Detailed Action
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Specification
Applicant’s amendment to the specification has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
A window and a window frame as claimed in claim 17.
A desk and a leg as claimed in claim 18.
A door and a hinge as claimed in claim 19.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting Rejections
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-6 and 9-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,308 as explained in the office action dated March 7, 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (US-11,076,125) in view of Salter et al. (US-10,124,767), Skotty et al. (US-10,997,837) and Kihara (US-2017/0177106).
In regards to claim 1, Koike teaches a detection device comprising a table (panel) having opposed main surfaces including an operation surface and a rear surface [fig. 1 element 131]. Also, Koike teaches that the detection device comprises at least one leg (a support structure) located on at least one of the main surfaces and preventing warping of the panel while permitting the operation surface to be operated in response to a touching operation [fig. 1 element 131]. Koike further teaches that the support structure comprises legs of a table [fig. 1, fig. 3]. This teaching means that the legs are attached to the table to provide support. In other words, the legs (the support structure) are not being integral with the panel [fig. 3]. Furthermore, Koike teaches that the detection device comprises a sensor for sensing the touching operation applied to the operation surface [col. 5 L. 20-22].
Koike also teaches that the touch sensor provides touch sensing on a section of one of the main surfaces that do not overlap the support structure [fig 1 element 20, col. 5 L. 14-22]. This teaching means that at least a portion of the sensor does not overlap the support structure in plan view. However, Koike does not teach that the sensor is provided on one of the main surfaces.
On the other hand, Salter teaches a detection device comprising a panel comprising a touch sensor [fig. 4 element 20 and 24, col. 5 L. 41-45]. Salter teaches that the touch sensor is provided on one of the main surfaces to perform a function such as turning on/off a light [fig. 5 element 28 (panel) and 42 (touch sensor located at the rear/main surface of the panel), fig. 6 elements 28 (panel) and 42 (touch sensor), col. 5 L. 66-67, col. 6 L. 1-6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use Salter’s teachings of integrating the sensor in the panel in the device taught by Koike because it will permit the device to detect user input without the need of using external devices such as a camera and perform other functions such as controlling a light.
The combination of Koike and Salter teaches that the sensor generating an output indicative of the touching operation applied to the operation surface [see Salter fig. 8 elements 42 and 34, col. 5 L. 29-31 and L. 41-45].
Also, The combination of Koike and Salter further teaches that the output of the sensor can be used to turn on/off a light [see Salter col. 5 L. 29-31 and L. 41-45]. However, the combination does not teach that the touching operation comprises a pressing operation that deforms the operation surface and that the detection device comprises a transmitter.
On the other hand, Skotty teaches that the output of a touch sensor used to turn on/off a light can be transmitted wirelessly to the light using a transmitter [fig. 8 element 303 and 304, col. 13 L. 44-50, col. 14 L. 43-50]. This teaching means that the device comprises a transmitter connected to the sensor that transmits a signal to a remote receiver as a function of the output of the sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use Skotty’s teachings of wirelessly transmitting a signal to control the light in the detection device taught by the combination because it will permit the device to control the light wirelessly.
The combination of Koike, Salter and Skotty teaches that the sensor is a touch sensor [see Koike col. 5 L. 14-22, see Salter col. 5 L. 67-66, col. 6 L. 1-6]. However, the combination does not teach that the touch sensor senses touch by pressing and deforming of the operation surface.
On the other hand, Kihara teaches that a touch sensor can sense a pressing operation applied to the operation surface [par. 0009 L. 3-7, par. 0010 L. 1-5]. Also, Kihara teaches that the operation surface is deformed in response to the pressing operation applied to the operation surface [fig. 1 elements 401-403 and 411-414, par. 0046 L. 1-9, par. 0047, par. 0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Kihara’s teachings of using a touch sensor that senses a pressing operation in the detection device taught by the combination because it will permit the detection device sense user operation of the operation surface with great accuracy.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the sensor is a first sensor and the output is a first output [see Salter fig. 5 element 42, fig. 8 element 42].
Also, the combination teaches that a panel of a detection device can comprise a plurality of sensors on its rear/main surface [see Salter fig. 1 element 16 (panel) and 50 (sensors), col. 3 L. 25-28, col. 4 L. 17-22]. The combination teaches that the sensors are spaced from each other [see Salter fig. 5 elements 50]. These teachings means that the panel can comprise a second sensor, the second sensor being spaced from the first sensor and generating a second output indicative of the touching operation applied to the operation surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use Salter’s teachings of having at least a second sensor in the device taught by the combination because it will permit a user to perform at least a second function.
The combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara teaches that the sensor does not overlap the support structure [see Koike elements 20]. This teaching means that if a second sensor is present, the second sensor will not overlap the support structure in plan view. The combination also teaches that the second sensor is a touch sensor [see Salter col. 3 L. 45-48, col. 4 L. 17-22], and that a touch sensor can be implemented as pressing sensors that deform the operation surface [see Kihara fig. 1 elements 401-403 and 411-414, par. 0046 L. 1-9, par. 0047, par. 0050].These teachings mean that the second sensor generates a second output indicative of the pressing operation applied to the operation surface. Furthermore, the combination teaches that when a second sensor is present, the transmitter can transmit the signals based on the output of the first and second sensors [see Scotty col. 14 L. 46-50]. This teaching means that the signal transmitted to the remote receiver by the transmitter is a function of the first and second outputs and being indicative of the pressing operation.
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the support structure includes first and second legs (supports) located at spaced locations on at least one of the main surfaces; and the sensor is located between the first and second supports [see Koike fig. 1].
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that the legs (supports) extend in a first directions [see Koike fig. 1] and the sensor comprises a piezoelectric member comprising a chiral polymer, wherein a uniaxial stretching direction of the piezoelectric member is not parallel to the first direction [see Kihara fig. 1, par. 0035 L. 4-11, par. 0038 L. 1].
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that the supports are located on the rear surface [see Koike fig. 1].
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 6 above, further teaches that the supports are located at opposed lateral ends of the operation surface [see Koike fig. 1].
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that the panel lies in a plane and the first and second supports extend parallel to the plane and parallel to each other [see Koike fig. 1].
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 8 above, further teaches that the first and second supports are located at opposite lateral ends of the panel [see Koike fig. 1].
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed detection device. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the detection device can be used as light switch to turn a light source on/off [see Salter col. 5 L. 29-31, L. 41-45 and L. 66-67, col. 6 L. 1-6]. This teaching means that the combination teaches an illumination switching device comprising a light source, a switch for turning the light source on and off and the detection device according to claim 1. The combination further teaches that the light source is turned on/off wirelessly by receiving a signal from the transmitter [see Skotty col. 14 L. 41-50]. This teaching means that the switch is controlled by the remote receiver as a function of the signal transmitted by the transmitter.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, that the detection device can be implemented on different types of surfaces made of different materials such as a top surface of a table [see Koike fig. 1], a window [see Salter fig. 2, fig. 5 element 16, col. 3 L. 25-28] or frit portion of a window [see Salter fig. 4, fig. 5 element 28, col. 5 L. 31-35]. The combination does not explicitly teach that the detection device can be implemented on a wall panel having at least one batten as support. However, it is clear from the combination’s teachings that the detection device can be implemented on different surfaces where an switch is needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the detection device on a wall panel having at least one batten as support because it will permit the device to work as a regular light switch on a home.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, that the detection device can be implemented on different types of surfaces made of different materials such as a top board of a table having at least one leg as support [see Koike fig. 1]. The combination does not explicitly teach that the table is a desk. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the detection device on a desk because the desk will not only function as a table, but the desk will also have storage space in its drawers.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (US-11,076,125) in view of Salter et al. (US-10,124,767), Skotty et al. (US-10,997,837) and Kihara (US-2017/0177106) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Bernstein et al. (US-8,633,916).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the transmitter only transmits a signal when the sensor has been actuated [see Scotty col. 14 L. 46-50]. This teaching means that the transmitter includes circuitry to determine whether the output generated by the sensor is indicative of an intended pressing operation. However, the combination does not teach that the circuitry includes a frequency discriminator.
On the other hand, Bernstein teaches that circuitry, used to determine whether a sensor has been actuated, can include a frequency filter/discriminator [col. 2 L. 18-21, col. 6 L. 18-23, col. 18 L. 49-56]. This teaching means that the circuitry includes a frequency discriminator that determines whether the output generated by the sensor is indicative of an intended pressing operation as a function of a frequency of the output of the sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Bernstein’s teachings of using a frequency filter to determine actuation of the sensor in the detection device taught by the combination because it will permit the device to determine actuation of the sensor more accurately.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that the transmitter only transmits a signal when the first and second sensors have been actuated [see Scotty col. 14 L. 46-50]. This teaching means that the transmitter generates the transmitted signal as a function the first and second outputs of the first and second sensors respectively. However, the combination does not teach that the circuitry comprises a signal comparison unit.
On the other hand, Bernstein teaches that circuitry, used to determine whether a sensor has been actuated, can use thresholds and filters to determine if a sensor has been actuated [col. 2 L. 18-21, col. 6 L. 18-23, col. 18 L. 49-56]. This teaching means that the circuitry uses a signal comparator to determine that the signal of the actuated sensor meet the thresholds that indicate that the sensor has been actuated .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Bernstein’s teachings of using a thresholds and filters to determine actuation of a sensor in the detection device taught by the combination because it will permit the device to determine actuation of the sensor more accurately.
The combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty, Kihara and Bernstein teaches that the transmitter generates the transmitted signal as a function the outputs of the first and second sensors [see Skotty col. 14 L. 46-50]. Also, the combination teaches that thresholds and filters (signal comparison unit) are used to detect actuation of the sensors [see Bernstein col. 18 L. 49-56]. These teachings mean that the transmitter includes a signal comparison unit that compares the outputs of the first and second sensors and generates the transmitted signal as a function thereof.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (US-11,076,125) in view of Salter et al. (US-10,124,767), Skotty et al. (US-10,997,837) and Kihara (US-2017/0177106) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Dvorsky et al. (US-4,634,917).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the operation surface has an area which is flat and does not have any openings [see Koike fig. 1, see Salter fig. 5 element 28]. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the sensor is a piezoelectric sensor [see Kihara par. 0048]. However, the combination does not teach that the sensor is located on the operation surface.
On the other hand, Dvorsky teaches a piezoelectric touch sensor can be located on the operation surface [fig. 1 element 101 (operation surface) and elements 103, 107 and 108 (sensor), col. 3 L. 36-38, L. 40-42, L. 53-54 and L. 56-61]. Dvorsky teaches that the sensor has a bottom which is mounted on the flat area of the operation surface [fig. 1 element 101 (operation surface) and 103 (bottom), col. 3 L. 40-42]. Also, Dvorsky teaches that the detection device comprises a protective/surface film which is provided on the operation surface in such a manner that the sensor is sandwiched between the operation surface and the surface film [fig. 1 elements 101 (operation surface), 112 (surface film) and 103, 107 and 108 (sensor), col. 3 L. 61-63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Dvorsky’s teachings of placing the sensor between the operation surface and a surface film in the detection device taught by the combination because it will permit the device to detect actuation of the sensor accurately.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty, Kihara and Dvorsky, as applied in the rejection of claim 14 above, further teaches that the surface film covers the entire operation surface [see Dvorsky fig. 1 element 101 (operation surface) and 112 (surface film)].
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (US-11,076,125) in view of Salter et al. (US-10,124,767), Skotty et al. (US-10,997,837) and Kihara (US-2017/0177106) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Faupel et al. (US-11,638,945).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, that the detection device can be implemented on different types of surfaces made of different materials such a rear window of a vehicle [see Salter fig. 2, fig. 5 element 16, col. 3 L. 25-28]. This teaching means that the panel is a window. However, the combination does not teach that the window has at least one window frame as support.
On the other hand, Faupel teaches that a frame can be used to accommodate the rear window on a vehicle [col. 2 L. 62-64]. This teaching means that the support structure comprises at least one window frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Faupel’s teachings of having a window frame to support the window in the detection device taught by the combination because it will permit the detection device implemented on a vehicle window to be placed on the vehicle in a secure manner.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, that the detection device can be implemented on different types of surfaces made of different materials such a rear window of a vehicle [see Salter fig. 2, fig. 5 element 16, col. 3 L. 25-28]. However, the combination does not teach that portions of the support structure that touches the panel are made of different material than the panel.
On the other hand, Faupel teaches that a magnesium frame can be used to accommodate the rear window on a vehicle [col. 2 L. 43-45 and L. 62-64]. This teaching means that the support structure comprises a window frame which is made of a different material than the window/panel. In other words, a portion of the support structure contacts a portion of the panel, and the portions of the support structure and panel that are in contact are made of different materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Faupel’s teachings of having a window frame to support the window in the detection device taught by the combination because it will permit the detection device implemented on a vehicle window to be placed on the vehicle in a secure manner.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (US-11,076,125) in view of Salter et al. (US-10,124,767), Skotty et al. (US-10,997,837) and Kihara (US-2017/0177106) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Park (US-10,359,227).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Koike, Salter, Skotty and Kihara, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, that the detection device can be implemented on different types of surfaces made of different materials such as a top surface of a table [see Koike fig. 1], a window [see Salter fig. 2, fig. 5 element 16, col. 3 L. 25-28] or frit portion of a window [see Salter fig. 4, fig. 5 element 28, col. 5 L. 31-35]. The combination does not explicitly teach that the detection device can be implemented on a door having at least one hinge as support.
On the other hand, Park teaches that detections devices can be implemented on refrigerator doors having hinges as support [fig. 1 element 12, col. 6 L. 29-31, col. 3 L. 52-59, col. 25 L. 17-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Park’s teachings of implementing the detection device on a door having at least one hinge as support in the detection device taught by the combination because it will permit the detection device to be used to implement other functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688