Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02-09-26 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppi et al. (US 2016/0054826) in view of King et al. (US 2018/0032211) and Chaudhri et al. (US 2016/0259542).
Regarding claim 1, Huppi (Fig. 1, 2, 4, and 5) discloses a touch detection and feedback button (eg. using a “virtual button” to “receive touch input” as discussed in [0064], and to provide “feedback” as discussed in [0065]), comprising:
a housing (10, including both enclosure 14 and a cover glass 102) having a mounting cavity provided therein (called an “air gap” in [0057]);
an ultrasonic transmitting terminal (shown as the rows Tx1 and Tx2 in Fig. 6A, corresponding to “acoustic TX” in Fig. 5B, and part of a “force sensing module” as discussed in [0101]) provided in the mounting cavity (as seen in Fig. 5B, as part of 114 inside the cavity of the housing, see also [0057] which discusses how the force sensing module defines part of the air gap), and configured to transmit ultrasonic signals (“used to generate an ultrasonic pulse” discussed in [0101] and “emit an ultrasonic pulse” discussed in [0107]);
an ultrasonic receiving terminal (shown as the columns A, B, and C in Fig. 6A, corresponding to “acoustic RX” in Fig. 5B, part of a “force sensing module” as discussed in [0101]) provided in the mounting cavity (as seen in Fig. 5B, as part of 114 inside the cavity of the housing, see also [0057] which discusses how the force sensing module defines part of the air gap), and configured to receive the ultrasonic signals reflected from the housing (specifically, reflected from 102, as seen in Fig. 5B, with “receive a reflection of that ultrasonic pulse” discussed in [0101]);
a feedback output element (2012, with “haptic feedback” discussed in [0081]); and
a main control unit (2004) electrically connected to the ultrasonic transmitting terminal the ultrasonic receiving terminal, and the feedback output (seen in Fig. 4, 2004 is connected to the “force sensor” 2046, which includes both the ultrasonic transmitting terminal and ultrasonic receiving terminal, as well as the feedback output 2012).
However, although Huppi teaches the enclosure has a cavity within (the “air gap” discussed above), Huppi fails to teach or suggest further details about the cavity, and so fails to teach or suggest wherein the mounting cavity is a closed space, or wherein the feedback output element is provided in the mounting cavity, and also fails to teach or suggest wherein the feedback output element is a piezoelectric motor.
King (Fig. 1, 2, 15, 16, and 24) discloses a touch detection and feedback button, comprising:
a housing (202, also labelled 2400 in Fig. 24) having a mounting cavity provided therein (shown as the empty space in Fig. 24B), the mounting cavity being a closed space (eg. the inside of the housing, enclosed by the glass on top and the housing on the bottom, in Fig. 24B);
an ultrasonic transmitting terminal (1604A-D, with “ultrasonic acoustic waves” discussed in [0041]) provided in the mounting cavity (the transducers are “inside of the housing” as discussed in [0167]);
an ultrasonic receiving terminal (1605A-D) provided in the mounting cavity (the transducers are “inside of the housing” as discussed in [0167]);
a main control unit (called an “acoustic touch sensing circuit” and labelled 1500 in Fig. 15, and 1606 in Fig. 16) electrically connected to the ultrasonic transmitting terminal and the ultrasonic receiving terminal (as seen in Fig. 15, the acoustic touch sensing circuit is connected to both “transducers 1506A operating as transmitters” and “transducers 1506B operating as receivers,” see [0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huppi so the mounting cavity is a closed space and has the ultrasonic transmitting terminal the ultrasonic receiving terminal, and the feedback output as taught by King because both Huppi and King teach components inside an enclosure (eg. Huppi teaches the components are “surrounded by the housing” as discussed in [0023]), and this allows the components to be placed “such that a user would not be able to see or feel” them, providing protection and increasing the visual appearance of the device (see [0167]).
However, Huppi and King still fail to teach or suggest wherein the feedback output element is a piezoelectric motor.
Chaudhri (Fig. 1 and 5) discloses a touch detection and feedback button, comprising:
a housing (502);
a feedback output element (167, see also “haptic feedback” discussed in [0058]); and
a main control unit (including both 104 and 106) electrically connected to the feedback output (via 103 as seen in Fig. 1A, see also “components optionally communicate over one or more communication buses or signal lines 103” discussed in [0037]),
wherein the feedback output element is a piezoelectric motor (called a “piezoelectric actuator” in [0058]),
wherein the piezoelectric motor is controlled by the main control unit (as seen in Fig. 1, 103 and 106 control 167, more specifically with 161, also discussed in [0058]) to generate a vibration (“generates a tactile output by moving the touch-sensitive surface vertically (e.g., in/out of a surface of device 100) or laterally (e.g., back and forth in the same plane as a surface of device 100)” discussed in [0058], which the examiner interprets as reading upon the claimed “vibration”).
Additionally, the vibration of Chaudhri is according to the received signals that is received by a touch receiving terminal (“contact intensity sensor 165 receives tactile feedback generation instructions from haptic feedback module 133 and generates tactile outputs” discussed in [0058]).
Furthermore, Huppi teaches that the feedback from feedback output element (2012) is “based on the user's touch” (see [0081]), and the user’s touch determines an ultrasonic signal received by received by the ultrasonic receiving terminal (“ultrasonic pulse reaches the front surface of the cover glass, it would be reflected by the user's fingertip” so that “the ultrasonic pulse would be reflected, at least in part, back to the ultrasound-based sensor” as discussed in [0109]).
Therefore, the combination of Huppi and King with Chaudhri would provide a touch detection and feedback button wherein a feedback output element (corresponding to 2012 of Huppi and 167 of Chaudhri) generates a vibration “according to the received ultrasonic signals that is received by the ultrasonic receiving terminal” (for example, the user’s touch results in different ultrasonic signals being received, as taught by Huppi, while Chaudhri teaches those same touch signals result in different tactile feedback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huppi and King so the feedback output element is a piezoelectric motor and controlled by the main control unit as taught by Chaudhri because this allows the user to feel vibration feedback through the surface they are touching (eg. “a user will feel a tactile sensation such as an “down click” or “up click”” as discussed in [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri disclose a touch detection and feedback button as discussed above, and King further discloses a substrate (eg. a glass substrate 1602, seen in Fig. 16B) covering an opening provided on the housing and communicating with the mounting cavity (seen best in Fig. 24, the glass covers the opening on the top of the housing), wherein the ultrasonic transmitting terminal and the ultrasonic receiving terminal are provided on the substrate (as seen in Fig. 16B, connected to 1604 and 1605 via 1614 and 1612A, see [0129]), and the substrate is electrically connected to the main control unit (connected to 1606 via 1616 and the metal layers as seen in Fig. 16B, see also [0129]).
Chaudhri additionally discloses a substrate (corresponding to the “touch-sensitive surface” discussed in [0058], corresponding to the glass substrate 1602 of King), wherein the feedback output element is provided on the substrate (“at least one tactile output generator is collocated with, or proximate to, a touch-sensitive surface” as discussed in [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Huppi, King, and Chaudhri for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri disclose a touch detection and feedback button as discussed above, and King further discloses wherein the main control unit comprises:
a processor (2018) electrically connected to the ultrasonic transmitting terminal (connected to force sensor 2046 via signal line 2003-1 and 2006, as seen in Fig. 4) and the feedback output element (also connected to feedback output element 2012 via signal line 2003-1 and 2006, as seen in Fig. 4); and
an operational amplifier circuit (“amplifier” discussed in [0110] and seen in Fig. 6A) electrically connected to the ultrasonic receiving terminal (seen in Fig. 6A, and “ultrasound-based sensing element… corresponding to columns A, B, and C… is coupled to a sense amplifier” as discussed in [0110]).
Additionally, King further discloses wherein the main control unit comprises:
a processor (1608, called a “processor SOC”) electrically connected to the ultrasonic transmitting terminal (seen in Fig. 15, the transmitting terminal 1506A is connected to the “processor SOC” via 1512 and 1520);
an operational amplifier circuit (1510) electrically connected to the ultrasonic receiving terminal (seen in Fig. 15, the receiving terminal 1506B is connected to the 1510 via the MUX 1508); and
a peak envelope detection circuit (1515) electrically connected between the operational amplifier circuit and the processor (seen in Fig 16, 1515 is between the between the operational amplifier circuit 1510 on the left, and the processor SOC on the right).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Huppi, King, and Chaudhri for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri disclose a touch detection and feedback button as discussed above, and King further discloses wherein the main control unit further comprises:
an ultrasonic driving chip (1502-1504, see “all of the transmit circuitry (e.g., components 1502-1504) can be implemented in one chip” discussed in [0127], while with regards to “driving,” “transmitter 1502 (corresponding to transmitter 402)” discussed in [0126], and “402 can generate an electrical signal for stimulating movement of one or more of a plurality of transducers 406” as discussed in [0053], with the examiner interpreting “generating signals for stimulating movement” to read upon the claimed “driving”) electrically connected between the processor and the ultrasonic transmitting terminal (1502-1504 are connected between the processor SOC on the bottom via 1512 and 1520, and the ultrasonic transmitting terminal 1506A on the right).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Huppi, King, and Chaudhri for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri disclose a touch detection and feedback button as discussed above, and Huppi further discloses wherein the main control unit further comprises:
a piezoelectric motor drive circuit (eg. TX1 and TX2, seen in Fig. 6 and discussed in [0107]) electrically connected between the processor and the piezoelectric motor (as seen in Fig. 4, the controllers for the force sensor 2048 are in between the actual sensors 2046 and the processor 2018).
Additionally, King teaches wherein the transducer “transmit circuitry… can be implemented in one chip” (see [0127]).
Therefore, the combination of Huppi and King would provide a piezoelectric motor drive circuit (the piezoelectric transmit circuitry of Huppi) that is a “chip” (as taught by King).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Huppi, King, and Chaudhri for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri disclose touch detection and feedback method, which is applied to the touch detection and feedback button discussed above, and Huppi further discloses the method comprising:
transmitting, by the ultrasonic transmitting terminal, ultrasonic signals (“generate an ultrasonic pulse” discussed in [0101]);
receiving, by the ultrasonic receiving terminal, the ultrasonic signals reflected from the housing (“receive a reflection of that ultrasonic pulse” discussed in [0101], with “reflections from the front surface” also seen in Fig. 6B); and
controlling, according to different amplitudes of the received ultrasonic signals (eg. a “relatively maximal response” as discussed in [0111] or a “relatively minimal response” as discussed in [0112], each corresponding to a different “user’s force of touch”), the feedback output element to output different feedback signals (feedback is provided “based on the user's touch, and force-of-touch” as discussed in [0081]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppi, King, and Chaudhri as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lynn et al. (US 2018/0164937), Haque et al. (US 2018/0341757) and Vanhelle et al. (US 2013/0050112).
Regarding claim 7, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri disclose a touch detection and feedback method as discussed above, and Chaudhri further discloses wherein the feedback output element is a piezoelectric motor (167 is a “piezoelectric actuator” as discussed in [0058]).
However, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri fail to teach or suggest specifics about controlling the feedback output element.
Lynn (Fig. 8) discloses a touch detection and feedback method wherein different amplitudes of the received ultrasonic signals (“acoustic” touch using transducers discussed in [0030]) comprises a first, second, and third levels with different amplitude (seen in Fig. 8, the three levels of touch 800, 802, and 804 have different amplitudes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huppi, King, and Chaudhri to be able to distinguish different amplitudes of touch as taught by Lynn because this allows the user to be able to input different commands based on the strength of the touch input.
However, Huppi, King, Chaudhri, and Lynn still fail to teach or suggest details about the feedback levels, or wherein outputting different feedback signals specifically includes a “vibration signal.”
Haque (Fig. 2 and 4) discloses a touch detection and feedback method wherein controlling, according to different amplitudes of the received touch signals (“touchscreen may be able to sense between a light pressure and a heavy pressure on the touch screen” discussed in [0017]), the feedback output element (130) to output different feedback signals comprises:
if the amplitude of the received ultrasonic signal is less than the first preset threshold and greater than a second preset threshold (corresponding to a “light touch,” with a signal above the “heavy touch” threshold level but below the “hover” threshold level as seen in Fig. 4, see also the “threshold” to determine the touch types discussed in [0026]), controlling the piezoelectric motor to generate a first vibration signal (160); and
if the amplitude of the received ultrasonic signal is less than the second preset threshold (corresponding to a “heavy touch” with “threshold” discussed in [0026]), controlling the piezoelectric motor to generate a second vibration signal (162, see also “first vibration level when the press on the touchscreen is at the first pressure level and to have a second vibration level when the press on the touchscreen is at the second pressure level” discussed in claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huppi, King, Chaudhri, and Lynn to output different feedback signals including a first and second vibration signals as taught by Haque because this provides the user with additional feedback about the current level of input.
However, Huppi, King, Chaudhri, Lynn, and Haque still fail to specifically teach or suggest “controlling the piezoelectric motor not to generate a vibration signal.”
Vanhelle discloses a touch detection and feedback method wherein if the amplitude of the received ultrasonic signal is greater than a first preset threshold (eg. corresponding to a “no touch” of Lynn, or “hover” as discussed in [0030] in Haque), controlling the piezoelectric motor not to generate a vibration signal (“contact exerted on the touch-sensitive surface 3a with a level of pressure below a predefined pressure threshold can be associated with a command for selection within a menu and consequently does not require the generation of a haptic feedback. In this case, no control signal is transmitted to the actuators 17” discussed in [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huppi, King, Chaudhri, Lynn, and Haque to control the piezoelectric motor not to generate a vibration signal if the amplitude of the received ultrasonic signal is greater than a first preset threshold as taught by Vanhelle because if the user is not touching the device, there is no need for haptic feedback.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppi, King, and Chaudhri as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lynn and Haque.
Regarding claim 8, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri disclose a touch detection and feedback method as discussed above, and Chaudhri further discloses wherein the feedback output element is a piezoelectric motor (167 is a “piezoelectric actuator” as discussed in [0058]).
However, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri fail to teach or suggest specifics about controlling the feedback output element.
Lynn (Fig. 8) discloses a touch detection and feedback method wherein different amplitudes of the received ultrasonic signals (“acoustic” touch using transducers discussed in [0030]) comprises a first, second, and third levels with different amplitude (seen in Fig. 8, the three levels of touch 800, 802, and 804 have different amplitudes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huppi, King, and Chaudhri to be able to distinguish different amplitudes of touch as taught by Lynn because this allows the user to be able to input different commands based on the strength of the touch input.
However, Huppi, King, Chaudhri, and Lynn still fail to teach or suggest details about the feedback levels, or wherein outputting different feedback signals specifically includes a “vibration signal.”
Haque (Fig. 2 and 4) discloses a touch detection and feedback method wherein controlling, according to different amplitudes of the received touch signals (“touchscreen may be able to sense between a light pressure and a heavy pressure on the touch screen” discussed in [0017]), the feedback output element (130) to output different feedback signals comprises:
controlling, based on a corresponding touch level (eg. a light touch or a heavy touch), generating a corresponding vibration signal (eg. either 160 or 162, seen in Fig. 4).
Therefore, the combination of Huppi, King, Chaudhri, and Lynn with Haque would provide a method comprising:
controlling, based on a corresponding relationship between the amplitude of the ultrasonic signal (eg. the amplitude levels 800, 802, and 804 of Lynn, corresponding to the “light touch” or “heavy touch” of Haque) and a driving voltage of the piezoelectric motor (“piezoelectric elements… driven by higher voltages” as discussed in [0054] of King) when the amplitude of the received ultrasonic signal changes (eg. changing from a “light touch” to a “heavy touch” as seen in Fig. 4 of Haque), the piezoelectric motor to generate a corresponding vibration signal (seen in Fig. 4 of Haque, based on the level of touch, generating the corresponding vibration signals 160 of 162).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huppi, King, Chaudhri, and Lynn to, based on an amplitude of the ultrasonic signal, generate a corresponding vibration signals as taught by Haque because this provides the user with additional feedback about the current level of input.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppi, King, and Chaudhri as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tsai (US 2010/0214254).
Regarding claim 9, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri disclose a touch detection and feedback method as discussed above, and King further discloses receiving, through an analog-to-digital conversion channel (eg. the input to ADC 418), the ultrasonic signal collected by the ultrasonic receiving terminal (“received signals… can be passed to an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 418” discussed in [0057]).
However, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri fail to teach or suggest controlling an analog-to-digital conversion channel to be turned on or off.
Tsai (Fig. 2 and 3) discloses a touch detection and feedback method wherein the method comprises:
controlling an analog-to-digital conversion channel to be turned on (in step 304, with “enabling… the analog-to-digital converter” discussed more specifically in [0012]);
receiving, through the analog-to-digital conversion channel, the touch signal collected by the touch receiving terminal (“analog-to-digital converter 109 converts the sensing voltages into digital data” discussed in [0042]); and
controlling the analog-to-digital conversion channel to be turned off (“the analog-to-digital converter… turns off” discussed in [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huppi, King, and Chaudhri to include controlling an analog-to-digital conversion channel to be turned on and off as taught by Tsai because this reduces power consumption (see [0010]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppi, King, and Chaudhri as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0169118).
Regarding claim 10, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri disclose a touch detection and feedback method as discussed above, and King further discloses controlling according to different amplitudes of the received ultrasonic signals (eg. the different amplitudes of signals 550, 552, 554, 556, shown in Fig. 5C of King).
However, Huppi, King, and Chaudhri fail to teach or suggest wherein the feedback output element to output different feedback signals is performed after receiving, by the ultrasonic receiving terminal, the ultrasonic signals reflected from the housing is finished.
Lee (Fig. 6) discloses a touch detection and feedback method wherein a feedback output element (225) to output different feedback signals (“vibration signal” discussed in [0025]) is performed after receiving, by the touch receiving terminal (211), the touch signals is finished (“haptic feedback operation of the monolithic haptic-type touch screen 120 may be performed immediately when the touch sensing operation is finished” discussed in [0105]).
Therefore, the combination of Huppi, King, and Chaudhri with Lee would provide a method wherein controlling the feedback output element (2012 of Huppi, and 225 of Lee) to output different feedback signals is performed after receiving, by the ultrasonic receiving terminal (“acoustic RX” of Huppi, see Fig. 5B), the ultrasonic signals reflected from the housing (“receive a reflection of that ultrasonic pulse” discussed in [0101] of Huppi) is finished (Lee teaches the feedback only occurs after the touch sensing operation is finished).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huppi, King, and Chaudhri to output different feedback signals after receiving, by the ultrasonic receiving terminal, the ultrasonic signals reflected from the housing is finished as taught by Lee because this prevents feedback from being mid-touch, would could interfere with a user’s input.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02-09-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues, on pages 6-9, that Huppi only teaches a “virtual button” that does not correspond to a “hardware button,” “physical button,” or “discrete button.” More specifically, applicant argues that Huppi only teaches “GUI content” and not a “housing having a mounting cavity provided therein.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “hardware button,” “physical button,” or “discrete button”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 currently reads “a touch detection and feedback button,” and makes no mention of a “hardware button,” “physical button,” or “discrete button.”
Second, applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “touch detection and feedback button” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Third, as seen in Fig. 5B, the touch detection of Huppi which enables the button press detection includes a cavity (called an air gap in [0057], and seen between layers such as 102, 108, 112, and 114 in Fig. 5B) in a housing (eg. the housing of 10, called an “enclosure 16” in [0053] and seen in Fig. 1B). While Huppi additionally provides a display layer that is absent from the applicant’s invention, the virtual button provided by Huppi still includes a physical element that a user can touch (eg. the top input surface 20), as well as additional physical elements enabling the detecting of the user’s touch (eg. the ultrasonic transmitting and receiving components) and provides a physical press feedback (eg. haptic feedback via 2012). Therefore, while some elements of the button may not be physical (eg. the GUI and displayed location of the button), many other elements of the button are physical, and so the examiner interprets the button of Huppi to read on the claimed “touch and feedback button” (the examiner notes that even the applicant’s own specification describes a button that “combines software and hardware,” see [0108]), and it is unclear how a virtual button implemented including hardware as taught by Huppi would be different from a “hardware button,” “physical button,” or “discrete button.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner notes that while the applicant argues that King is directed to a “discrete button,” King also explicitly teaches a button as part of a display (eg. as a touch screen, discussed in [0003]).
Next, the applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the feedback output element of Huppi describes feedback in generalized terms and fails to teach or suggest a “piezoelectric motor.” However, the reference of Chaudhri teaches a feedback output element that is a piezoelectric motor (specifically, called a “piezoelectric actuator” in [0058]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M BLANCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9-5.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 5712727772. 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.
/JONATHAN M BLANCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623