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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 14 & 1, the Applicant argues [Remarks: pg. 6, 2nd para. – pg. 7, 1st para. & pg. 7, 2nd last para.], that “However, nowhere does Hung teach or even suggest at least determining that a touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch by determining that a lower edge of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input is positioned at or near a lower edge of the touchscreen and that a height of the contact decreases over time. Instead, in reference to the cited embodiment illustrated in Figs. 6A-6C, Hung merely describes as two-step process (e.g., see FIG. 10, steps S1020 and S1030) in which his control circuit first detects the presence of water flow ("The method of the disclosure may also be applied to a situation where a water flow is present on the touch panel. Embodiments of the disclosure will be described hereinafter with reference to FIG. 6A, FIG. 6B, and FIG. 6C." Hung, col. 7, lines 5-9), and in response, during a second step, switches the touch detection thresholds to a "waterproof mode," during which subsequent touches to the touchscreen are evaluated using updated threshold values ("Thus, after scanning the rows and columns of the touch panel 600, the control circuit determines that a specific column is present in the touch panel 600 and thereby determines that water (that is, the water flow 610) is present on the touch panel 600. Correspondingly, the control circuit switches the touch panel to the waterproof mode, that is, increasing the touch detection threshold and the sending area threshold." Hung, col. 7, lines 25-33) (emphasis added).
Nowhere does Hung teach or suggest rejecting a contact solely due to water detection or determining that a height of a contact decreases over time. Even if a flowing drop is decreasing in height as it travels down the face of a touchscreen due to gravity, nowhere does Hung describe detecting such a change in height. Instead, Hung merely detects water flow, and in response changes the thresholds used to determine if a contact is valid or not in response to a subsequent display touch, as described above, and throughout his patent, particularly with respect to FIGs. 6A-6C and the associated text at column 7, lines 3 through 52. Indeed, Hung explains, "Therefore, the user can operate the touch panel even when water is present on the touch panel." Hung, col. 7, lines 51-52.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
When in the waterproof mode, the system of Hung is still iteratively over time detecting, determining the waterflow [elongated water droplet] is a false touch, and rejecting the water flow, as the water flow flows down the touch screen, by increasing the threshold for variation for being a true input [during waterproof mode], a user’s contact can be detected while rejecting the waterflow that is changing via effect of gravity.
Thus, as detection occurs over time, each instance of detection, the waterflow [elongated water droplet] is flowing down the touchscreen via gravity and the change in water flow [change in height] is detected as water and rejected because the sensing variation for water does not meet the increased threshold, while still allowing for touching because touch input exceeds the higher threshold value.
Further regarding claim 1 [Remarks: pg. 7, 2nd last para.], as detection occurs over time, each instance of detection, the waterflow [initial water droplet] is flowing down the touchscreen via gravity [and elongating into an elongated water droplet and thus increasing in height due to surface tension of water] and the change in water flow [change in height] is detected as water and rejected because the sensing variation for water does not meet the increased threshold, while still allowing for touching because touch input exceeds the higher threshold value.
Thus, Hung teaches the as argued claim limitations of claims 14 & 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barat (US 20160328084), in view of Hung et al. (US 11036337).
As to claim 14, Barat teaches a method [abstract] comprising:
receiving a touchscreen input (touch down) [fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33] corresponding to a contact with a touchscreen display (touch sensitive graphical display 26) [fig. 2 & para. 19-21] of a medical device [abstract & para. 14];
determining a contact parameter from the touchscreen input [fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33];
determining, from the contact parameter, that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch (contact from interference that is to be inactivated) [fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33]; and
rejecting the touchscreen input (contact from interference that is to be inactivated) [fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
Barat does not explicitly teach wherein the contact comprises a top edge and a bottom edge; and
determining that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch by determining that a lower edge of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input is positioned at or near a lower edge of the touchscreen and that a height of the contact decreases over time while a width of the contact at the top edge and the width of the contact at the bottom edge are substantially equal and remain substantially constant.
Hung teaches the concept of a method [abstract] that utilizes a touchscreen (touch panel 600) [fig. 6b] that receives a contact (contact from water or user input) [figs. 6a-6c & col. 7 lines 3 -33 & abstract], wherein the contact comprises a top edge and a bottom edge (column 620 with top edge and bottom edge) [fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 17-33]; and configured to determines, from a contact parameter (sensing variation) [fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 3-33], that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch by determining that a lower edge of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input is positioned at or near a lower edge of the touchscreen (column 620 corresponds to lower edge of touch panel 600) [fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 17-33] and that a height of the contact decreases over time (water flow 610 of the water droplet flows down the touch panel 600 over time due to gravity, as the water droplet flows off the touch panel lower edge, the height of the water droplet decreases) [fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 3-33] while a width of the contact at the top edge and the width of the contact at the bottom edge are substantially equal and remain substantially constant (column 620) [fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 17-33].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the method of Barat, such that the contact comprises a top edge and a bottom edge and the method further determines, from a contact parameter, that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch by determining that a lower edge of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input is positioned at or near a lower edge of the touchscreen and that a height of the contact decreases over time while a width of the contact at the top edge and the width of the contact at the bottom edge are substantially equal and remain substantially constant, as taught by Hung, to improve accuracy of user inputs in wet environments, as taught by Hung [col. 1 lines 24-34].
As to claim 15, Barat as modified by Hung teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein receiving the touchscreen input comprises sensing a change to an electromagnetic field [Barat: para. 21 & 17].
As to claim 16, Barat as modified by Hung teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein receiving the touchscreen input comprises sensing a change in capacitance [Barat: para. 21 & 17].
As to claim 17, Barat as modified by Hung teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein determining a contact parameter comprises determining a shape of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input (area enclosed in locus locus) [Barat: fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
As to claim 18, Barat as modified by Hung teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein determining a contact parameter comprises determining a position of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input (touch down state location) [Barat: fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
As to claim 19, Barat as modified by Hung teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein determining a contact parameter comprises determining a movement the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input (determination of drag versus fluid moving down touch sensitive graphical display) [Barat: fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
As to claim 20, Barat as modified by Hung teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein determining that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch comprises determining that a position of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input moves in a downward direction [Barat: para. 27].
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosinko et al. (US 20140276553), in view of Barat (US 20160328084), and further in view of Hung et al. (US 11036337).
As to claim 1, Rosinko teaches an infusion pump [abstract & figs. 2-4 & para. 29] comprising:
a touchscreen display (touch sensitive screen 46) [figs. 3-4 & para. 42 & 30] configured to display infusion pump information (GUI 60) [fig. 4 & para. 42 & 38] and to receive a touchscreen input [fig. 4 & para. 42 & 38];
a processor [fig. 3 & para. 38] in communication with the touchscreen display; and
a memory (memory 30) [fig. 3 & para. 33-34 & 38] in communication with the processor and configured to store instructions that when executed by the processor.
Rosinko does not explicitly teach where the infusion pump comprising:
a memory in communication with the processor and configured to store instructions that when executed by the processor cause the execution of a false touch rejection configured to:
receive the touchscreen input corresponding to a contact with the touchscreen display;
determine a contact parameter from the touchscreen input;
determine, from the contact parameter, that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch; and
reject the touchscreen input.
Barat teaches the concept of a medical device configured to reject an input as a false touch [abstract & para. 14], the medical device comprising:
a touchscreen display (touch sensitive graphical display 26) [fig. 2 & para. 19-21] configured to display medical device information (graphical user interface (GUI) 32) [fig. 2 & para. 19-21] and to receive a touchscreen input [para. 20-21];
a processor (processor 28) [fig. 2 & para. 19-21] in communication with the touchscreen display; and
a memory (computer readable medium 30) [fig. 2 & para. 18] in communication with the processor and configured to store instructions that when executed by the processor [fig. 2 & para. 18] cause the execution of a false touch rejection [abstract & fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33] configured to:
receive the touchscreen input corresponding to a contact (touch down) [fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33] with the touchscreen display;
determine a contact parameter from the touchscreen input [fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33];
determine, from the contact parameter, that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch (contact from interference that is to be inactivated) [fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33]; and
reject the touchscreen input (contact from interference that is to be inactivated) [fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touchscreen display of the infusion pump of Rosinko, such that the infusion pump configured to reject an input as a false touch, the infusion pump comprising: a memory in communication with the processor and configured to store instructions that when executed by the processor cause the execution of a false touch rejection configured to: receive the touchscreen input corresponding to a contact with the touchscreen display; determine a contact parameter from the touchscreen input; determine, from the contact parameter, that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch; and reject the touchscreen input, as taught by Barat, to improve usability by reducing the occurrence of inadvertent inputs, as taught by Barat [para. 2].
Rosinko as modified by Barat does not explicitly teach wherein the contact comprises a top edge and a bottom edge; and
determine, from the contact parameter, that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch by determining that a width of the contact at the top edge and a width of the contact at the bottom edge are substantially equal and remain constant as a height of the contact increases over time.
Hung teaches the concept of a touchscreen (touch panel 600) [abstract & fig. 6b] that receives a contact (contact from water or user input) [figs. 6a-6c & col. 7 lines 3 -33 & abstract], wherein the contact comprises a top edge and a bottom edge (column 620 with top edge and bottom edge) [fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 17-33]; and configured to determine from a contact parameter (sensing variation) [fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 3-33], that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch by determining that a width of the contact at the top edge and a width of the contact at the bottom edge are substantially equal and remain constant (column 620 corresponds to lower edge of touch panel 600) [fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 17-33] as a height of the contact increase over time (water flow 610 of the water droplet flows down the touch panel 600 over time due to gravity, as water droplet flows the height of the water droplet increases due to surface tension of the water) [fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 3-33].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the instructions utilized with the touchscreen utilized with the infusion pump of Rosinko as modified by Barat, such that the contact comprises a top edge and a bottom edge; and determine, from the contact parameter, that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch by determining that a width of the contact at the top edge and a width of the contact at the bottom edge are substantially equal and remain constant as a height of the contact increases over time, as taught by Hung, to improve accuracy of user inputs in wet environments, as taught by Hung [col. 1 lines 24-34].
As to claim 2, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the touchscreen display is configured to receive the touchscreen input by sensing a change to an electromagnetic field [Barat: para. 21 & 17 & Rosinko: para. 30].
As to claim 3, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the touchscreen display is configured to receive the touchscreen input by sensing a change in capacitance [Barat: para. 21 & 17 & Rosinko: para. 30].
As to claim 4, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the instructions configure the processor to determine the contact parameter by determining a shape of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input (area enclosed in locus locus) [Barat: fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
As to claim 5, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the instructions configure the processor to determine the contact parameter by determining a position of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input (touch down state location) [Barat: fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
As to claim 6, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the instructions configure the processor to determine the contact parameter by determining a movement the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input (determination of drag versus fluid moving down touch sensitive graphical display) [Barat: fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
As to claim 7, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch by determining that a position of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input moves in a downward direction [Barat: para. 27].
As to claim 10, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch by determining that a lower edge of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input is positioned at or near a lower edge of the touchscreen and that a height of the contact decreases over time (water flow 610 of the water droplet flows down the touch panel 600 over time due to gravity, as the water droplet flows off the touch panel lower edge, the height of the water droplet decreases) [Hung: fig. 6b & col. 7 lines 3-33].
As to claim 12, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch by determining that a position of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input does not change over a predetermined time period (number of contacts & use of timer to determine interference) [Barat: fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
Claim(s) 11 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosinko, in view of Barat, Hung, and further in view of Sugiura et al. (US 20120249470).
As to claim 11, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch [Barat: abstract & fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch by determining that a height of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input is or is at least 2, 3, 4, 5, or more times the width of the contact.
Sugiura teaches the concept of a touchscreen configured to reject an input a false touch [abstract & fig. 2 & para. 28] that utilizes a processor (CPU 12) [fig. 2 & para. 19], and a memory [fig. 2 & para. 19 & 33] in communication with the processor and configured to store instructions that when executed by the processor cause the execution of a false touch rejection [para. 19 & 28],
wherein the instructions configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch by determining that a height of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input is or is at least 2, 3, 4, 5, or more times the width of the contact (area r2 with a height at least 2, 3, 4, 5, or more times the width of the contact) [fig. 5 & para. 25-28].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the instructions utilized with the touchscreen utilized with the infusion pump of Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung, such that the instructions further configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch by determining that a height of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input is or is at least 2, 3, 4, 5, or more times the width of the contact, as taught by Sugiura, to improve operability by further distinguishing input between user’s intended operation or a touchscreen is wet with water, as taught by Sugiura [para. 4].
As to claim 13, Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung teaches the infusion pump of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch [Barat: abstract & fig. 6 & para. 24-25, 27, & 30-33].
Bosinko as modified by Barat and Hung does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch by determining that a position of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input changes in a horizontal direction over a predetermined time period.
Sugiura teaches the concept of a touchscreen configured to reject an input a false touch [abstract & fig. 2 & para. 28] that utilizes a processor (CPU 12) [fig. 2 & para. 19], and a memory [fig. 2 & para. 19 & 33] in communication with the processor and configured to store instructions that when executed by the processor cause the execution of a false touch rejection [para. 19 & 28],
wherein the instructions configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to a false touch by determining that a position of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input changes in a horizontal direction over a predetermined time period (horizontal width of contact between area r1 and area r2 changes over time) [figs. 4-5 & para. 25-28].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the instructions utilized with the touchscreen utilized with the infusion pump of Rosinko as modified by Barat and Hung, such that the instructions further configure the processor to determine that the touchscreen input corresponds to the false touch by determining that a position of the contact corresponding to the touchscreen input changes in a horizontal direction over a predetermined time period, as taught by Sugiura, to improve operability by further distinguishing input between user’s intended operation or a touchscreen is wet with water, as taught by Sugiura [para. 4].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID TUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 10:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571)-272-7603. 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.
/DAVID TUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights