recites the element(s) “a spacing between sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is non-uniform; and a number of sensor nodes in respective rows of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is uniform”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

31. Claim 23 is further rejected because is directed to “generate a location identifier associated with a location of the touch event; and change the location identifier from a first location identifier value to a second location identifier value, the first location identifier value being associated with a regular geometry and the second location identifier value is associated with an irregular geometry”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor to execute instructions stored at the memory, the instructions to cause the at least one processor to: receive measurement signals from an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor during a capacitive measurement process, the sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor exhibiting a substantially uniform sensor area and substantially non-uniform geometry; detect capacitive changes indicative of a touch event at the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor” is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

Independent claim 23 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
31.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 23 is directed to an apparatus, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
31.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 23 recites: “generate a location identifier associated with a location of the touch event; and change the location identifier from a first location identifier value to a second location identifier value, the first location identifier value being associated with a regular geometry and the second location identifier value is associated with an irregular geometry”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
31.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 23 does not claim a particular machine because the capacitive sensor, nodes and memory are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and the processor is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies and industries using capacitive sensor. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
31.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 23 recites the additional element(s) “An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor to execute instructions stored at the memory, the instructions to cause the at least one processor to: receive measurement signals from an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor during a capacitive measurement process; detect capacitive changes indicative of a touch event at the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and made of record below). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).

32. Claim 24 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 24 is further recites the element(s) “generate a further location identifier having the second location identifier value associated with the irregular geometry”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

33. Claim 25 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 25 is further recites the element(s) “calculate the second location identifier value by applying a transform function to the first location identifier value”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

34. Claim 26 is further rejected because is directed to “… generate a first location identifier for a touch event that is associated with a regular-shaped capacitive sensor … generate, at least partially based on the first location identifier, a second location identifier for the touch event that is associated with the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A system, comprising: an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor, sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor exhibit a substantially uniform sensor area and substantially non-uniform geometry; and a touch controller associated with the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor, the touch controller including: a first firmware to enable the touch controller … a second firmware to enable the touch controller” is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

Independent claim 26 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
34.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 26 is directed to a system, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
34.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 26 recites: “… generate a first location identifier for a touch event that is associated with a regular-shaped capacitive sensor … generate, at least partially based on the first location identifier, a second location identifier for the touch event that is associated with the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
34.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 26 does not claim a particular machine because the capacitive sensor, nodes, touch controller and firmware are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and the system is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies and industries using capacitive sensor. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
34.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 26 recites the additional element(s) “A system, comprising: an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor, sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor exhibit a substantially uniform sensor area and substantially non-uniform geometry; and a touch controller associated with the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor, the touch controller including: a first firmware to enable the touch controller … a second firmware to enable the touch controller”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and made of record below). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).

35. Claim 27 depends on claim 26, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 27 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a surface of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor has an irregular geometry”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 27 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

36. Claim 28 depends on claim 26, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 28 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is a non-rectangular capacitive sensor”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 28 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

37. Claim 29 depends on claim 26, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 29 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the first location identifier value and the second location identifier value are XY coordinates”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

38. Claim 30 depends on claim 26, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 30 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is a non-rectangular capacitive sensor”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 30 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

39. Claim 33 depends on claim 26, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 33 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a spacing between sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is non-uniform”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 33 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

40. Claim 34 depends on claim 26, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 34 is further recites the element(s) “wherein a number of sensor nodes in respective rows of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is uniform”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 34 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

41. Claim 35 depends on claim 26, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 35 is further recites the element(s) “a spacing between sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is non-uniform; and a number of sensor nodes in respective rows of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is uniform”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 35 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.

Examiner’s Note
42. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

43. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-17, 20-30 and 33-35 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roberts et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0234527 hereinafter mentioned “Roberts”, which was used in the previous office action).

As per claim 1, Roberts discloses:
A method (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use), comprising:
changing a geometry of a capacitive sensor design from a first geometry to a second geometry, the second geometry different than the first geometry (Fig. 5A-5B, see the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. 5B in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system being changed, after the distortion caused by a touch/object, to the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. A in the physical-coordinate-system, where one geometry is different from the other. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]), while keeping a same number of sensor nodes of the capacitive sensor design between the first geometry (Fig. 5B, see the regular square geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]) and the second geometry (Fig. 5A, see the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]) and keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform (Fig. 5A and 5B, see [0054], [0058], [0073]. The scaling-factors of Roberts, as set forth in the paragraph [0186] of specifications by the Applicant(s), causes the sensing-area formed by the nodes be uniform/similar in another scale/level/degree); and
obtaining executable instructions to transform a location identifier of a touch event from a first location identifier associated with the first geometry to a second location identifier associated with the second geometry (Fig. 5A-5B, see transforming from the position of a touch in a reported coordinate system (xr,yr), which is geometry, to a position for the touch in a physical coordinate system (xp, yp) that is another geometry as well, and both are different. Also see [0064], [0072] and/or [0054]).

As per claim 2, Roberts discloses the method of claim 1 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein the first geometry is a regular geometry (Fig. 5B, see the regular square geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]), and the second geometry is an irregular geometry (Fig. 5A, see the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]).

As per claim 3, Roberts discloses the method of claim 1 as described above.
Roberts further discloses, wherein the changing the geometry of the capacitive sensor design from the first geometry to the second geometry as described above, comprises:
obtaining a reference capacitive sensor design and a target capacitive sensor design, wherein the geometry of reference capacitive sensor design is the first geometry (Fig. 5B, see the regular square geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]), and the geometry of the target capacitive sensor design is the second geometry (Fig. 5A, see the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]);
mapping the geometry of the reference capacitive sensor design to the geometry of the target capacitive sensor design (see [0065]); and
setting respective node areas of the mapped reference capacitive sensor design to be uniform (see [0054], [0058], [0073]. The scaling-factors of Roberts, as set forth in the paragraph [0186] of specifications by the Applicant(s), causes the sensing-area formed by the nodes be uniform/similar in another scale/level/degree).

As per claim 5, Roberts discloses the method of claim 3 as described above.
Roberts further discloses, wherein the setting respective node areas of the mapped reference design to be uniform, comprises:
obtaining a scaling factor; and scaling dimensions of respective node areas of the mapped reference capacitive sensor design according to the scaling factor (see [0054], [0058], [0065] and [0073]. The scaling-factors of Roberts, as set forth in the paragraph [0186] of specifications by the Applicant(s), causes the sensing-area formed by the nodes be uniform/similar in another scale/level/degree).

As per claim 6, Roberts discloses the method of claim 3 as described above.
Roberts further discloses
finishing respective sensor node geometries of the mapped reference capacitive sensor design (see [0073]-[0074] and [0065]. Obtaining the desired size of the sensing area is one way of finishing by of Roberts).

As per claim 8, Roberts discloses the method of claim 1 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein a scale of a reference coordinate line of the first geometry is different than a scale of a reference coordinate line of the second geometry (Fig. 5A-5B, Any scale applied to the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system (Xr, Yr) of Fig. 5B is different compared to the any scale applied to the physical-coordinate-system of Fig. 5A (Xp, Yp) because they are different coordinate systems. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]).

As per claim 10, Roberts discloses the method of claim 1 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein changing the geometry of the capacitive sensor design (Fig. 5A-5B, see the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. 5B in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system being changed, after the distortion caused by a touch/object, to the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. A in the physical-coordinate-system, where one geometry is different from the other. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]) comprises one or more of: stretching, narrowing, or skewing the geometry of the capacitive sensor design or respective geometries of one or more sensor nodes thereof (see [0073]-[0074] and [0065]. The desired size of the sensing area of Roberts implicates stretching or narrowing the same).

As per claim 11, Roberts discloses the method of claim 1 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
defining the second geometry according to a geometry of a target touch surface (Fig. 5A-5B, see transforming from the position of a touch in a reported coordinate system (xr,yr), which is geometry, to define a position for the touch in a physical coordinate system (xp, yp) that is the second geometry. Also see [0064], [0072] and/or [0054]).

As per claim 12, Roberts discloses:
An apparatus (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use), comprising:
a storage device (see [0075], [0089], abstract and/or claim-1]. The read only memory ROM that stores the firmware/software, which is required for any processor/cpu to function. Therefore, ROM are always present with the processor); and
at least one processor (see [0075], [0089], abstract and/or claim-1]) to execute machine-executable instructions stored at the storage device (see [0075], [0089], abstract and/or claim-1]. The read only memory ROM that stores the firmware/software, which is required for any processor/cpu to function. Therefore, ROM are always present with the processor), the machine-executable instructions to cause the at least one processor to:
change a geometry of a capacitive sensor design from a first geometry to a second geometry, the second geometry different than the first geometry (Fig. 5A-5B, see the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. 5B in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system being changed, after the distortion caused by a touch/object, to the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. A in the physical-coordinate-system, where one geometry is different from the other. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]), while keeping a same number of sensor nodes of the capacitive sensor design between the first geometry (Fig. 5B, see the regular square geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]) and the second geometry (Fig. 5A, see the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]) and keeping respective node areas of the sensor nodes substantially uniform (Fig. 5A and 5B, see [0054], [0058], [0073]. The scaling-factors of Roberts, as set forth in the paragraph [0186] of specifications by the Applicant(s), causes the sensing-area formed by the nodes be uniform/similar in another scale/level/degree); and
obtain executable instructions to transform a location identifier of a touch event from a first location identifier associated with the first geometry to a second location identifier associated with the second geometry (Fig. 5A-5B, see transforming from the position of a touch in a reported coordinate system (xr,yr), which is geometry, to a position for the touch in a physical coordinate system (xp, yp) that is another geometry as well, and both are different. Also see [0064], [0072] and/or [0054]).

As per claim 13, Roberts discloses:
A method (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use), comprising:
receiving measurement signals (see [0075]) from an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor during a capacitive measurement process (Figs. 5A-5B, see the mutual-capacitance touch sensor where after a touch 211 it takes an irregular form via electrodes and nodes, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5A. Also see [0060]), the sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor exhibiting a substantially uniform sensor area (Fig. 5B, see the area of the sensor nodes 1-36 being substantial uniform. Also see [0061]) and substantially non-uniform geometry (Fig. 5A, see the sensor nodes 1-36 being non-uniform geometry. Also see [0061]);
detecting capacitive changes indicative of a touch event at the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor (Figs. 5A-5B, see the mutual-capacitance touch sensor where after a touch it takes an irregular form via electrodes and nodes, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5A. Also see [0060]);
generating a location identifier associated with a location of the touch event (Fig. 5B, see the representation of a touch 211 in the (Xr, Yr) reported-cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062]); and
changing the location identifier from a first location identifier value to a second location identifier value (Fig. 5A-5B, see the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. 5B in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system being changed from the value of (Xr, Yr), after the distortion caused by a touch/object, to the value of (Xp, Yp) corresponding to the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. A in the physical-coordinate-system, where one geometry is different from the other. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]), the first location identifier value being associated with a regular geometry (Fig. 5B, see the regular square geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes and its value in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]) and the second location identifier value is associated with an irregular geometry (Fig. 5A, see the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes with its value in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]).

As per claim 14, Roberts discloses the method of claim 13 as described above.
Roberts further discloses that changing the location identifier from a first location identifier value to a second location identifier value comprises:
generating a further location identifier having the second location identifier value associated with the irregular geometry (Fig. 5A, see the value of the representation of a touch 211 identified in the (Xp, Yp) physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062]).

As per claim 15, Roberts discloses the method of claim 13 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
calculating the second location identifier value by applying a transform function to the first location identifier value (Fig. 5A-5B, see transforming, using a functional relationship, from the position of a touch in a reported coordinate system (xr,yr), which is geometry, to a position for the touch in a physical coordinate system (xp, yp) that is another geometry as well, and both are different. Also see [0064]-[0065], [0072], [0074] and/or [0054]).

As per claim 16, Roberts discloses the method of claim 13 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein the first location identifier value (Fig. 5B, see the representation of a touch 211 in the (Xr, Yr) with its value in the reported-cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062]) and the second location identifier value are XY coordinates (Fig. 5A, see the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes and its value in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]).

As per claim 17, Roberts discloses the method of claim 13 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is a non-rectangular capacitive sensor (Figs. 5A-5B, see the mutual-capacitance touch sensor where after a touch 211 it takes an irregular form via electrodes and nodes, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5A. Also see [0060]).

As per claim 20, Roberts discloses the method of claim 13 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein a spacing between sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is non-uniform (Fig. 5A, see the spacing between the sensor nodes 1-36 being non-uniform area. Also see [0061]).

As per claim 21, Roberts discloses the method of claim 13 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein a number of sensor nodes in respective rows of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is uniform (Fig. 5B, see the rows of the sensor nodes 1-36 being substantial uniform. Also see [0061]).

As per claim 22, Roberts discloses the method of claim 13 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
a spacing between sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is non-uniform (Fig. 5A, see the spacing between the sensor nodes 1-36 being non-uniform area. Also see [0061]); and
a number of sensor nodes in respective rows of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is uniform (Fig. 5B, see the rows of the sensor nodes 1-36 being substantial uniform. Also see [0061]).

As per claim 23, Roberts discloses:
An apparatus (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use), comprising:
a memory (see [0075], [0089], abstract and/or claim-1]. The read only memory ROM that stores the firmware/software, which is required for any processor/cpu to function. Therefore, ROM are always present with the processor); and
at least one processor (see [0075], [0089], abstract and/or claim-1]) to execute instructions stored at the memory (see [0075], [0089], abstract and/or claim-1]. The read only memory ROM that stores the firmware/software, which is required for any processor/cpu to function. Therefore, ROM are always present with the processor), the instructions to cause the at least one processor to:
receive measurement signals (see [0075]) from an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor during a capacitive measurement process (Figs. 5A-5B, see the mutual-capacitance touch sensor where after a touch 211 it takes an irregular form via electrodes and nodes, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5A. Also see [0060]), the sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor exhibiting a substantially uniform sensor area (Fig. 5B, see the area of the sensor nodes 1-36 being substantial uniform. Also see [0061]) and substantially non-uniform geometry (Fig. 5A, see the sensor nodes 1-36 being non-uniform geometry. Also see [0061]);
detect capacitive changes indicative of a touch event at the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor (Figs. 5A-5B, see the mutual-capacitance touch sensor where after a touch it takes an irregular form via electrodes and nodes, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5A. Also see [0060]);
generate a location identifier associated with a location of the touch event (Fig. 5B, see the representation of a touch 211 in the (Xr, Yr) reported-cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062]); and
change the location identifier from a first location identifier value to a second location identifier value (Fig. 5A-5B, see the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. 5B in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system being changed from the value of (Xr, Yr), after the distortion caused by a touch/object, to the value of (Xp, Yp) corresponding to the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes of Fig. A in the physical-coordinate-system, where one geometry is different from the other. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]), the first location identifier value being associated with a regular geometry (Fig. 5B, see the regular square geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes and its value in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]) and the second location identifier value is associated with an irregular geometry (Fig. 5A, see the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes with its value in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]).

As per claim 24, Roberts discloses the apparatus of claim 23 as described above.
Roberts further discloses that changing the location identifier from a first location identifier value to a second location identifier value comprises:
generate a further location identifier having the second location identifier value associated with the irregular geometry (Fig. 5A, see the value of the representation of a touch 211 identified in the (Xp, Yp) physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062]).

As per claim 25, Roberts discloses the apparatus of claim 23 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
calculate the second location identifier value by applying a transform function to the first location identifier value (Fig. 5A-5B, see transforming, using a functional relationship, from the position of a touch in a reported coordinate system (xr,yr), which is geometry, to a position for the touch in a physical coordinate system (xp, yp) that is another geometry as well, and both are different. Also see [0064]-[0065], [0072], [0074] and/or [0054]).

As per claim 26, Roberts discloses:
A system (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use), comprising:
an irregular-shaped capacitive sensor (Figs. 5A-5B, see the mutual-capacitance touch sensor where after a touch 211 it takes an irregular form via electrodes and nodes, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5A. Also see [0060]), sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor exhibiting a substantially uniform sensor area (Fig. 5B, see the area of the sensor nodes 1-36 being substantial uniform. Also see [0061]) and substantially non-uniform geometry (Fig. 5A, see the sensor nodes 1-36 being non-uniform geometry. Also see [0061]); and
a touch controller (see [0075], [0089], abstract and/or claim-1]. The processor) associated with the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor (Figs. 5A-5B, see the mutual-capacitance touch sensor where after a touch 211 it takes an irregular form via electrodes and nodes, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5A. Also see [0060]), the touch controller including:
a first firmware to enable the touch controller (see [0075], [0089], abstract and/or claim-1]. The firmware/software stored in the read only memory ROM, which is required for any processor/cpu to generate the respective data. Therefore, ROM are always present with the processor) to generate a first location identifier for a touch event (Fig. 5B, see the representation of a touch 211 in the location (Xr, Yr) reported-cartesian-coordinate-system of the mutual-capacitance touch sensor, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5B. Also see [0062]) that is associated with a regular-shaped capacitive sensor (Fig. 5B, see the regular square shape geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes and its value in the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]); and
a second firmware to enable the touch controller (see [0075], [0089], abstract and/or claim-1]. The firmware/software stored in the read only memory ROM, which is required for any processor/cpu to generate the respective data. Therefore, ROM are always present with the processor) to generate, at least partially based on the first location identifier, a second location identifier (Fig. 5A, see to the location value of (Xp, Yp) corresponding to the geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes in the physical-coordinate-system generated based on the location value of (Xr, Yr) corresponding to the reported-position-Cartesian-coordinate-system, after the distortion caused by a touch/object. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]) for the touch event that is associated with the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor (Fig. 5A, see the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes with its value in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]).

As per claim 27, Roberts discloses the system of claim 26 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein a surface of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor has an irregular geometry (Fig. 5A, see the surface of the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes with its value in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]).

As per claim 28, Roberts discloses the system of claim 26 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is a non-rectangular capacitive sensor (Figs. 5A-5B, see the mutual-capacitance touch sensor where after a touch 211 it takes an irregular/non-rectangular form via electrodes and nodes, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5A. Also see [0060]).

As per claim 29, Roberts discloses the system of claim 26 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein the first location identifier value (Fig. 5B, see the representation of a touch 211 in the (Xr, Yr) with its value in the reported-cartesian-coordinate-system. Also see [0062]) and the second location identifier value are XY coordinates (Fig. 5A, see the irregular-geometry of the sensor nodes 1-36 with its electrodes and its value in the physical-coordinate-system. Also see [0062], [0064]-[0065], [0068] and [0054]).

As per claim 30, Roberts discloses the system of claim 26 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is a non-rectangular capacitive sensor (Figs. 5A-5B, see the mutual-capacitance touch sensor where after a touch 211 it takes an irregular/non-rectangular form via electrodes and nodes, as it’s reflected in Fig. 5A. Also see [0060]).

As per claim 33, Roberts discloses the system of claim 26 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein a spacing between sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is non-uniform (Fig. 5A, see the spacing between the sensor nodes 1-36 being non-uniform area. Also see [0061]).

As per claim 34, Roberts discloses the system of claim 26 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
wherein a number of sensor nodes in respective rows of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is uniform (Fig. 5B, see the rows of the sensor nodes 1-36 being substantial uniform. Also see [0061]).

As per claim 35, Roberts discloses the system of claim 26 as described above.
Roberts further discloses:
a spacing between sensor nodes of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is non-uniform (Fig. 5A, see the spacing between the sensor nodes 1-36 being non-uniform area. Also see [0061]); and
a number of sensor nodes in respective rows of the irregular-shaped capacitive sensor is uniform (Fig. 5B, see the rows of the sensor nodes 1-36 being substantial uniform. Also see [0061]).

44. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) SHEPELEV (Pub. No.: US 2020/0167040, which was submitted in prior office action) teaches “A sensing device comprises sensor electrodes arranged in an array of rows and columns, and vias. A first vias is arranged in a first direction, and corresponds to a first column of sensor electrodes adjacent to a first side edge of the sensing device. A second via is arranged in a second direction different than the first direction, and corresponds to a second column of the sensor electrodes adjacent to a second side edge of the sensing device. Each of the sensor electrodes is configured to be coupled to a routing trace through one of the vias” (Abstract).
b) GUR (Pub. No.: US 2016/0098122, which was submitted in prior office action) teaches “A sensor includes a sensing area confined by a plurality of edges and a plurality of antennas spread across the sensing area. The plurality of antennas cross each other to form a grid of junctions. The grid of junctions includes H*V junctions and wherein the plurality of antennas includes less than H + V antennas, wherein H is an integer number and Vis an integer number” (Abstract).
c) LESONEN (Pub. No.: US 2014/0333570, which was submitted in prior office action) teaches that “An apparatus including distinct capacitive sensor electrodes irregularly configured across a sensing area, wherein each capacitive sensor electrode is an island associated with a unique combination of two positional components within the sensing area; and a plurality of conductive traces each of which is operatively connected to one of the distinct capacitive sensor electrodes and wherein at least some of the conductive traces extend over the sensing area” (Abstract).

Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on [phone]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.

/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858

Prosecution Timeline

• Jun 19, 2023: Application Filed
• Nov 05, 2025: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102, §112
• Mar 11, 2026: Response Filed
• May 05, 2026: Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102, §112
• Jul 06, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action