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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
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(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0220141 (hereinafter Small) in view of Hotelling et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0158167 (hereinafter Hotelling).
Consider claim 13, Small teaches a system comprising: a capacitive touch sensing system [0050] comprising transmit electrodes and receive electrodes positioned to have mutual capacitances between transmit electrodes and receive electrodes at electrode intersections called nodes (Figures 1-2 and [0050-0051]), wherein the capacitance at respective ones of nodes deviates when touched [0048]; a processor (Figure 12, 1220); and a machine readable storage medium storing instructions (Figure 12, 1210), which when executed by the processor, cause the system to: identify a first and a second subset of transmit electrodes (Figure 2, plurality of subset 206) ; assign code words from a first subset of code words to respective ones of transmit electrodes of the first set of transmit electrodes, wherein respective ones of code words from the first set of code words are a complete code word having a first code word portion and a second code word portion (Figure 2 and [0058], patterns 216 include Hadamard and further refers to code division multiplexing matrices); assign code words from a second subset of code words to respective ones of transmit electrodes of the second set of transmit electrodes, wherein respective ones of code words from the second set of code words are a complete code word having a first code word portion and a second code word portion (Figure 2, [0057-0058], any number of groups 202, 206 may be modulated); generate a transmit signal for respective ones of transmit electrodes according to its assigned code word (Figure 2, 220); transmit the transmit signals (Figure 2, 220); receive a first portion of a receive signal, for respective ones of receive electrodes, indicative of the respective capacitances between the receive electrode and respective ones of transmit electrodes; decode the first portion of the receive signal for respective ones of receive electrodes using the first portions of the first subset of code words ([0054] and [0064], a modulation pattern is applied to one or both of a given drive line group 206 and pickup line group 202, the signals received for the sensor region 202 defined at the intersection thereof may be demodulated by using one or more additional patterns. Exemplary demodulation or “decode” patterns may include Hadamard), before a second portion of the receive signal is received (Examiner understands that pickup lines 102 should receive codes during a plurality of times. Thus, a first code (and thus first portion) corresponding to a first time is received before a second code (and thus second portion) corresponding to a second time. Note that claim’s amendment recites “a second portion”. Claim’s amendment does not recite “the second portion of the first subset of code words”); and compute touch position estimates for the first subset of transmit electrodes based on the decoded first portions of the receive signals, whereby a touch estimate is performed ([0058], a pickup line 102 may be configured to receive electrical signals containing an indication as to whether an object or component thereof is within range of the electrical field received by the respective pickup line 102).
Small does not appear to specifically disclose identify a first and a second subset of transmit electrodes based on a prior touch position.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Hotelling teaches a touch-sensing devices (abstract) and further teaches identify a first and a second subset of transmit electrodes based on a prior touch position ([0009], figure 5 and figure 6, fine scanning of a region based on prior coarse scan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify based on prior touch as taught by Hotelling in order to eliminate unnecessary scans, time and power savings as suggested in [0009].
Consider claim 14, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 13. In addition, Small teaches wherein the instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to: receive a second portion of receive signal for respective ones of receive electrodes (Figure 2, [0058] and [0068], code division multiplexing matrices (includes plurality of portions); decode the complete receive signal for respective ones of receive electrodes using the complete code words ([0068] and figure 2); and compute touch position estimates for the set of transmit electrodes based on the decoded complete receive signals ([0058], a pickup line 102 may be configured to receive electrical signals containing an indication as to whether an object or component thereof is within range of the electrical field received by the respective pickup line 102).
Consider claim 15, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 13. In addition, Small teaches wherein the instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to serially and alternatingly decode the first portion of the receive signal and decode the complete receive signal (Figure 2, [0058] and [0068], timeslots and code division multiplexing matrices (and thus complete signal is after a first portion).
Consider claim 16, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 13. In addition, Small teaches wherein the instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to default assign ([0057], In some embodiments, one, some, or all of the pickup line groups 202 may be modulated according to one or more patterns 212. Likewise, in some embodiments, one, some, or all of the drive line groups 206 may be modulated according to one or more patterns 216) respective ones of code words from the first subset of code words to respective ones of the first set of transmit electrodes and default assign respective ones of code words from the second subset of code words to respective ones of the second set of transmit electrodes ([0057], In some embodiments, one, some, or all of the pickup line groups 202 may be modulated according to one or more patterns 212. Likewise, in some embodiments, one, some, or all of the drive line groups 206 may be modulated according to one or more patterns 216).
Consider claim 17, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 16. In addition, Small teaches wherein code words comprise unique numbers (Figure 2, four rows in 216), wherein transmit electrodes are numbered uniquely (Figure 2 and [0053], number of rows), and wherein the default assigning comprises assigning the code word with the lowest number to the lowest numbered transmit electrode (when modulating the first row in figure 2. [0057] all of the pickup line groups 202 may be modulated), and assigning the code word with the second lowest number to the second lowest numbered transmit electrode (when modulating the second row in figure 2).
Consider claim 18, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 13.
Small does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to repeatedly perform a touch position estimate.
However, Hotelling teaches wherein the instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to repeatedly perform a touch position estimate [0046] and figure 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat estimate as taught by Hotelling in order to multi-touch sensing as suggested in [0046-0047].
Consider claim 19, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 13. In addition, Small teaches code words (Figure 2 and [0058], patterns 216 include Hadamard and further refers to code division multiplexing matrices).
However, Small does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to: adaptively assign transmit electrodes identified as having been touched or identified as assumed to have been touched based on the prior touch position estimate, and adaptively assign transmit electrodes identified as having not been touched or identified as assumed to have not been touched based on the prior touch position estimate.
However, Hotelling teaches wherein the instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to: adaptively assign transmit electrodes identified as having been touched or identified as assumed to have been touched based on the prior touch position estimate (Figure 6, steps 602, 604. [0009], figure 5 and figure 6, fine scanning of a region based on prior coarse scan), and adaptively assign transmit electrodes identified as having not been touched or identified as assumed to have not been touched based on the prior touch position estimate (Figure 6, steps 602, 603).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify based on prior touch as taught by Hotelling in order to eliminate unnecessary scans, time and power savings as suggested in [0009].
Consider claim 20, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 13. In addition, Small teaches wherein assign respective ones of code words from the second subset of code words to respective ones of the second set of transmit electrodes comprises: assign respective ones of code words from the second subset of code words to transmit electrodes (Figure 2 and [0058], patterns 216 include Hadamard and further refers to code division multiplexing matrices. [0057-0058], any number of groups 202, 206 may be modulated), and wherein assign respective ones of code words from the first subset of code words to respective ones of the first set of transmit electrodes comprises: assign respective ones of code words from the first subset of code words to remaining unassigned transmit electrodes. (Figure 2 and [0058], patterns 216 include Hadamard and further refers to code division multiplexing matrices. [0057-0058], any number of groups 202, 206 may be modulated).
Small does not appear to specifically disclose adaptive assign to transmit electrodes identified as having not been touched or identified as assumed to have not been touched based on the prior touch position estimate, and adaptive assign to remaining unassigned transmit electrodes.
However, Hotelling teaches adaptive assign to transmit electrodes identified as having not been touched or identified as assumed to have not been touched based on the prior touch position estimate (Figure 6, 602 and 603), and adaptive assign to remaining unassigned transmit electrodes (Figure 6, 602 and 604).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify based on prior touch as taught by Hotelling in order to eliminate unnecessary scans, time and power savings as suggested in [0009].
Consider claim 21, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 13. In addition, Small teaches wherein respective ones of the code words comprise binary sequences having 2*K chips of a Hadamard matrix where K is an integer (Figure 2, pattern 212 is a 4x4 matrix. Figure 4 shows 4 chips corresponding to 212. Thus, 4=2*2, K=2. [0058], Hadamard), wherein the code word portions of respective ones of the code words comprise K chips (Figure 4, portions comprise 2 chips corresponding to 212).
Consider claim 22, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 20.
Small’s figure 2 does not show wherein respective ones of the code words comprise sixteen chips, wherein the code word portions of respective ones of the code words comprise eight chips, and the Hadamard matrix is an 16 X 16 matrix comprising two code word portions.
However, Small teaches in [0070], up to twentieth-order matrices may be used. Thus, Small’s [0070] suggests wherein respective ones of the code words comprise sixteen chips ([0070] and figure 2), wherein the code word portions of respective ones of the code words comprise eight chips ([0070] and figure 2, the first eight 102), and the Hadamard matrix is an 16 X 16 matrix comprising two code word portions ([0070], [0058] and figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a 16th- order matrices as taught by Small in order to meet design choices or attain a given signal-to-noise reduction as suggested in [0070].
Consider claim 23, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 20. In addition, Small teaches wherein decoding comprises despreading the receive signal using code words from rows of the Hadamard matrix [0064].
Consider claim 24, Small and Hotelling teach all the limitations of claim 20.
Small’s figure 2 does not show wherein the Hadamard matrix comprises four quadrants, wherein the respective ones of the four quadrants comprise a Hadamard matrix.
However, Small teaches in [0070], up to twentieth-order matrices may be used. Thus, Small’s [0070] suggests wherein the Hadamard matrix comprises four quadrants (Figure 2 and [0070], for each matrix 216 or 212), wherein the respective ones of the four quadrants comprise a Hadamard matrix (Figure 2 and [0070], for each matrix 216 or 212).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular order matrix as taught by Small in order to meet design choices or attain a given signal-to-noise reduction as suggested in [0070].
Consider claim 1, it includes the limitations of claim 13 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 2, it includes the limitations of claim 14 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 3, it includes the limitations of claim 15 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 4, it includes the limitations of claim 16 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 5, it includes the limitations of claim 17 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 6, it includes the limitations of claim 18 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 7, it includes the limitations of claim 19 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 8, it includes the limitations of claim 20 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 9, it includes the limitations of claim 21 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 10, it includes the limitations of claim 22 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 11, it includes the limitations of claim 23 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 12, it includes the limitations of claim 24 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13, Applicant argues that “Small teaches a complete code word that is four “time slots” long (pattern 216) is put on a transmit electrode, and the same four “time slots” long code word (pattern 212) is taken from the receive electrodes. In order for Small to have assigned and decoded a “portion” of a code word, fewer than four “time slots” would have had to have been taken from the receive electrodes. Small simply does not teach or suggest to assign “a complete code word having a first code word portion and a second code word portion” as claimed.” The Office respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Examiner considers that a long code word includes a portion. Thus, if Small decodes code words, then Small also decodes a portion of the code.
On pages, 12-13, Applicant argues that “The cited paragraphs [0054] and [0064] expressly confirm the complete code words are decoded where pattern 212 is exactly the same as pattern 216. Small does not teach or suggest to “decode the first portion of the receive signal,” as claimed. To clarify this point, independent Claims 1 and 13 are hereby amended to recite, “decoding the first portion of the receive signal for respective ones of receive electrodes using the first portions of the first subset of code words before a second portion of the receive signal is received.” Small does not teach or suggest to “decode the first portion of the receive signal… before a second portion of the receive signal is received.” The Office respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Claim 1 recites “decoding the first portion of the receive signal for respective ones of receive electrodes using the first portions of the first subset of code words before a second portion of the receive signal is received”. Examiner understands that pickup lines 102 should receive codes during a plurality of times. Thus, a first code (and thus first portion) corresponding to a first time is received before a second code (and thus second portion) corresponding to a second time. Note that claim’s amendment recites “a second portion”. Claim’s amendment does not recite “the second portion of the first subset of code words”.
On pages 13-14, Applicant argues that “this premise of the rejection fails because both Small and Hotelling fail to teach or suggest “identifying a first and a second subset of transmit electrodes based on a prior touch position estimate,” as claimed.” The Office respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Hotelling teaches in [0009], performing a coarse scan of a region of the touch sensitive surface to determine whether a touch is present within the first region. If a touch is present, fine scanning of the region may be performed to determine more exact data about the touch or touches that are present within the region (see for example, group 2 in figure 5 includes plurality of transmit electrodes 505a). Consequently, these arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO W FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-5512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, AMR A AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/ROBERTO W FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621