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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 29, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-14, & 16-26 remain pending in the application. Claims 2 & 15 were canceled. Claims 1, 3, 8, 13-14, 16, 21, & 26 were amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 26, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026, please refer to pp. 12-21 of Applicant remarks, have been fully entered and considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments, pointing out their rationale of how prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Non-Final Office Action, mailed January 26, 2026, do not teach, suggest, and/or disclose the currently amended independent claim 1 (limitation(s). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot and unpersuasive.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 19-21 of Applicant remarks, presents the argument that the prior art references Wu (CN110286787A) in view of Chang (US20190196652A1), as cited by the Applicant, do not teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, “a noise compensation circuit, coupled to said sensing circuit and said AFE circuit, including a first filtering element, a second filtering element, and an operation element, said first filtering element generating a first filtered signal according to a corresponding sensing reference signal of said sensing signal, said second filtering element generating a second filtered signal according to an analog reference signal, said first filtering element and said second filtering element have different cutoff frequencies, said operation element generating a noise compensation signal according to said first filtered signal and said second filtered signal, and said AFE circuit compensating said sensing signal according to said noise compensation signal.” Further stating that “Wu discloses a similar frequency between the first filter circuit (the programmable filter 151) and the second filter circuit (the analog circuit 150) is required for reducing influence of capacitor. However, Wu’s similar frequency concept modified by different frequencies of concept provided by Chang will change the principle of Wu’s similar frequency for reducing influence of capacitor. Thereby, the applicant believes that Wu in view of Change will cause Wu changing the principle of operation thereof, as we may known, the teachings of Wu and Chang are not sufficient to render amended Claim 1 prima facie obvious”, and further citing “In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that during patent examination, claims are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Amended independent claim 1 recites that “said first filtering element and said second filtering element have different cutoff frequencies,…”. The amended claim language limitation(s) is/are broader that what is argued and does not recite a specific magnitude, threshold, or ratio for this difference; merely requires that the frequencies are not identical. Please refer to MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, while the BRI must be consistent with the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims, in regard to the argument stating ““Wu discloses a similar frequency between the first filter circuit (the programmable filter 151) and the second filter circuit (the analog circuit 150) is required for reducing influence of capacitor. However, Wu’s similar frequency concept modified by different frequencies of concept provided by Chang will change the principle of Wu’s similar frequency for reducing influence of capacitor...,” in pp. 20-21 of Applicant remarks. Therefore, the BRI of the claim does not require specific magnitude(s), threshold(s), and/or ratio(s) for the difference(s) but merely requires the frequencies to not be the same. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, please also refer to MPEP 2145(VI). See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, amended independent claim 1 does not recite a specific magnitude, threshold, and/or ratio for this difference. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the differences in the frequencies, but when the claims are examined, they are given the BRI. In the immediate case of this application the Examiner has taken the interpretation that the difference in the frequencies merely requires that they are not identical. This definition leads to the second part.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight is how the prior art reference(s) Wu, in view of Chang, read on the 103 modification that was amended into independent claim 1, which was previously presented as separate claims 1 & 2 of the Non-Final OA (pp. 3-5 & 7-8), and that the Applicant’s assertion that Wu requires identical frequencies, and therefore cannot be modified to have different frequencies without destroying its principle of operation, as further stated, “Wu discloses a similar frequency between the first filter circuit (the programmable filter 151) and the second filter circuit (the analog circuit 150) is required for reducing influence of capacitor. However, Wu’s similar frequency concept modified by different frequencies of concept provided by Chang will change the principle of Wu’s similar frequency for reducing influence of capacitor...,” in pp. 20-21 of Applicant remarks.
The Examiner appreciates the explanation and rationale, but respectfully disagrees, and concludes the interpretation of the reference(s) has(ve) been narrowed. Wu acknowledges that achieving perfectly identical frequency responses between the detection path (first filtering element) and the reference path (second filtering element/analog circuit 150) is nearly impossible in a real-world application. Further, Wu, discloses that because the self-capacitance of each detection electrode cannot be precisely known beforehand, therefore, the analog circuit is designed using estimations. Due to this limitation, Wu designs the system to operate with a frequency difference. Wu, further states, that the frequency difference between the pole frequencies of the first filtering circuit and the second filtering circuit is designed to be lower than 35% of the first filtering circuit’s pole frequencies, in Wu ([0043], [0045]-[0047], & [Claim 3]). Wu describes a principle of operation relies on a system where the first and second filtering elements posses “similar,” but different cutoff frequencies (i.e., a different of greater than 0% and less than 35%, but preferably less than 20%). Amended independent claim 1 broadly recites “… said first filtering element and said second filtering element have different cutoff frequencies,…”, therefore Wu discloses, suggests, and/or teaches the claimed feature(s), further corroborated by Chang, please refer to Non-Final OA pp. 7-8.
Furthermore, Chang is relied upon to teach specific frequency relationships for noise compensation. Applying Chang’s teachings to Wu does not change Wu’s principle of operation. Adjusting the exact cutoff frequencies within Wu’s disclosed operational tolerance window (a difference of up to 35% disclosed in [0043], [0045]-[0047], & [Claim 3]) to accommodate Chang’s noise processing techniques ([Abstract], [0029], & [0035]) represents the routine optimization of a known result and range, which is well within the ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the proposed modification does not destroy Wu’s baseline cancellation function or come in conflict with In re Ratti. Please also refer to MPEP 1504.03(I),1504.03(II), 2143.02(I), 2143.02(II), 2144.04, and 2145(III). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). As to making a prima facie case of obviousness, upon review, the Examiner’s rejection satisfied the requirements for applying Rationale(s) A, E, and G in 2143(I)(A), 2143(I)(E), and 2143(I)(G). For the above stated reasoning, the prior art references Wu, in view of Chang, disclose the limitations that have been amended and included in independent claim 1, and meet these requirements. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejection(s) of amended independent claim 1, and dependent claims 3-13, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
Applicant in their submitted response, please refer to pp. 21-22 of Applicant remarks, presents the argument that similarly, as in amended independent claim 1, the prior art references Wu (CN110286787A) in view of Chang (US20190196652A1), as cited by the Applicant, do not teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, features of amended independent claim 14, “…a second filtering element, generating a second filtered signal according to an analog reference signal, corresponding to said AFE circuit, said first filtering element and said second filtering element have different cutoff frequencies;” and “an operation element, coupled to said first filtering element, and said AFE circuit, generating a noise compensation signal according to said first filtered signal and said second filtered signal, and said AFE circuit compensating said signal according to said noise compensation signal.” Further stating that similarly as in amended independent claim 1, amended independent claim 14, “while Wu, in view of Chang will cause Wu changing the principle of operation thereof, as may we known, the teachings of Wu and Chang are not sufficient to render amended Claim 14 prima facie obvious.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. First, the Examiner would like to highlight that during patent examination, claims are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Amended independent claim 1 recites that “…said first filtering element and said second filtering element have different cutoff frequencies,…”. The amended claim language limitation(s) is/are broader that what is argued and does not recite a specific magnitude, threshold, or ratio for this difference; merely requires that the frequencies are not identical. Please refer to MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, while the BRI must be consistent with the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims, in regard to the argument stating “while Wu, in view of Chang will cause Wu changing the principle of operation thereof, as may we known,…” in pp. 21-22 of Applicant remarks. Therefore, the BRI of the claim does not require specific magnitude(s), threshold(s), and/or ratio(s) for the difference(s) but merely requires the frequencies to not be the same. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, please also refer to MPEP 2145(VI). See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently amended independent claim 14 does not recite a specific magnitude, threshold, and/or ratio for this difference. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the differences in the frequencies, but when the claims are examined, they are given the BRI. In the immediate case of this application the Examiner has taken the interpretation that the difference in the frequencies merely requires that they are not identical. This definition leads to the second part.
Second, the Examiner would like to highlight is how the prior art reference(s) Wu, in view of Chang, read on the 103 modification that was amended into independent claim 14, which was previously presented as separate claims 14 & 15 of the Non-Final OA (pp. 5-8), and that the Applicant’s assertion that Wu requires identical frequencies, and therefore cannot be modified to have different frequencies without destroying its principle of operation, as further stated, “Wu discloses a similar frequency between the first filter circuit (the programmable filter 151) and the second filter circuit (the analog circuit 150) is required for reducing influence of capacitor. However, Wu’s similar frequency concept modified by different frequencies of concept provided by Chang will change the principle of Wu’s similar frequency for reducing influence of capacitor...,” and while Wu, in view of Chang will cause Wu changing the principle of operation thereof, as may we known,…” in pp. 20-22 of Applicant remarks.
The Examiner appreciates the explanation and rationale, but respectfully disagrees, and concludes the interpretation of the reference(s) has(ve) been narrowed. Wu acknowledges that achieving perfectly identical frequency responses between the detection path (first filtering element) and the reference path (second filtering element/analog circuit 150) is nearly impossible in a real-world application. Further, Wu, discloses that because the self-capacitance of each detection electrode cannot be precisely known beforehand, therefore, the analog circuit is designed using estimations. Due to this limitation, Wu designs the system to operate with a frequency difference. Wu, further states, that the frequency difference between the pole frequencies of the first filtering circuit and the second filtering circuit is designed to be lower than 35% of the first filtering circuit’s pole frequencies, in Wu ([0043], [0045]-[0047], & [Claim 3]). Wu describes a principle of operation relies on a system where the first and second filtering elements posses “similar,” but different cutoff frequencies (i.e., a different of greater than 0% and less than 35%, but preferably less than 20%). Amended independent claim 14 broadly recites “… said first filtering element and said second filtering element have different cutoff frequencies,…”, therefore Wu discloses, suggests, and/or teaches the claimed feature(s), further corroborated by Chang, please refer to Non-Final OA pp. 5-8.
Furthermore, Chang is relied upon to teach specific frequency relationships for noise compensation. Applying Chang’s teachings to Wu does not change Wu’s principle of operation. Adjusting the exact cutoff frequencies within Wu’s disclosed operational tolerance window (a difference of up to 35% disclosed in [0043], [0045]-[0047], & [Claim 3]) to accommodate Chang’s noise processing techniques ([Abstract], [0029], & [0035]) represents the routine optimization of a known result and range, which is well within the ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the proposed modification does not destroy Wu’s baseline cancellation function or come in conflict with In re Ratti. Please also refer to MPEP 1504.03(I),1504.03(II), 2143.02(I), 2143.02(II), 2144.04, and 2145(III). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). As to making a prima facie case of obviousness, upon review, the Examiner’s rejection satisfied the requirements for applying Rationale(s) A, E, and G in 2143(I)(A), 2143(I)(E), and 2143(I)(G). For the above stated reasoning, the prior art references Wu, in view of Chang, disclose the limitations that have been amended and included in independent claim 14, and meet these requirements. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejection(s) of amended independent claim 14, and dependent claims 16-26, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 14, are respectively maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, & 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 3 & 16, “wherein said a first terminal”, in line 1, should read “wherein a first terminal”, “a first terminal of said second filtering element…”, in ll. 5-6 should read “said first terminal of said second filtering element…”, and “a second terminal of said second filtering element…” in line 8 should read “said second terminal of said second filtering element…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-14, & 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 & 14 recite the limitation "…said first filtering element and said second filtering element have different cutoff frequencies…" in ll. 10-11 & ll. 9-10, respectively. The claim language must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds. Therefore the claims are considered indefinite, since the resulting amended claim language does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the “…different cutoff frequencies…”. Claims 3-13 & 16-26 are rejected by virtue of dependence to amended independent claims 1 & 14, which to not rectify the defect(s).
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 14, 18, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 110286787 A, Pub. Date Sept. 27, 2019, hereinafter, Wu) in view of Chang (US 2019/0196652 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 27, 2019, hereinafter, Chang).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wu, teaches:
A sensing device, comprising (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], [0025], & [0032]: capacitive touch device 1 constitutes a sensing device):
a sensing circuit, generating a sensing signal ([0028] & [0032]-[0034]: touch panel 13 containing detection electrodes 131 (sensing circuitry) that generate sensing signals based on self-capacitance Cs);
an analog-front-end (AFE) circuit, coupled to said sensing circuit and receiving said sensing signal (Fig. 1; [0034]-[0036]: analog front end 15 coupled to the detection electrodes via the input pins); and
a noise compensation circuit, coupled to said sensing circuit and said AFE circuit (Fig. 2; [0036]-[0037]: combination of the analog circuit 150 that includes analog front end 15 (AFE circuit), programmable filter 151 (sensing path/circuit) and subtraction circuit 152 (noise compensation circuit)), including a first filtering element, a second filtering element, and an operation element (Fig. 2; [0036]-[0037]: first filtering element (programmable filter 151), second filtering element (analog circuit 150), operation element (subtraction element 152)), said first filtering element generating a first filtered signal according to a corresponding sensing reference signal of said sensing signal (Figs. 2, 3, & 4A-4B; [0011], [0034]-[0036], & [0042]: the first filtering circuit 151 generating the detection signal So1 (first filtered signal) from the sensing electrode input, reference signal Sd, which drives the sensing circuit), said second filtering element generating a second filtered signal according to an analog reference signal (Figs. 2, 3, & 4A-4B; [Abstract], [0011], [0034]-[0035], [0037], & [0039]: the analog circuit 150 (second filter) generating reference signal Sref (second filtered signal) from the drive signal Sd (analog reference)),
said first filtering element and said second filtering element ([0043] & [0045]-[0046]: discloses the analog circuit (second filter) is an estimation of the first filter, their parameters, RC values, are not identical, resulting in a frequency difference between their pole frequencies (cutoff frequencies))
said operation element generating a noise compensation signal according to said first filtered signal and said second filtered signal ([0036]-[0037]: the subtraction circuit 152 generating the differential detection signal Sdiff (noise compensation signal) by performing a differential operation on So1 and Sref), and said AFE circuit compensating said sensing signal according to said noise compensation signal (Fig. 4A; [0039]-[0040]: AFE uses the resulting differential signal Sdiff (which has the noise/offset removed) as the compensated signal for subsequent downstream processing (e.g., Gain, ADC), where the cancellation value reduces the capacitor size requirement).
Wu, is silent in regard to:
have different cutoff frequencies,
However, Wu, in combination with Chang, further teach:
have different cutoff frequencies (Wu: Fig. 2; [0043], [0045]-[0046], & [Claim 3]: acknowledges the filters operate with different pole (cutoff) frequencies due to estimation tolerances; Chang: Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: teaches a sensing AFE with multiple filters (AAF 122 and Comb 124) configured to have distinct frequency responses/bandwidths (different cutoffs) to optimize signal processing, Fig. 5 shows the AAF bandwidth (solid line) and Comb Filter response (dashed line) having different frequency profiles),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the front-end filtering architecture of Wu with the specific noise compensation filtering circuit taught by Chang, which represents a substitution of one known filtering technique for another to yield predictable results. Chang, further teaches adding to an AFE circuit 110 a noise compensation circuit utilizing cascaded filtering elements (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 122 and comb filter 124) having different operation and cutoff frequencies (e.g., 0-1 MHz operation frequency) to process and compensate a sensing signal ([0006]-[0008] & [0029]). The motivation to combine these references is to improve the noise rejection capabilities of the touch panel system, by enabling the circuit to effectively filter out both high-frequency out-of-band noise and artifacts that interfere with noise detection. A POSITA would recognize that incorporating Chang’s multi-stage filtering approach (AAF 122 and comb filter 124) into Wu’s analog front end to augment its first and second filtering circuits (150 & 151), would optimize and improve the noise cancellation performance, ensuring a robust and compensated differential detection signal output with expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claims 5 & 18, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032], [0043], [0045-[0046], & [Claim 3]), wherein said analog reference signal corresponds to an operating voltage of said AFE circuit (Figs. 1 & 3; [0011], [0032], & [0034]-[0035]: the drive signal Sd (analog reference signal) generated by the drive circuit 11, which corresponds to the supply voltage (operating voltage) of the control chip 100 containing the analog front end 15, discloses the drive circuit and AFE are part of the same control chip 100, the drive circuit generates the drive signal Sd to stimulate the panel).
Regarding independent claim 14, Wu, teaches:
A sensing device (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], [0025], & [0032]: capacitive touch device 1 constitutes a sensing device), coupled to a sensing circuit ([0028] & [0032]-[0036]: touch panel 13 containing detection electrodes 131 (sensing circuitry), the control chip 100 is coupled to the touch panel 13 and the programmable filter 151) and a first filtering element ([0032]-[0036]: first filtering element (programmable filter 151)), said sensing circuit generating a sensing signal ([0028] & [0032]-[0034]: touch panel 13 containing detection electrodes 131 (sensing circuitry) that generate sensing signals based on self-capacitance Cs), said first filtering element coupled to said sensing circuit and generating a first filtered signal according to a corresponding sensing reference signal of said sensing signal (Figs. 2, 3, & 4A-4B; [0011], [0034]-[0036], & [0042]: the first filtering circuit 151 generating coupled to the electrodes, generate the detection signal So1 (first filtered signal) from the sensing electrode input, reference signal Sd, which drives the sensing circuit), and comprising:
an analog-front-end (AFE) circuit, coupled to said sensing circuit and receiving said sensing signal (Fig. 1; [0034]-[0036]: analog front end 15 coupled to the detection electrodes via the input pins); a second filtering element ([0036]-[0037]: second filtering element (analog circuit 150), generating a second filtered signal according to an analog reference signal corresponding to said AFE circuit (Figs. 2, 3, & 4A-4B; [Abstract], [0011], [0034]-[0035], [0037], & [0039]: the analog circuit 150 (second filter) generating reference signal Sref (second filtered signal) from the drive signal Sd (analog reference), which is the operating signal of the AFE), said first filtering element and said second filtering element ([0043] & [0045]-[0046]: discloses the analog circuit (second filter) is an estimation of the first filter, their parameters, RC values, are not identical, resulting in a frequency difference between their pole frequencies (cutoff frequencies))
an operation element (Fig. 2; [0036]-[0037]: operation element (subtraction element 152)), coupled to said first filtering element, said second filtering element, and said AFE circuit ([0036]-[0037]: subtraction element 152 (operation element) is coupled to the programmable filter 151 (first filtering element), the analog circuit 150 (second filtering element) and is part of the AFE circuitry), generating a noise compensation signal according to said first filtered signal and said second filtered signal ([0037]: the subtraction circuit 152 generating the differential detection signal Sdiff (noise compensation signal) by performing a differential operation on So1 and Sref), and said AFE circuit compensating said sensing signal according to said noise compensation signal (Fig. 4A; [0039]-[0040]: AFE uses the resulting differential signal Sdiff (which has the noise/offset removed) as the compensated signal for subsequent downstream processing (e.g., Gain, ADC), where the cancellation value reduces the capacitor size requirement).
Wu, is silent in regard to:
have different cutoff frequencies; and
However, Wu, in combination with Chang, further teach:
have different cutoff frequencies (Wu: Fig. 2; [0043], [0045]-[0046], & [Claim 3]: acknowledges the filters operate with different pole (cutoff) frequencies due to estimation tolerances; Chang: Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: teaches a sensing AFE with multiple filters (AAF 122 and Comb 124) configured to have distinct frequency responses/bandwidths (different cutoffs) to optimize signal processing, Fig. 5 shows the AAF bandwidth (solid line) and Comb Filter response (dashed line) having different frequency profiles); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the front-end filtering architecture of Wu with the specific noise compensation filtering circuit taught by Chang, which represents a substitution of one known filtering technique for another to yield predictable results. Chang, further teaches adding to an AFE circuit 110 a noise compensation circuit utilizing cascaded filtering elements (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 122 and comb filter 124) having different operation and cutoff frequencies (e.g., 0-1 MHz operation frequency) to process and compensate a sensing signal ([0006]-[0008] & [0029]). The motivation to combine these references is to improve the noise rejection capabilities of the touch panel system, by enabling the circuit to effectively filter out both high-frequency out-of-band noise and artifacts that interfere with noise detection. A POSITA would recognize that incorporating Chang’s multi-stage filtering approach (AAF 122 and comb filter 124) into Wu’s analog front end to augment its first and second filtering circuits (150 & 151), would optimize and improve the noise cancellation performance, ensuring a robust and compensated differential detection signal output with expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claims 8 & 21, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032]), wherein said first filtering element and said second filtering element are bandpass filtering elements ([0036]-[0037]: discloses that both the first filtering circuit (sensing) and the second filtering circuit (analog/reference) can be configured as band-pass filters (BPF)),
Wu, is silent in regard to:
in which a first cutoff frequency and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element are greater than or smaller than a third cutoff frequency and a fourth cutoff frequency of said second filtering element.
However, Chang, further teaches:
n which a first cutoff frequency and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element are greater than or smaller than a third cutoff frequency and a fourth cutoff frequency of said second filtering element (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: teaches designing filters with distinct bandwidths/frequencies (e.g., Band1 ≠ Band2), demonstrating operating filters at distinct frequency ranges (Band A vs Band B), motivating the offset cutoffs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu’s BPFs to operate at different frequency bands as taught by Wu and Chang, for distinct bandwidth management, so that the first filtering element, tuned to a first band, would have cutoff frequencies greater than or smaller than the second filtering element, tuned to a second band, to pass a different frequency, would inherently result in the first cutoff frequencies being greater than the second cutoff frequencies, enabling the device to separate the driving signal from specific frequency noise or to sense multiple driving frequencies simultaneously or dedicated noise monitoring, where the BPF has two cutoffs (upper/lower). If filter 1 is tuned to a high frequency (e.g., signal band) and filter 2 (e.g., Noise Band), the cutoffs of filter 1 would be greater than the cutoffs of filter 2. The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 159 6 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Circ. 2000). See also Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Claims 3-4, 13, 16, & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view of Chang, and further in view of Lin (TW 201917550 A, Pub. Date May 1, 2019, hereinafter, Lin).
Regarding dependent claims 3 & 16, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032]), wherein said a first terminal of said first filtering element is coupled between said sensing circuit and a first reference power supply (Fig. 3; [0011] & [0035]: the first filtering circuit (resistor Rin) has an input (first terminal) coupled to the node between the detection electrode 131 (sensing circuit) and the drive circuit 11 (first reference power supply), Fig. 3 illustrates Rin connected to the node between the electrode 131 and the capacitor Cin leading to the driver); which supplies said sensing reference signal to said sensing circuit ([0034]: discloses drive circuit 11 (first ref. power supply) supplying the drive signal Sd (sensing ref. signal) to the detection electrodes 131 (sensing circuit)); a second terminal of said first filtering element is coupled to said operation element (Figs. 1 & 3; [0037]: discloses the output of the programmable filter 151 (second terminal) is coupled to the subtraction circuit 152 (operation element)); which supplies said analog reference signal to said noise compensation circuit (Fig. 3; [0012]-[0013], [0034], & [0036]-[0037]: drive circuit 11 supplies the drive signal Sd (analog reference signal) to the analog circuit 150 (part of the noise compensation circuit and also referred to as the second filtering element)); a second terminal of said second filtering element is coupled to said operation element (Fig. 3; [0036]-[0037]: the output (second terminal) of the analog circuit 150 (second filtering element) coupled to the subtraction circuit 152 (operation element)); and said operation element is further coupled to said AFE circuit (Figs. 2-3; [0039]-[0040]: subtraction circuit 152 (operation element) coupled to the gain circuit 153 and subsequent AFE stages, where the subtractor is part of the AFE block but coupled to the downstream AFE components).
Wu, is silent in regard to:
a first terminal of said second filtering element is coupled to a second reference voltage source;
However, Lin, further teaches:
a first terminal of said second filtering element is coupled to a second reference voltage source (Figs. 1A & 4; [Pg. 3, ll. 10-22 & 30-37], [Pg. 5, ll. 36-39], [Pg. 6, ll. 1-7], & [Pg. 9, ll. 8-24]: teaches the first end of the second filtering devices (FT2) coupled to a second path (reference) voltage source VCC or ground, Fig. 1A illustrates switches connected the reference path to voltage sources VCC, Wu connects (coupled) the input (first terminal) of the analog circuit 150 (second filtering element) to the drive circuit 11),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Wu’s analog circuit connection using the standard voltage source coupling taught by Lin to ensure a stable reference potential for the noise compensation operation, using a second reference voltage source (even if it’s the same hardware unit as the first source, as taught by Wu, to supply the reference path is a standard design practice affirmed by Lin. Wu connects the analog circuit 150 (second filtering element) directly to the drive signal Sd. Lin reinforces the reference voltage source, teaching that in differential sensing, the reference path is coupled to a voltage source, like VCC in Fig. 1A, to establish the reference signal VSR. Combining Wu and Lin, where it is obvious to couple the second filtering element to a second reference voltage source (which can also be the same hardware as the first source, i.e., drive circuit 11/Vcc) to generate the necessary analog reference for noise compensation, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claim 3 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032]), further comprising a sensing terminal and a non-sensing terminal (Fig. 1; [0011] & [0049]: the I/O pins of the control chip 100 (non-sensing terminal) connecting to the touch panel 13 (sensing terminal), discloses two distinct connection points (terminals) for each electrode in the self-capacitance mode: one for the first end (input) and one for the second end (output), Fig. 1 illustrates multiple pins (squares with ‘X’) connecting the control chip 100 to the touch panel 13), said sensing circuit coupled to said AFE circuit via said sensing terminal (Fig. 3; [0011]-[0012] & [0049]: the detection electrode 131 (sensing circuit) coupled to the input resistor Rin (AFE/Filter Input) via the chip’s input pin (sensing terminal) connected to the electrode’s signal output terminal), and said first terminal of said first filtering element coupled between said sensing circuit and said sensing reference signal via said non-sensing terminal (Fig. 3; [0011]-[0012] & [0049]:the first filtering circuit (programmable filter 151/input resistor Rin (first terminal)/first filtering element) coupled to the drive signal Sd (sensing reference signal) via the first end of the electrode (connected to the non-sensing/drive terminal), Fig. 3 illustrates the circuit path: drive 11 (Sd)>switch>Cin>electrode 131> Rin (filter)).
Regarding dependent claims 13 & 26, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032]),
Wu, in combination with Chang, are silent in regard to:
wherein said AFE circuit includes an amplifier circuit; said amplifier circuit receives said sensing signal and said noise compensation signal and compensates said sensing signal according to said noise compensation signal for reducing a noise in said sensing signal.
However, Lin, further teaches:
wherein said AFE circuit includes an amplifier circuit ([Pg. 2, ll. 25-35], [Pg. 6, ll. 32-39], & [Pg. 15, Claim 15, ll. 15-19]: teaches that the processing circuit (integrating circuit 130) includes an operational amplifier (amplifier circuit)); said amplifier circuit receives said sensing signal and said noise compensation signal (Fig. 1A; [Pg. 2, ll. 5-14 & 25-36], [Pg. 3, ll. 10-16 & 23-29], [Pg. 6, ll. 32-39], & [Pg. 12, Claim 1, ll. 5-13]: discloses the op-amp receives the touch sensing voltage VTS (sensing) and sense reference voltage VSR (compensation)) and compensates said sensing signal according to said noise compensation signal for reducing a noise in said sensing signal ([Pg. 2, ll. 5-19], [Pg. 3, ll. 23-29], [Pg. 12, Claim 1, ll. 5-13], & [Pg. 13, Claim 4, ll. 13-16]: teaches using the voltage difference (Vdiff = VTS – VSR) at the amplifier to avoid circuit interference (noise)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the operational amplifier structure taught by Lin to implement the subtraction function in Wu. A POSITA would also recognize that Wu’s subtraction circuit is functionally a differential amplifier, where Lin’s differential amplifier structure avoids circuit interference (i.e., reduces noise) affecting the sensing result. Therefore the combination focuses on the amplifier circuit performing the compensation/noise reduction. Furthermore, Wu, teaches the broad concept of a subtraction circuit in the AFE that takes a sensing signal (So) and subtracts a reference signal (Sref) to output a compensated signal (Sdiff), to cancel out the base capacitance or noise. Thereby, improving sensitivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR).
Claims 6 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view of Chang, and further in view of Yang (US 2023/0400946 A1, Fil. Date Jan. 4, 2023, hereinafter, Yang).
Regarding dependent claims 6 & 19, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032]), wherein said first filtering element is a first high-pass filtering element ([0036]: discloses that the first filtering circuit (formed by input resistor, amp, and self-capacitance) can be a high-pass filter (HPF))
Wu, in combination with Change, are silent in regard to:
and said second filtering element is a second low-pass filtering element;
However, Yang, further teaches:
and said second filtering element is a second low-pass filtering element ([0021]: teaches determining noise using filtering circuit 223 that is specifically a low-pass filter (LPF) to remove high-frequency touch signals);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu’s reference path (second filter) to be a low-pass filter as taught by Yang (to extract low-frequency noise), to separate the noise (low frequency) from the touch signal (high frequency), optimizing and improving the noise cancellation performance, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Wu, is silent in regard to:
and a first cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is greater than a second cutoff frequency of said second filtering element.
However, Chang, further teaches:
and a first cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is greater than a second cutoff frequency of said second filtering element (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: teaches designing filters with different cutoff frequencies (preset bandwidths) for signal optimization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu’s reference path (second filter) to be a low-pass filter, as taught by Yang (to extract low-frequency noise), using parallel filters with different cutoff frequencies, as taught by Chang’s multi-stage approach. Teaching designing filters with different cutoff frequencies for signal optimization(f1>f2), to ensure the high-frequency touch signal passed by the first filter is effectively blocked by the second filter, optimizing and improving the noise cancellation performance, Wu establishes the first filter is a HPF (passing high frequencies), Yang establishes the second filter is a LPF (passing low frequencies and cutting off high frequencies), yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 7, 9-10, 20, & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view of Chang, and further in view of Lin.
Regarding dependent claims 7 & 20, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032]), and said second filtering element is a second high-pass filtering element ([0036]-[0037]: discloses that the filtering circuits in the device can be a high-pass filter (HPF), retaining this teaching for the second element to create the claimed symmetry);
Wu, in combination with Chang, are silent in regard to:
wherein said first filtering element is a first low-pass filtering element
However, Lin, further teaches:
wherein said first filtering element is a first low-pass filtering element (Figs.1A & 4; [Pg. 9, ll. 8-24]: teaches using a low-pass filter (LPF) in the sensing path (composed of RC) to filter signals)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a band-pass filter for the sensing path, as taught by Wu, to isolate the specific driving frequency, use a low-pass filter for the reference path, as taught by Lin. In order to establish a stable DC/low-frequency baseline reference, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious (KSR).
Wu, is silent in regard to:
and a first cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is smaller than a second cutoff frequency of said second filtering element.
However, Chang, further teaches:
and a first cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is smaller than a second cutoff frequency of said second filtering element (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: teaches designing filters with specific distinct bandwidths (cutoff frequencies), demonstrates setting cutoff 1 (e.g., 1 MHz) < cutoff 2 (e.g., 2.4 MHz), if the first element is LPF (passing low freq. e.g., < 1 MHz per Chang) and the second element is a HPF (passing high freq.), the LPF cutoff f1, is designed to be smaller than the HPF cutoff f2 to separate the signal band from the noise band).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first filtering element (sensing) as a low-pass filter, as taught by Lin, to pass the low-frequency touch signal, configure the second filtering element (reference) as a high-pass filter, as taught by Wu. In order to isolate high-frequency noise or interference for compensation, and design the first cutoff frequency (f1) to be smaller than the second cutoff frequency (f2), in view of Chang, ensuring that the low-frequency signal band (passed by the LPF) does not overlap with the high-frequency noise band (passed by the HPF). Wu further discloses the basic first filtering element (sensing path) and second filtering element (reference path) structure, teaching that filters can be high-pass filters. Lin discloses a capacitive sensing circuit where the filtering elements are low-pass filters composed of resistors and capacitors, providing the motivation to modify Wu’s sensing path to use a LPF, to capture low-frequency touch signals instead of HPF. Chang, further discloses signal processing circuits using multiple filters with different distinct cutoff frequencies/bandwidths (e.g., 0-1MHz vs. 2.4 MHz) to optimize signal separation, which supports the limitation of designing the system such that the first cutoff LPF is smaller than the second cutoff (HPF), providing expected predictable results (KSR), since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routing skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding dependent claims 9 & 22, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032]), wherein said first filtering element is a first bandpass filtering element ([0036]: discloses that the filtering circuit 151 can be a band-pass filter (BPF))
Wu, in combination with Chang, are silent in regard to:
and said second filtering element is a second low-pass filtering element;
However, Lin, further teaches:
and said second filtering element is a second low-pass filtering element (Figs.1A & 4; [Pg. 9, ll. 8-24]: teaches using low-pass filters (LPF) in sensing/reference paths);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Lin’s first LPF in the reference path to filter out high-frequency noise and capture stable baseline data, and to establish a stable DC/low-frequency baseline reference, and using a band-pass filter for the sensing, as taught by Wu. In order to isolate the specific driving frequency, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious (KSR).
Wu, is silent in regard to:
and a first cutoff frequency and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element are greater than a third cutoff frequency of said second filtering element.
However, Chang, further teaches:
and a first cutoff frequency and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element are greater than a third cutoff frequency of said second filtering element (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: teaches designing filters with distinct bandwidths (e.g., Band A vs Band B) and demonstrates operating different filters at different frequency ranges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a band-pass filter for sensing path, as taught by Wu, to isolate the specific driving frequency, use a low-pass filter for the reference path, as taught by Lin, to establish a stable DC/Low-frequency baseline reference, and design the filters such that the band-pass cutoffs (signal band) are greater than the low-pass cutoff (noise/baseline band), in view of Chang, thereby effectively separating the high-frequency signal from the low-frequency signal. A BPF (first element) has a first cutoff (lower) and a second cutoff (upper), an LPF (second element) has a third cutoff (upper limit of low band), and Chang provides the engineering motivation to design these filters with specific, non-overlapping bandwidths. Therefore, if the first filtering element (BPF) is designed to pass the high-frequency drive signal (e.g., 100 kHz – 2—kHz) and the second element (LPF) is designed to pass low-frequency baseline noise (e.g., 0Hz – 10 kHz), then inherently both cutoff frequencies of the BPF (100 kHz and 200 kHz) are greater than the cutoff frequency of the LPF (10 kHz), yielding expected predictable results (KSR). The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art, the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 159 6 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985), and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Regarding dependent claims 10 & 23, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032]), wherein said first filtering element is a first bandpass filtering element ([0036]: discloses that the first filtering circuit 151 can be configured as a band-pass filter (BPF) to process the sensing signal) and said second filtering element is a second high-pass filtering element ([0037]: discloses the second filtering circuit 150 can be a high-pass filter circuit);
Wu, is silent in regard to:
and a first cutoff frequency and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element are smaller than a third cutoff frequency of said second filtering element.
However, Chang, further teaches:
and a first cutoff frequency and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element are smaller than a third cutoff frequency of said second filtering element (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: teaches designing filters with distinct bandwidths (e.g., 0-1 MHz vs 2.4 MHz), and demonstrates the principle of operating a first filter at a lower frequency range than a second filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first filtering element as a band-pass filter, to select the specific driving signal band and the second filtering element as a high-pass filter, to monitor high- frequency noise/interference, as taught by Wu, applying Chang’s teaching to Wu by tuning the first BPF to the driving signal frequency (e.g., 100 kHz) and the second HPF to a high-frequency noise band (e.g., > 1 MHz) to allow for noise compensation without cancelling the signal. Furthermore, in view of Chang, would be obvious to design these filters such that the band-pass filter band is lower in frequency than the high-pass noise band, satisfying the limitation that the first filter’s cutoffs are smaller than the second filter’s cutoff, if the BPF captures the signal (low/mid freq.) and the HPF captures the noise (high freq.), the BPF passband is below the HPF passband, thus f1 (e.g., 90 kHz and 100 kHz) and f2 are both smaller than f3 (e.g., 1 MHz), satisfying the claimed relationship and yielding expected predictable results (KSR). The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art, the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 159 6 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988), Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985), and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view Chang, in view of Lin, and further in view of Byun et al. (US 2011/0242050 A1, Pub. Date Oct. 6, 2011, hereinafter, Byun).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claim 16 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], & [0032]), further comprising a sensing terminal and a non-sensing terminal (Fig. 1; [0011] & [0049]: the I/O pins of the control chip 100 (non-sensing terminal) connecting to the touch panel 13 (sensing terminal), discloses two distinct connection points (terminals) for each electrode in the self-capacitance mode: one for the first end (input) and one for the second end (output), Fig. 1 illustrates multiple pins (squares with ‘X’) connecting the control chip 100 to the touch panel 13), said sensing circuit coupled to said AFE circuit via said sensing terminal (Fig. 3; [0011]-[0012] & [0049]: the detection electrode 131 (sensing circuit) coupled to the input resistor Rin (AFE/Filter Input) via the chip’s input pin (sensing terminal) connected to the electrode’s signal output terminal),
Wu, in combination with Chang, and Lin, are silent in regard to:
and said second terminal of said first filtering element coupled to said operation element via said non-sensing terminal.
However, Byun, further teaches:
and said second terminal of said first filtering element coupled to said operation element via said non-sensing terminal ([Fig. 7C; [0012]-[0013], [0060], [0063], [0068]-[0069], [0071], [0099], [Claim 3], [Claim 11], & [Claim 22]: teaches an operation element (differential op-amp) that receives signals via an inversion input terminal (non-sensing terminal), teaches the second end of the first filtering element (RS1,CS) is coupled to the compensator 730 (operation element) through the non-sensing terminal (VCOMIN), the charge amplifier 750 is used to couple a sensing circuit and receive a sensing signal, and couple a compensation circuit and receive a filter signal to output a sensing error signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu’s device to route the connection between the filtering element and the operation element via a non-sensing terminal (e.g., a dedicated feedback pin, a reference input pin, or an external component pin) as taught by Byun. Byun further teaches that using a distinct terminal (e.g., the inversion input) allows the operation element to receive a compensation signal or connect to an external tuning component (e.g., Byun’s negative capacitor) to effectively cancel parasitic capacitance. The modification provides design flexibility, to enable robust differential noise cancellation that relies on an external reference signal, like Byun’s common electrode voltage, or a feedback loop, yielding expected predictable results (KSR). See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 159 6 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Circ. 2000). See also Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Claims 11-12 & 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view Chang, and further in view of Kent (US 2008/0062151 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 13, 2008, hereinafter, Kent).
Regarding dependent claims 11 & 24, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], [0032], & [0042]), and said second filtering element is a second bandpass filtering element ([0036]-[0037]: discloses that the second filtering circuit 150 can be configured as a band-pass filter (BPF));
Wu, in combination with Chang, are silent in regard to:
wherein said first filtering element is a first band-stop filtering element
However, Kent, further teaches:
wherein said first filtering element is a first band-stop filtering element (Fig. 30; [Abstract] & [0277]-[0278]: teaches using a band-stop filter (notch filter) in sensing devices to attenuate specific unwanted frequency bands (e.g., resonance), Wu discloses the first filtering circuit)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wu’s first filtering element to be a band-stop filter to operate at different frequency bands as taught by Kent. Wu discloses the first filtering element and second filtering element architecture, teaches using band-pass filters (BPF). Kent teaches the use of band-stop filters in sensing systems to reject unwanted frequencies (i.e., resonance or interference), providing the motivation to configure the first filtering element in Wu as a band-stop filter to attain the suppression of specific noise bands in the sensing signal, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR). The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 159 6 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Circ. 2000). See also Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Wu, is silent in regard to:
a first cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is smaller than a third cutoff frequency of said second filtering element; and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is greater than a fourth cutoff frequency of said second filtering element.
However, Chang, further teaches:
a first cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is smaller than a third cutoff frequency of said second filtering element ([Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: Fig. 5 illustrates filter band forms, teaches designing filters with distinct bandwidths (e.g., 0-1 MHz vs 2.4 MHz), and demonstrates the principle of operating a first filter at a lower frequency range than a second filter) e.g., f1<f3); and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is greater than a fourth cutoff frequency of said second filtering element ([Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: Fig. 5 illustrates filter band forms, teaches designing filters with distinct bandwidths (e.g., 0-1 MHz vs 2.4 MHz), demonstrating operating filters at distinct frequency ranges (Band A vs Band B), first element (band-stop) with a high cutoff f2 and second element (band-pass) with a high cutoff f4 but lower than f2, e.g., f2>f4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Wu’s BPFs to operate at different frequency bands as taught by Chang. Wu discloses the first filtering element and second filtering element architecture, teaches using band-pass filters (BPF), Kent teaches the use of band-stop filters in sensing systems to reject unwanted frequencies (i.e., resonance or interference), providing the motivation to configure the first filtering element in Wu as a band-stop filter to suppress specific noise bands in the sensing signal/ Chang discloses filters with distinct cutoff frequencies (e.g., passbands vs. stopbands) to optimize signal separation, supporting the claim limitation that describes nesting the frequency bands, where the band-stop filter (first element) has a wider stopband that encompasses the narrower passband of the band-pass filter (second element). The logic the relationship describes in a band-pass inside band-stop spectral configuration is (f1<f3 and f2>f4), where the band-stop (first element) rejects a band from f1 to f2, and band-pass (second element) passes a narrow band from f3 to f4, the result is that the reference path (second element) isolates a specific signal (e.g., the driving carrier) that lies inside the frequency band being rejected/suppressed by the sensing path (first element), which is a known technique for signal separation, and would yield expected predictable results (KSR). The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 159 6 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Circ. 2000). See also Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Regarding dependent claims 12 & 25, Wu, teaches:
The sensing device of claims 1 & 14 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract], [0011]-[0012], [0032], & [0042]), wherein said first filtering element is a first bandpass filtering element ([0036]-[0037]: discloses that the first filtering circuit 151 can be a band-pass filter (BPF))
Wu, in combination with Chang, are silent in regard to:
and said second filtering element is a second band-stop filtering element;
However, Kent, further teaches:
and said second filtering element is a second band-stop filtering element (Fig. 30; [Abstract] & [0277]-[0278]: teaches using band-stop filters to reject specific frequencies, discusses acoustic/touch sensors requiring frequency selectivity and rejection of specific bands, Wu discloses the second filtering element);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify reference path (second filtering element) to be a band-stop filter, as taught by Kent, to improve a noise cancellation system, where the reference path would capture broadband noise while rejecting the driving signal (so you don’t subtract the signal you are trying to measure, preserving it from cancellation) while passing all other frequencies (broadband noise) to be subtracted from the main signal. The reference band-stop filter would have a wider stop window than the sensing band-pass filter’s window, to ensure the drive signal is fully preserved in the sensing path but blocked in the reference path, yielding expected predictable results (KSR). The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 159 6 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Circ. 2000). See also Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Wu, is silent in regard to:
a first cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is greater than a third cutoff frequency of said second filtering element; and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is smaller than a fourth cutoff frequency of said second filtering element.
However, Chang, further teaches:
a first cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is greater than a third cutoff frequency of said second filtering element ([Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: Fig. 5 illustrates filter band forms, teaches designing filters with distinct bandwidths (e.g., 0-1 MHz vs 2.4 MHz), tuning the cutoffs relative to each other for signal isolation, and demonstrates the principle of operating a first filter at a higher frequency range than a second filter) e.g., f1>f3); and a second cutoff frequency of said first filtering element is smaller than a fourth cutoff frequency of said second filtering element ([Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0029], & [0035]: Fig. 5 illustrates filter band forms, teaches designing filters with distinct bandwidths (e.g., 0-1 MHz vs 2.4 MHz), demonstrating operating filters at distinct frequency ranges (Band A vs Band B), first element (band-pass) with a high cutoff f2 and second element (band-stop) with a high cutoff f4 but higher than f2, e.g., f2<f4, this configuration (band-pass inside band-stop) allows the first path to see the signal and the second path to see everything except the signal (noise)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify reference path (second filtering element) to be a band-stop filter, as taught by Kent, to improve a noise cancellation system, where the reference path would capture broadband noise while rejecting the driving signal (so you don’t subtract the signal you are trying to measure, preserving it from cancellation) while passing all other frequencies (broadband noise) to be subtracted from the main signal, the reference band-stop filter would have a wider stop window than the sensing band-pass filter’s window, to ensure the drive signal is fully preserved in the sensing path but blocked in the reference path. Therefore the band-pass frequency range [f1 & f2] sit inside the band-stop frequency range [f3 & f4], and mathematically, this means the band-pass lower cutoff (f1) is greater than the band-stop lower cutoff (f3) and the band-pass upper cutoff (f2) is smaller than the band-stop upper cutoff (f4), this specific cutoff relationship is the result of nesting the signal passband inside the stopband to ensure robust isolation, a design principle supported by Chang’s teaching of precise bandwidth management, and yield expected predictable results (KSR). The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 159 6 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Circ. 2000). See also Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US2024/0004499A1) discloses an input sensing device that includes first and second driving electrodes, and sensing electrodes, and a sensing driver that transmits a first driving signal to the first driving electrodes at a first frequency, transmits a second driving signal to the second driving electrodes at a second frequency, and determines a touch or approach of an external object based on sensing signals received from the sensing electrodes. Wu (US2019/0042029A1) discloses a control chip for touch panel with high sensitivity and operating method thereof. Zamprogno (US2020/0233009A1) discloses a circuit for sensing analog signal, corresponding electronic system and method.
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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 July 13, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights