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
Applicant is required to certify that the international application was not withdrawn or considered to be withdrawn, either generally or as to the United States, prior to the filing date of the national application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to such international application (MPEP § 1895.01).
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), 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 relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… preferred embodiment … force sensor 13 that detects a force (that is, a contact force) that acts by contact by an object 5 …” in paragraph 25) serves as a glossary for the claim term “force sensor”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izadi et al. (US 2008/0122803) in view of Charbonneau-Lefort et al. (US 2022/0254941).
In regard to claim 1, Izadi et al. disclose a sensor device comprising:
(a) a substrate (e.g., “… IR sources may be integrated within the touch panel. In an implementation, the touch panel may comprise an OLED display which comprises IR OLED emitters and IR-sensitive organic photosensors (which may comprise reverse-biased OLEDs) …” in paragraph 36 or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a substrate, in order to be “integrated within the touch panel”);
(b) a force sensor on the substrate (e.g., see “… IR source of the touch panel system may be turned on only if the touchable surface is touched … non-exhaustive list of examples for sensors to detect contact includes pressure-based mechanisms, micro-machined accelerometers, piezoelectric devices, capacitive sensors, resistive sensors, inductive sensors, laser vibrometers, and LED vibrometers … touch event in the area indicated by dotted circle 603 …” in
PNG
media_image1.png
2418
1420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and paragraphs 38 and 64); and
(c) a proximity sensor that includes a plurality of light emitting elements on the substrate (e.g., see “… array of IR sources 602 …” in Fig. 6 and paragraph 64) and a plurality of light receiving elements to receive light from the light emitting elements (e.g., see “… array of IR sensors 601 …” in Fig. 6 and paragraph 64),
wherein at least one of the plurality of light emitting elements and the plurality of light receiving elements of the proximity sensor is located at three or more positions that surround the force sensor on the substrate (e.g., “… sources around the detected events (e.g. those within dotted circle 604) may be illuminated …” in paragraph 64 and see the four source positions “within dotted circle 604” in Fig. 6), and
wherein a position of a center of gravity with respect to the three or more positions is within a range in which the force sensor is positioned on the substrate (e.g., see “… touch event in the area indicated by dotted circle 603 …” in Fig. 6 and paragraph 64).
The device of Izadi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… mask layer 505 …” such as the plurality of light emitting elements are on a side of the plurality of light receiving elements that is near the force sensor. However, “… mask layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… highly desirable to maximize component packing density, and thus overall sensor performance, by packaging a large number (e.g., 10-20) of optoelectronic devices as well as active/passive optical components as tightly as possible within an optical module … sensor controller 37 to manage input from one or more ambient sensors 22 such as temperature sensor, pressure sensor, humidity sensor, magnet, etc. The sensor controller 37 may additionally be connected to one or more haptics devices 40 such as a gyroscope, accelerometer, proximity sensor, ambient light sensor, infrared transceiver, etc. … optical module 100 may include a cover 52, an isolation barrier 54, and a base 56 … First windows 58 may be sized and located to overly one or more LED assemblies, and second windows 60 may be sized and located to overly one or more photodiode assemblies, all described in greater detail elsewhere herein. Windows 58 and/or 60 may themselves be sealed or covered by an optically transparent element, lens, etc. … isolation barrier 54 may have a thickness T sufficient to inhibit or mitigate light from emitter assemblies (described elsewhere herein) directly impinging on a detector assembly (also described elsewhere herein), and thus first openings 62 and second openings 64 form recesses of thickness (depth) T. The isolation barrier 54 may additionally inhibit or mitigate cross-talk between emitter assemblies … ring pattern allows location of the plurality of wire bond pads 120 to be inside the ring shaped pattern. As shown, a plurality of wires 130 connect the top surfaces of the plurality of photodiodes 110 to the plurality of wire bond pads 120. The ring shaped pattern can also allow the arrangement of an emitter assembly to be located inside the ring shaped pattern …” in paragraphs 32, 38, 41, 43, and 63 of Charbonneau-Lefort et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional mask layer thickness (e.g., comprising details such as “arrangement of an emitter assembly to be located inside the ring shaped pattern”, in order to achieve “maximize component packing density”) for the unspecified mask layer thickness of Izadi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional mask layer thickness (e.g., comprising details such as the plurality of light emitting elements are on a side of the plurality of light receiving elements that is near the force sensor) as the unspecified mask layer thickness in the device of Izadi et al.
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Izadi et al. also disclose that the proximity sensor includes three or more light receiving-emitting portions at the three or more positions; and each of the light receiving-emitting portions includes a corresponding one of the light emitting elements and a corresponding one of the light receiving elements (e.g., “… touch panel comprises a plurality of retro-reflective opto sensors which operate in the infrared part of the spectrum. Each such opto sensor comprises two components: an IR emitter and an optically isolated IR light sensor. It is therefore capable of both emitting light, and, at the same time, detecting the intensity of incident light. If a reflective object is placed in front of the sensing element, some of the emitted light will be reflected back and will therefore be detected …” in paragraph 30).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 2, Izadi et al. also disclose a light shielding body between the three or more light receiving-emitting portions on the substrate (e.g., “… a mask layer 505 may be placed behind the LCD panel which is made of a material which is opaque to IR and which has holes which are aligned with the sources and detectors …” in paragraph 62).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 3, Izadi et al. also disclose that the light shielding body is made of a material with a transmissivity with respect to light emitted from the light emitting elements that is about 10% or less (e.g., “… opaque to IR …” in paragraph 62).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 3, the device of Izadi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… mask layer 505 …” such as a height of the light shielding body from the substrate is greater than or equal to a height of each of the light emitting elements and is greater than or equal to a height of each of the light receiving elements. However, “… mask layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… highly desirable to maximize component packing density, and thus overall sensor performance, by packaging a large number (e.g., 10-20) of optoelectronic devices as well as active/passive optical components as tightly as possible within an optical module … sensor controller 37 to manage input from one or more ambient sensors 22 such as temperature sensor, pressure sensor, humidity sensor, magnet, etc. The sensor controller 37 may additionally be connected to one or more haptics devices 40 such as a gyroscope, accelerometer, proximity sensor, ambient light sensor, infrared transceiver, etc. … optical module 100 may include a cover 52, an isolation barrier 54, and a base 56 … First windows 58 may be sized and located to overly one or more LED assemblies, and second windows 60 may be sized and located to overly one or more photodiode assemblies, all described in greater detail elsewhere herein. Windows 58 and/or 60 may themselves be sealed or covered by an optically transparent element, lens, etc. … isolation barrier 54 may have a thickness T sufficient to inhibit or mitigate light from emitter assemblies (described elsewhere herein) directly impinging on a detector assembly (also described elsewhere herein), and thus first openings 62 and second openings 64 form recesses of thickness (depth) T. The isolation barrier 54 may additionally inhibit or mitigate cross-talk between emitter assemblies … ring pattern allows location of the plurality of wire bond pads 120 to be inside the ring shaped pattern. As shown, a plurality of wires 130 connect the top surfaces of the plurality of photodiodes 110 to the plurality of wire bond pads 120. The ring shaped pattern can also allow the arrangement of an emitter assembly to be located inside the ring shaped pattern …” in paragraphs 32, 38, 41, 43, and 63 of Charbonneau-Lefort et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional mask layer thickness (e.g., comprising details such as “isolation barrier 54 may have a thickness T sufficient to inhibit or mitigate light from emitter assemblies (described elsewhere herein) directly impinging on a detector assembly (also described elsewhere herein)”, in order to achieve “maximize component packing density” and “inhibit or mitigate cross-talk”) for the unspecified mask layer thickness of Izadi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional mask layer thickness (e.g., comprising details such as a height of the light shielding body from the substrate is greater than or equal to a height of each of the light emitting elements and is greater than or equal to a height of each of the light receiving elements) as the unspecified mask layer thickness in the device of Izadi et al.
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 3, the device of Izadi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… mask layer 505 …” such as each of the light receiving-emitting portions includes a sealing body that seals a corresponding one of the light emitting elements and a corresponding one of the light receiving elements; and a height of the light shielding body from the substrate is less than or equal to a height of each of the sealing bodies. However, “… mask layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… highly desirable to maximize component packing density, and thus overall sensor performance, by packaging a large number (e.g., 10-20) of optoelectronic devices as well as active/passive optical components as tightly as possible within an optical module … sensor controller 37 to manage input from one or more ambient sensors 22 such as temperature sensor, pressure sensor, humidity sensor, magnet, etc. The sensor controller 37 may additionally be connected to one or more haptics devices 40 such as a gyroscope, accelerometer, proximity sensor, ambient light sensor, infrared transceiver, etc. … optical module 100 may include a cover 52, an isolation barrier 54, and a base 56 … First windows 58 may be sized and located to overly one or more LED assemblies, and second windows 60 may be sized and located to overly one or more photodiode assemblies, all described in greater detail elsewhere herein. Windows 58 and/or 60 may themselves be sealed or covered by an optically transparent element, lens, etc. … isolation barrier 54 may have a thickness T sufficient to inhibit or mitigate light from emitter assemblies (described elsewhere herein) directly impinging on a detector assembly (also described elsewhere herein), and thus first openings 62 and second openings 64 form recesses of thickness (depth) T. The isolation barrier 54 may additionally inhibit or mitigate cross-talk between emitter assemblies … ring pattern allows location of the plurality of wire bond pads 120 to be inside the ring shaped pattern. As shown, a plurality of wires 130 connect the top surfaces of the plurality of photodiodes 110 to the plurality of wire bond pads 120. The ring shaped pattern can also allow the arrangement of an emitter assembly to be located inside the ring shaped pattern …” in paragraphs 32, 38, 41, 43, and 63 of Charbonneau-Lefort et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional mask layer thickness (e.g., comprising details such as “Windows 58 and/or 60 may themselves be sealed or covered by an optically transparent element, lens, etc.”, in order to achieve “maximize component packing density” and “inhibit or mitigate cross-talk”) for the unspecified mask layer thickness of Izadi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional mask layer thickness (e.g., comprising details such as each of the light receiving-emitting portions includes a sealing body that seals a corresponding one of the light emitting elements and a corresponding one of the light receiving elements; and a height of the light shielding body from the substrate is less than or equal to a height of each of the sealing bodies) as the unspecified mask layer thickness in the device of Izadi et al.
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 2, Izadi et al. also disclose that the positions of the three or more light receiving-emitting portions are rotationally symmetrical around the position of the center of gravity as a center (e.g., see Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 2, Izadi et al. also disclose that each of the light receiving-emitting portions includes a light shielding portion that is provided between the corresponding one of the light emitting elements and the corresponding one of the light receiving elements, and blocks light from the corresponding one of the light emitting elements (e.g., “… a mask layer 505 may be placed behind the LCD panel which is made of a material which is opaque to IR and which has holes which are aligned with the sources and detectors …” in paragraph 62).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 1, the device of Izadi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… mask layer 505 …” such as the light emitting elements are closer to the proximity sensor’s center than the light receiving elements. However, “… mask layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… highly desirable to maximize component packing density, and thus overall sensor performance, by packaging a large number (e.g., 10-20) of optoelectronic devices as well as active/passive optical components as tightly as possible within an optical module … sensor controller 37 to manage input from one or more ambient sensors 22 such as temperature sensor, pressure sensor, humidity sensor, magnet, etc. The sensor controller 37 may additionally be connected to one or more haptics devices 40 such as a gyroscope, accelerometer, proximity sensor, ambient light sensor, infrared transceiver, etc. … optical module 100 may include a cover 52, an isolation barrier 54, and a base 56 … First windows 58 may be sized and located to overly one or more LED assemblies, and second windows 60 may be sized and located to overly one or more photodiode assemblies, all described in greater detail elsewhere herein. Windows 58 and/or 60 may themselves be sealed or covered by an optically transparent element, lens, etc. … isolation barrier 54 may have a thickness T sufficient to inhibit or mitigate light from emitter assemblies (described elsewhere herein) directly impinging on a detector assembly (also described elsewhere herein), and thus first openings 62 and second openings 64 form recesses of thickness (depth) T. The isolation barrier 54 may additionally inhibit or mitigate cross-talk between emitter assemblies … ring pattern allows location of the plurality of wire bond pads 120 to be inside the ring shaped pattern. As shown, a plurality of wires 130 connect the top surfaces of the plurality of photodiodes 110 to the plurality of wire bond pads 120. The ring shaped pattern can also allow the arrangement of an emitter assembly to be located inside the ring shaped pattern …” in paragraphs 32, 38, 41, 43, and 63 of Charbonneau-Lefort et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional mask layer thickness (e.g., comprising details such as “arrangement of an emitter assembly to be located inside the ring shaped pattern”, in order to achieve “maximize component packing density”) for the unspecified mask layer thickness of Izadi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional mask layer thickness (e.g., comprising details such as in the proximity sensor, the light emitting elements are closer than the light receiving elements to the force sensor) as the unspecified mask layer thickness in the device of Izadi et al.
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 11, Izadi et al. also disclose that, in the proximity sensor, the plurality of light emitting elements and the plurality of light receiving elements are radially positioned relative to the position of the center of gravity (e.g., see Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 1, Izadi et al. also disclose a controller to detect a direction of a physical object from the sensor device based on light reception results obtained when, in the proximity sensor, the plurality of light receiving elements receive light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements and reflected from the physical object (e.g., “… using certain techniques to differentiate between changes in sensed background levels and changes due to interaction with the touch panel … processing the two images (i.e. the sensor data from the array of sensors) … IR sources within the touch panel may be switched on and off (or modulated at higher speed) in groups such that the angle of illumination of an object changes dependent upon the group of sources which are switched on (e.g. odd columns/rows followed by even columns/rows). In some examples, the illumination pattern may be varied based on the detected shape (e.g. to illuminate additional or different sources around the periphery of the detected shape). Analysis of the detected signals for each group of sources may provide some 3D information about the object (e.g. is it thin like a sheet of paper or does it have appreciable thickness), may improve the accuracy of the detected shape and may also enable the cancellation of any specular reflections e.g. due to the user wearing a ring …” in paragraphs 61, 84, and 85).
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 13, Izadi et al. also disclose that the controller is configured or programmed to cause each of the light emitting elements to successively emit light without causing all of the plurality of light emitting elements to emit light at a same time (e.g., “… sources in the panels may be switched on sequentially … illumination pattern may be varied based on the detected shape (e.g. to illuminate additional or different sources around the periphery of the detected shape) …” in paragraphs 63 and 85).
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 1, Izadi et al. also disclose that each of the plurality of light emitting elements is one of a light emitting diode, a semiconductor laser, or a surface emitting laser (e.g., “… IR OLED emitters …” in paragraph 36).
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 1, Izadi et al. also disclose that each of the plurality of light receiving elements is one of a photodiode, a phototransistor, a position detector, a CMOS image sensor or a charge coupled device (e.g., “… IR-sensitive organic photosensors (which may comprise reverse-biased OLEDs) …” in paragraph 36).
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 1, Izadi et al. also disclose a bandpass filter to block light of a wavelength range different from a wavelength range of detection light (e.g., “… filters 212 that absorbs visible light and transmits infrared radiation and are located between touchable surface 206 and IR sensors 204 …” in paragraph 32).
In regard to claim 20 which is dependent on claim 1, Izadi et al. also disclose that the force sensor uses a force detection system that is one of a piezoelectric system, an optical system, a strain resistance system, and a capacitive system (e.g., “… IR source of the touch panel system may be turned on only if the touchable surface is touched … non-exhaustive list of examples for sensors to detect contact includes pressure-based mechanisms, micro-machined accelerometers, piezoelectric devices, capacitive sensors, resistive sensors, inductive sensors, laser vibrometers, and LED vibrometers …” in paragraph 38).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izadi et al. in view of Charbonneau-Lefort et al. as applied to claim(s) 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Nagura (US 2015/0276518).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 5, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 5 above. The device of Izadi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… non-exhaustive list of examples for sensors to detect contact includes pressure-based mechanisms, micro-machined accelerometers, piezoelectric devices, capacitive sensors, resistive sensors, inductive sensors, laser vibrometers, and LED vibrometers …” such as the force sensor’s height from the substrate is at least the light shielding’s height. However, “… pressure-based mechanisms …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… displaceable member 2 is vertically displaceable with respect to the base member 1 in the z-axis direction according to an external force acting on the displaceable member 2 while elastically deforming the elastic supporting members 3 … light sources having time coherence enabling generation of interference by an optical path length difference due to the gap G formed between the cover glass 9 and the reflective member 4 … signals respectively output from the light-receiving element arrays 7A to 7C respectively vary in response to a variation in the intensity distribution of the interference fringes caused by the displacements of the displaceable member 2 in the nonparallel-to-light-receiving-surface directions including the vertical displacement in the z-axis direction and the rotational displacements about the x- and y-axes … signal processor 102 converts the displacement amount Z, the rotation amount θx and the rotation amount θy, by respectively multiplying them by predetermined coefficients, into values of the external forces …” in paragraphs 24, 28, 31 and 38 of Nagura). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “displaceable member 2”, in order to determine “values of the external forces”) for the unspecified sensor of Izadi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as a height of the force sensor from the substrate is greater than or equal to the height of each of the light emitting elements and is greater than or equal to the height of each of the light receiving elements, and the height of the light shielding body is less than or equal to the height of the force sensor) as the unspecified sensor of Izadi et al.
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 13, while Izadi et al. also disclose that the controller includes a light-emission control circuit to control the light emitting elements of the proximity sensor and a light-reception control circuit to control the light receiving elements of the proximity sensor (e.g., “… To improve signal-to-noise ratio in a touch panel system according to the described technology, the IR source may be pulsed in synchronization with the detection by the IR sensor …” in paragraph 59), the device of Izadi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… non-exhaustive list of examples for sensors to detect contact includes pressure-based mechanisms, micro-machined accelerometers, piezoelectric devices, capacitive sensors, resistive sensors, inductive sensors, laser vibrometers, and LED vibrometers …” such as the force sensor includes an additional light emitting element controlled by the light-emission control circuit and an additional light receiving element controlled the light-reception control circuit. However, “… pressure-based mechanisms …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… displaceable member 2 is vertically displaceable with respect to the base member 1 in the z-axis direction according to an external force acting on the displaceable member 2 while elastically deforming the elastic supporting members 3 … light sources having time coherence enabling generation of interference by an optical path length difference due to the gap G formed between the cover glass 9 and the reflective member 4 … signals respectively output from the light-receiving element arrays 7A to 7C respectively vary in response to a variation in the intensity distribution of the interference fringes caused by the displacements of the displaceable member 2 in the nonparallel-to-light-receiving-surface directions including the vertical displacement in the z-axis direction and the rotational displacements about the x- and y-axes … signal processor 102 converts the displacement amount Z, the rotation amount θx and the rotation amount θy, by respectively multiplying them by predetermined coefficients, into values of the external forces …” in paragraphs 24, 28, 31 and 38 of Nagura). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “light sources having time coherence” for “signals respectively output from the light-receiving element arrays 7A to 7C respectively vary in response to a variation in the intensity distribution of the interference fringes caused by the displacements”, in order for “multiplying them by predetermined coefficients, into values of the external forces”) for the unspecified sensor of Izadi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as the force sensor includes a light emitting element that differs from the light emitting elements of the proximity sensor and a light receiving element that differs from the light receiving elements of the proximity sensor; and the controller includes: a light-emission control circuit to control the light emitting elements of the proximity sensor and the light emitting element of the force sensor, and a light-reception control circuit to control the light receiving elements of the proximity sensor and the light receiving element of the force sensor) as the unspecified sensor of Izadi et al.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izadi et al. in view of Charbonneau-Lefort et al. as applied to claim(s) 3 above, and further in view of Chan (US 2016/0146639).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 3, the device of Izadi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… mask layer 505 …” such as the light shielding body is made of a material that is same as a material of an exterior of the force sensor, and is connected to the force sensor. However, “… mask layer …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… optical module in which the light-emitting component is separated from the optical sensor by a distance to minimize cross talk. Another sensor (or other component) is positioned between the lightemitting component and the optical sensor, thereby optimizing usage of a space between the light-emitting component and the optical sensor and increasing a functionality of the optical module … lid 11 includes a first sidewall 110 on a portion of the lid defining the first opening A1, a second sidewall 111 on a portion of the lid defining the second opening A2, and a third sidewall 112 on a portion of the lid defining the third opening A3 … light-emitting component 12 is disposed on the surface 101 and in the first opening A1 … first sensor 13 is disposed on the surface 101 and in the second openingA2. Examples of the first sensor 13 include a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) sensor, an ultraviolet sensor, a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, an inertial force sensor, a chemical species sensor, a magnetic field sensor or a radiation sensor … second sensor 14 is disposed on the surface 101 and in the third opening A3. The second sensor 14 is an optical sensor; for example, a photodiode or an infrared detector …” in paragraphs 25, 29, 30-32 of Chan). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional mask layer (e.g., comprising details such as “lid 11 includes a first sidewall 110 on a portion of the lid defining the first opening A1, a second sidewall 111 on a portion of the lid defining the second opening A2, and a third sidewall 112 on a portion of the lid defining the third opening A3”, for “optimizing usage of a space between the light-emitting component and the optical sensor” and “minimize cross talk”) for the mask layer of Izadi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional mask layer (e.g., comprising details such as the light shielding body is made of a material that is same as a material of an exterior of the force sensor, and is connected to the force sensor) as the mask layer of Izadi et al.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izadi et al. in view of Charbonneau-Lefort et al. as applied to claim(s) 13 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0250503) and Iio et al. (US 2020/0371601)..
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 13, the device of Izadi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… using certain techniques to differentiate between changes in sensed background levels and changes due to interaction with the touch panel …” such as the controller is configured or programmed to detect a distance from the sensor device to the physical object based on a total sum of the light reception results provided by the plurality of light receiving elements, and detect the direction of the physical object from the sensor device based on a difference between the light reception results provided by the plurality of light receiving elements. However, “… techniques …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… proximity sensor (PS) … Regarding the PS mode, if an IR average value IRAVG_LED_ON is greater than a predetermined threshold THIR, the ISP circuit 304 running the PS processing 3042 may output a detection signal (e.g. a signal carrying digital code 1 such as a logical value 1) to indicate that there is an object nearby. For example, the detection signal may indicate that the object is within the predetermined distance (e.g. 5 cm) corresponding to the predetermined threshold THIR …” in paragraphs 17 and 25 of Yang et al. and “… proximity sensor 18 has an infrared LED for light source 180 and four infrared photodiodes, SU, SR, SD and SL … subtracting the detection value of the photodiode SR from the detection value of the photodiode SL over a predetermined time. The controller 11 can grasp the movement of the object to be detected in the direction orthogonal to the virtual line D1 …” in paragraphs 52 and 56 of Iio et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional proximity technique (e.g., comprising details such as “IR average value IRAVG_LED_ON”, in order to “indicate that the object is within the predetermined distance” and “subtracting the detection value of the photodiode SR from the detection value of the photodiode SL”, in order to “grasp the movement of the object”) for the unspecified proximity technique of Izadi et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional proximity technique (e.g., comprising details such as the controller is configured or programmed to detect a distance from the sensor device to the physical object based on a total sum of the light reception results provided by the plurality of light receiving elements, and detect the direction of the physical object from the sensor device based on a difference between the light reception results provided by the plurality of light receiving elements) as the unspecified proximity technique of Izadi et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially it should be noted that applicant's arguments of “deficiencies of lwao et al. and Takeuchi et al.” are not persuasive because lwao et al. and Takeuchi et al. do not be in any of the ground(s) of rejection. In regard to the case law cited by applicant, applicant's arguments are not persuasive because applicant's arguments fail to discuss how the case law citations are applied to the facts of the application under examination.
Applicant argues that Izadi et al. do not teach, suggest, or even mention a force sensor. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), 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 relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… preferred embodiment … force sensor 13 that detects a force (that is, a contact force) that acts by contact by an object 5 …” in paragraph 25) serves as a glossary for the claim term “force sensor”. In this case, Izadi et al. teach a contact force sensor (e.g., see “… sensors to detect contact includes pressure-based mechanisms …” in paragraph 38) in order to achieve features such as IR source is turned on only if a touch point is touched (e.g., see “… IR source of the touch panel system may be turned on only if the touchable surface is touched …” in paragraph 38). Izadi et al. also teach an embodiment comprising contact force sensors for detecting a touch event (e.g., see “… a touch event in the area indicated by dotted circle 603 …” in paragraph 64) wherein only IR sources around the detected touch event are illuminated (e.g., see “… sources around the detected events (e.g. those within dotted circle 604) may be illuminated …” in paragraph 64). Therefore the cited prior art teaches or suggest all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that Izadi et al. fail to teach or suggest the newly added feature of “the plurality of light emitting elements are on a side of the plurality of light receiving elements that is near the force sensor” as recited in applicant's amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0121442 teaches an optical sensor.
US 2010/0294938 teaches an optical sensor.
US 2011/0292049 teaches an optical sensor.
US 2010/0253650 teaches an optical sensor.
US 2015/0177082 teaches an optical sensor.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights