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 .
Priority
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(i) heating means (claim 16, line 3),
(ii) operating means (claim 16, line 4)
(iii) sensor element means (claim 16, line 5) because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation
(i) heating means (claim 16, line 3),
(ii) operating means (claim 16, line 4)
(iii) sensor element means (claim 16, line 5), has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(i) heating means (claim 16, line 3), US 2024/0019128, heating means, 0015
(ii) operating means (claim 16, line 4), figure 1, operating means 18, round operating elements 20, elongated slider 21, on/off switch 22
(iii) sensor element means (claim 16, line 5), 0024, sensor element means in the form of capacitive sensor element
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being Heinz (DE102006025702) as evidenced by Kojer (US 2018/0159534). An English machine translation of Heinz (DE102006025702) is included with the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Heinz teaches a method for operating a cooktop (Figs 1-3, cooktops 3, 0024, abstract), said cooktop comprises: a cooktop plate, heating means on said cooktop plate (glass-ceramic plate, 0025), an operating means on or below (control panel 2, 0024, 0025) said cooktop plate, said operating means has a plurality of sensor element means under said cooktop plate in order to detect a presence of a finger for operation on an upper side of said cooktop plate above one of said sensor element means (0007, such control elements include, in particular, so-called sensor controls or “touch control” controls, as well as sliders (in non-mechanical – e.g. B. capacitive, resistive, piezoelectric), said sensor element means are also configured to detect a presence of liquid on said upper side of said cooktop plate above at least one said sensor element means and to generate sensor signals (capacitive sensor of Heinz would inherently detect the presence of water on the cooktop plate as evidenced by Kojer, 0026, permanent actuation can for example be created by laying objects on the at least one control element or if electrically conductive liquid, e.g. noodle water, spills onto a capacitively-responsive sensor array), said operating means has a wipe protection function (0011, 0014) which is activatable and deactivatable by an operator (locking control element 6, 0026, 0027), said wipe protection function is configured such that, after activation of said wipe protection function, sensor signals from said sensor element means are not converted into operating commands by said operating means or do not bring about operation (0026, 0027), said wipe protection function is only automatically deactivated again by said operating means if, after activation of said wipe protection function, a predetermined waiting period of 0 sec to 20 sec has elapsed (0014, 15s (short cleaning/wiping)) since a last detection of an operation on at least one of said sensor element means or since a last receipt of a sensor signal from at least one of said sensor element means which indicates that a finger or liquid has been detected on said upper side of said cooktop plate above one of said sensor element means without a renewed detection of operation or a receipt of a sensor signal (0005, 0029, automatic unlocking feature).
With respect to the limitations of claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13, Heinz teaches said wipe protection function applies to all said sensor element means of said control device except for one sensor element means for an on/off function of said cooktop in such a manner that an operation on said sensor element means always results in said cooktop being switched on or off (0010, the main switch control element (also called the main on/off switch) may be excluded from the locking mechanism);
said wipe protection function applies to all said sensor element means of said control device except for one sensor element means for an on/off function of said cooktop in such a manner that an operation on said sensor element means always results in said cooktop being switched on or off irrespective of whether said sensor element means has been operated alone or simultaneously with further sensor element means or whether sensor signals have been received from further sensor element means (0010);
activation of said wipe protection function is signaled by said operating means (0015, lamp is activated);
deactivation of said wipe protection function is signaled by said operating means (0015, to notify the user that the lock will soon be deactivated, it is advantageous fi the signal is given some time before unlocking) ;
activation of said wipe protection function or deactivation of said wipe protection function is signaled by said operating means acoustically and/or visually (0015, lamp, acoustic signal);
deactivation of said wipe protection function is signaled by said operating means in the same manner as on activation of said wipe protection function (0015);
said wipe protection function is deactivatable by an operator on said operating means in the same manner as said wipe protection function is activatable (locking control element 6, 0026, 0027);
after 2 min to 20 min after activation of said wipe protection function without detection of an operation on at least one said sensor element means or receipt of a sensor signal from at least one said sensor element means with regard to a detection of water thereover, said wipe protection function is automatically deactivated by said operating means (0014, 120s (thorough cleaning / wiping));
after 2 min to 20 min after activation of said wipe protection function without detection of an operation on at least two said sensor element means or receipt of a sensor signal from at least two said sensor element means with regard to a detection of water thereover, said wipe protection function is automatically deactivated by said operating means (0014, 120s (thorough cleaning / wiping)).
With respect to the limitations of claim 16, Heinz teaches a cooktop (Figs 1-3, cooktops 3, 0024, abstract) with: a cooktop plate (glass-ceramic plate, 0025), heating means on (cooking zones 3 include radiant heating elements, 0007, 0024) said cooktop plate, an operating means on or below (control panel 2, 0024, 0025) said cooktop plate, said operating means has a plurality of sensor element means under said cooktop plate in order to detect a presence of a finger for operation on said upper side of said cooktop plate above one of said sensor element means (0007, such control elements include, in particular, so-called sensor controls or “touch control” controls, as well as sliders (in non-mechanical – e.g. B. capacitive, resistive, piezoelectric), a control means (circuit board 4 inherently having a control unit as evidenced by Kojer, Figs 1, 2, control unit 8, 0064, 0068) in said operating means which is configured to drive and evaluate said sensor element means, said sensor element means are configured to detect operation by means of a finger on said upper side of said cooktop plate above one said sensor element means and to generate sensor signals for carrying out said method as claimed in Claim 1 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to the limitations of claim 17, Heinz teaches said: sensor element means are configured (0007, such control elements include, in particular, so-called sensor controls or “touch control” controls, as well as sliders (in non-mechanical – e.g. B. capacitive, resistive, piezoelectric), together with said control means and additional sensors, to detect operation by means of a finger and a presence of liquid on said upper side of said cooktop plate above one said sensor element means (capacitive sensor of Heinz would inherently detect the presence of water on the cooktop plate as evidenced by Kojer, 0026, permanent actuation can for example be created by laying objects on the at least one control element or if electrically conductive liquid, e.g. noodle water, spills onto a capacitively-responsive sensor array), and said operating means has a wipe protection function (0011, 0014) which is activatable and deactivatable by an operator (locking control element 6, 0026, 0027), said wipe protection function is configured such that, after activation of said wipe protection function, sensor signals from said sensor element means are not converted into operating commands by said operating means or do not bring about operation (0026, 0027), and said wipe protection function is only automatically deactivated again by said operating means if, after activation of said wipe protection function, a predetermined waiting period of 0 sec to 20 sec has elapsed (0014, 15s (short cleaning/wiping)) since a last detection of an operation on at least one of said sensor element means or since a last receipt of a sensor signal from at least one of said sensor element means which indicates that a finger or liquid has been detected on said upper side of said cooktop plate above one of said sensor element means without a renewed detection of operation or a receipt of a sensor signal (0005, 0029, automatic unlocking feature).
With respect to the limitations of claim 18, Heinz teaches said cooktop has a signaling means (0015, lamp, acoustic signal) in said operating means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Heinz (DE102006025702).
With respect to the limitations of claim 2, Heinz discloses that said predetermined waiting period is adjustable (0014). Heinz discloses the claimed invention except for said predetermined waiting period is 1 sec to 5 sec. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have said predetermined waiting period is 1 sec to 5 sec, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable waiting period ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 9, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Heinz (DE102006025702) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Sakakibara (US 2010/0096382).
With respect to the limitations of claims 9, 10, 14 and 15, Heinz discloses the claimed invention except for said wipe protection function is activated by operation of a single said sensor element means; said wipe protection function is activated by simultaneous operation of at least two said sensor element means; said wipe protection function remains active only if, after an activation thereof, at least two said sensor element means are operated or sensor signals from at least two said sensor element means are received within said predetermined waiting period; said wipe protection function remains active only if, after an activation thereof, at least two said sensor element means are operated or sensor signals from at least two said sensor element means are received simultaneously within said predetermined waiting period.
However, Sakakibara discloses said wipe protection function is activated by operation of a single said sensor element means (0024, control unit performs a control such that a condition of electricity conduction to the heating source based on the control command input to one touch key is not changed when detecting that one touch key is touched with the finger before elapse of a second predetermined time); said wipe protection function is activated by simultaneous operation of at least two said sensor element means (0025, 0027, when the user wipes the top plate with the cloth and the like, the electricity conduction control by the touch key is invalidated even if a plurality of touch keys lined on the same line is touched in order from one touch key, whereby false operation does not occur);
said wipe protection function remains active only if, after an activation thereof, at least two said sensor element means are operated or sensor signals from at least two said sensor element means are received within said predetermined waiting period (0025, 0027); said wipe protection function remains active only if, after an activation thereof, at least two said sensor element means are operated or sensor signals from at least two said sensor element means are received simultaneously within said predetermined waiting period (0025, 0027) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the method for operating a cooktop of Heinz having a wipe protection function and sensor element means silent to recited activation with said wipe protection function is activated by operation of a single said sensor element means; said wipe protection function is activated by simultaneous operation of at least two said sensor element means; said wipe protection function remains active only if, after an activation thereof, at least two said sensor element means are operated or sensor signals from at least two said sensor element means are received within said predetermined waiting period; said wipe protection function remains active only if, after an activation thereof, at least two said sensor element means are operated or sensor signals from at least two said sensor element means are received simultaneously within said predetermined waiting period of Sakakibara for the purpose of providing a known wipe protection function that prevents false operation from occurring (0025-0027).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Heinz (DE102006025702) as applied to claim 16, further in view Kojer (US 2018/0159534).
With respect to the limitations of claim 19, Heinz discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly showing said cooktop has a control means in said operating means which drives and evaluates said sensor element means. However, Kojer discloses said cooktop has a control means (Figs 1-3, control unit 8, 0064, 0068) in said operating means (Fig 6, operation display window 15, 0121) which drives and evaluates said sensor element means (key electrode 3a, 0070) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the cooktop of Heinz having an operating means and sensor element means silent to a control means with said cooktop has a control means in said operating means which drives and evaluates said sensor element means of Kojer for the purpose of providing a known control means that controls the major functions of the cooktop.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with respect to the 112 rejection is persuasive and therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued on pages 2-5 about claim 1 that Kojer fails to disclose the limitations of claim 1 directed to “wherein said sensor element means are also configured to detect a presence of liquid on said upper side of said cooktop plate above at least one said sensor element means and to generate sensor signals;
wherein said operating means has a wipe protection function which is activatable and deactivatable by an operator;
said wipe protection function is configured such that, after activation of said wipe protection function, sensor signals from said sensor element means are not converted into operating commands by said operating means or do not bring about operation;
said wipe protection function is only automatically deactivated again by said operating means if, after activation of said wipe protection function, a predetermined waiting period of 0 sec to 20 sec has elapsed since a last detection of an operation on at least one of said sensor element means or since a last receipt of a sensor signal from at least one of said sensor element means which indicates that a finger or liquid has been detected on said upper side of said cooktop plate above one of said sensor element means without a renewed detection of operation or a receipt of a sensor signal” because the automatic deactivation of Heinz occurs by a timer whereas claim 1 requires continued sensor activity-including activity indicating the presence of a finger or liquid prevents deactivation until both the waiting period has elapsed and such activity has ceased, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, Heinz fully discloses the recited claim limitations of:
wherein said sensor element means are also configured to detect a presence of liquid on said upper side of said cooktop plate above at least one said sensor element means and to generate sensor signals (the capacitive sensor elements of Heinz, 0007, are configured to detect the presence of liquid because as evidenced by Kojer, paragraph 0026 states that capacitively-responsive sensor array can detect electrically conductive liquids such as noodle water, spills) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above;
wherein said operating means has a wipe protection function (0011, 0014) which is activatable and deactivatable by an operator (locking control element 6, 0026, 0027) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above;
said wipe protection function is configured such that, after activation of said wipe protection function, sensor signals from said sensor element means are not converted into operating commands by said operating means or do not bring about operation (0026, 0027, a user presses the locking button 6, whereupon the other controls 7 - 14, except for the main switch button 5, are locked in their function, i.e., they cannot initiate their respective assigned functions; where the locking button 6 prevents the capacitive sensors of Heinz from operating the heating elements if the sensors are actuated by a hand wiping motion) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above;
said wipe protection function is only automatically deactivated again by said operating means if, after activation of said wipe protection function, a predetermined waiting period of 0 sec to 20 sec has elapsed (0014, 15s (short cleaning/wiping)) since a last detection of an operation on at least one of said sensor element means or since a last receipt of a sensor signal from at least one of said sensor element means which indicates that a finger or liquid has been detected on said upper side of said cooktop plate above one of said sensor element means without a renewed detection of operation or a receipt of a sensor signal (0005, 0029, automatic unlocking feature) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The applicant argues on page 3 that Heinz does not disclose automatic deactivation based on continued sensor activity, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite automatic deactivation based on continued sensor activity, see above on why Heinz fully discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The applicant on page 4 similarly argues that Heinz does not disclose automatic deactivation or continued activation based on sensor activity, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite activity at sensor elements affects whether the locking function remains active or becomes deactivated, see above on why Heinz fully discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The applicant has argued on page 4 that Heinz does not solve the addressed problem of the application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Heinz teaches capacitive sensors configured to sense spills and has a lock out function which prevents activation of the sensors during cleaning and where the lock out function is automatically deactivated.
The applicant has argued on pages 4-5 that Kojer fails to disclose the limitations of “a wipe protection function that automatically remains active or extends its activation period based on ongoing sensor activity indicating the presence of a finger, liquid, or other detected condition”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 19 was rejected as a combination of Heinz in view of Kojer, where Heinz fully discloses the limitations of “a wipe protection function that automatically remains active or extends its activation period based on ongoing sensor activity indicating the presence of a finger, liquid, or other detected condition” as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kojer as added to show that “said cooktop has a control means in said operating means which drives and evaluates said sensor element means” is known in the art.
The applicant has argued on pages 5 and 6 about claims 9, 10, 14 and 15 that the combination of Heinz in view of Sakakibara is improper because Sakakibara does not disclose a locking state or a wipe protection function, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Sakakibara discloses a wipe protection function in paragraphs 0025, 0027, when the user wipes the top plate with the cloth and the like, the electricity conduction control by the touch key is invalidated even if a plurality of touch keys lined on the same line is touched in order from one touch key, whereby false operation does not occur.
Additionally, Sakakibara discloses the limitations of claims 14 and 15 as set forth in the rejection above and as restated,
said wipe protection function remains active only if, after an activation thereof, at least two said sensor element means are operated or sensor signals from at least two said sensor element means are received within said predetermined waiting period (0025, 0027); said wipe protection function remains active only if, after an activation thereof, at least two said sensor element means are operated or sensor signals from at least two said sensor element means are received simultaneously within said predetermined waiting period (0025, 0027).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights