DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the feature(s) “second touch controller … configured to receive data from the first touch controller in response to the second touch panel being in an active state and the first touch panel being in an idle state” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Receipt of data from the touch controller could not possibly be construed as “in response to … the first touch panel being in an idle state” prior to calculation of a result indicating said idle state. Prior to calculation of such a result, the device has no idea whether the touched first touch panel is “in an idle state” or not. Furthermore, according to SPEC [0032], an idle touch IC receives data from an active touch IC, and said idle touch IC calculates, and said idle touch IC sends a calculated result to the active touch IC. The claims appear to present the functions of the second touch controller as follows: receiving data from the first touch controller, calculating a result, and sending the calculated result to the first touch controller. In this context, it appears that the first touch controller constitutes the active touch IC, while the second touch controller constitutes the idle touch IC; however, such a construction is inconsistent with “the second touch panel being in an active state and the first touch panel being in an idle state, … the second touch panel is in the active state and the first touch panel is in the idle state when a user is using the second touch panel” in claim 1, for example. Moreover, see also the instant depicted in Figs. 4A-B. During the instant depicted in Figs. 4A-B, a user is touching both inner and outer panels, while said user has no intent of providing touch input to an outer panel, and said user has no intent of providing touch input to an inner panel. During this instant, both panels appear equally active by virtue of both panels being touched by a gripping hand of the user. During this instant, both panels appear equally idle by virtue of the user’s complete absence of intent to provide touch input to any panel. Because both panels are touched without any intent to provide touch input, neither panel could possibly be construed as “being in an idle state” while the other panel were somehow construed as “being in an active state”. For these reasons, the feature(s) “second touch controller … configured to receive data from the first touch controller in response to the second touch panel being in an active state and the first touch panel being in an idle state” do not appear to be illustrated in the drawings.
The feature(s) “the second touch controller is configured to determine whether to disable a zone of touch channels on the second touch panel” must be shown in combination with the feature(s) “send a result of the calculation from the second touch controller to the first touch controller” or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If the second touch controller is determining whether the second touch controller needs to disable a zone of touch channels on the second touch panel, such disabling might be executable by the second touch controller without informing the first touch controller.
The feature(s) “the first touch controller is further configured to receive data from the second touch controller, to perform a further calculation on the data received from the second touch controller, and to send a result of the further calculation to the second touch controller” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “disabling communication channels in a third zone on the second touch panel” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See especially 709 in Fig. 7, which recites “DO NOT REPORT TOUCH IN FIRST ZONE OF SECOND TOUCH PANEL” (emphasis added).
The feature(s) “the second touch controller is configured to determine whether to disable the zone of touch channels on the second touch panel in response to receiving the detected touch data” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “the second touch controller is configured to perform a calculation on the detected touch data with a pre-arranged algorithm, and send a result of the calculation to the first touch controller” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “the first touch controller is configured to send noise status, noise frequency grip data and temperature data to the second touch controller” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “grip data is based on a shape of the touch screen device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “the first touch controller is further configured to receive data from the second touch controller, to perform a further calculation on the data received from the second touch controller, and to send a result of the further calculation to the second touch controller” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “calculating data from the touch information in the first zone or the touch information in the second zone with a pre-arranged algorithm; and sending the calculated data between the first touch panel and the second touch panel” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Although communication between touch controllers appears in some drawings, communication between panels does not appear to be illustrated. Furthermore, the specific calculations and data sent are not illustrated.
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following feature(s) not mentioned in the amended SPEC: “FIRST ZONE OF SECOND TOUCH PANEL”, see 709 in Fig. 7.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0046], the SPEC recites “touch detected at bottom right corner of the inner touch panel 204 should not be reported with great probability.” This is inconsistent with the location of zone 214 in Fig. 4B.
Beginning at [0063], the SPEC recites claim-like language in the form of “examples” which do not commence on a separate sheet. Originally-filed “examples” do not conform to the scope of the amended claims, and create a possible ambiguity regarding the metes and bounds of what is presently claimed. See the suggested SPEC format below, which is devoid of claim-like language “examples”. The Examiner suggests deletion of all “Example embodiments”.
At [0063], the SPEC discloses idle functions (“configured to receive data … to perform a calculation on the received data, and to send a result of the calculation data”) for what seems to be an active touch controller (second touch controller). This creates an ambiguity regarding which disclosed touch controller ought to be construed as the second touch controller, and which disclosed touch controller ought to be construed as the first touch controller. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “a result of the calculation data” (emphasis added). Results are calculated, rather than data itself being calculated.
At [0064], the SPEC recites “the second touch controller can determines”. This is grammatically incorrect.
At [0072], the SPEC recites “the first controller is configured to receive data from the second touch controller, to perform a calculation on the received data, and to send a result of the calculation data to the second touch controller” not followed by a period. This contradicts claim 1 with its opposite functions of first and second controllers. This raises an ambiguity regarding which disclosed controller is to be construed as “the first controller” and which disclosed controller is to be construed as “the second touch controller”. Applicant is advised to proofread the SPEC for punctuation and for consistency of nomenclature with respect to first and second touch controllers.
At [0074], the SPEC recites “the first touch controller can be configured to detect touch on the first touch panel while in an idle state”. The recitation “detect touch on the first touch panel” seems to contradict the recitation “in an idle state”, to the extent understood.
At [0075], the SPEC recites “second touch controller can be configured to calculate the data with a pre-arranged algorithm and send the calculated data to the first touch controller.” It is unclear whether “the … data” refers to the same “data” recited in a previous example. Furthermore, it is noted by the Examiner that a result appears to be calculated, rather than data being calculated.
At [0082], the SPEC recites “The method … can further comprises calculating data … and sending the calculated data between the first touch panel and the second touch panel”. This is inconsistent with the fact that results are calculated and sent, rather than data itself being calculated and sent.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 and 22-25 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 claim 1 recites “a first touch controller coupled to the first touch panel; … a second touch controller coupled to the second touch panel and configured to receive data from the first touch controller in response to the second touch panel being in an active state and the first touch panel being in an idle state, to perform a calculation on the received data from the first touch controller, and to send a result of the calculation from the second touch controller to the first touch controller, wherein the second touch panel is in the active state and the first touch panel is in the idle state”. The claimed controller functions are misdescriptive of the disclosed controller functions. See SPEC [0055], for example, which recites “The active touch IC can collect and transfer raw data to an idle touch IC. The idle touch IC can calculate the raw data with a pre-arranged algorithm and send the results back to the active touch IC. The idle touch IC can be utilized to reduce the workload typically handled by the active touch IC.” In the SPEC, the idle touch IC receives data from the active touch IC, the idle touch IC performs a calculation, and the idle touch IC sends a result of the calculation to the active IC. Contrariwise, in the claim, a second touch controller seems to be an active touch IC, wherein said active touch IC receives data from an idle touch IC, said active touch IC performs a calculation, and said active touch IC sends a result of the calculation to the idle touch IC. Because the idle/active states of the claimed controllers in combination with the functions of the claimed controllers contradict the disclosed controllers’ combinations of states and functions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the limitations “a first touch controller coupled to the first touch panel; … a second touch controller coupled to the second touch panel”.
Independent claim 1 recites “a second controller … configured to receive data from the first touch controller in response to the second touch panel being in an active state and the first touch panel being in an idle state”. It is noted by the Examiner that receipt of data occurs prior to performing the calculation and sending the result. Prior to said calculation and prior to sending said result, the device is not aware whether the calculated result is a determination of an idle state or a determination of an active state. The receipt of data must occur prior to the calculation of the result; hence, the second touch controller’s receipt of data cannot possibly occur “in response to the second touch panel being in an active state and the first touch panel being in an idle state”.
Independent claim 1 recites “the second touch panel is in the active state and the first touch panel is in the idle state when the user is using the second touch panel”. Regarding the limitation “using”: It is unclear whether the situation illustrated in Fig. 4B constitutes “using” inner touch panel 204 or not. Although a user’s thumb 407 is illustrated in Fig. 4B as touching zone 214 on inner touch panel 204, at the instant depicted in Fig. 4B said user appears to have no present intent to provide input to inner touch panel 204. It is unclear in what sense such an instant could possibly be construed as “when the user is using the second touch panel”, unless “using the second touch panel” connotes something other than a user’s intent to provide input to the second touch panel. Thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation “using the second touch panel” cannot be reasonably determined.
A similar recitation in independent claim 11 is similarly indefinite.
A similar recitation in independent claim 19 is similarly indefinite. Although a user’s thumb 407 is illustrated in Fig. 4B as touching zone 214 on inner touch panel 204, at the instant depicted in Fig. 4B said user appears to have no present intent to provide input to inner touch panel 204. It is unclear in what sense such an instant could possibly be construed as “initiating communication … while the second touch panel is in an active state” and/or “disabling occurring while the first touch panel is in the idle state and the second touch panel is in the active state, wherein the second touch panel is in the active state and the first touch panel is in the idle state when a user is using the second touch panel” as recited in independent claim 19.
Claim 2 recites “the detected touch data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 10 recites “the first touch controller is further configured to receive data from the second touch controller”. It is unclear whether the limitation “data” refers to the same “data” as recited in claim 1 or to additional data.
Claim 12 recites “the detected touch data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 12 recites “the second touch controller is configured to determine whether to disable the zone of touch channels on the second panel”. This appears to contradict independent claim 11, which recites “the first touch controller is configured to communicate with the second touch controller to disable a zone of touch channels on the second touch panel”. Claim 11 implies that the first touch controller commands the second touch controller to disable said zone, rather than the first touch controller merely sending data devoid of any disabling purpose. If the first touch controller is already communicating for the purpose “to disable”, then it is unclear in what sense “the second controller is configured to determine whether to disable”.
Claim 13 recites “the second touch controller is configured to perform a calculation on the detected touch data with a pre-arranged algorithm, and send a result of the calculation to the first touch controller.” The claimed controller functions are misdescriptive of the disclosed controller functions. See SPEC [0055], for example, which recites “The active touch IC can collect and transfer raw data to an idle touch IC. The idle touch IC can calculate the raw data with a pre-arranged algorithm and send the results back to the active touch IC. The idle touch IC can be utilized to reduce the workload typically handled by the active touch IC.” In the SPEC, the idle touch IC receives data from the active touch IC, the idle touch IC performs a calculation, and the idle touch IC sends a result of the calculation to the active IC. Contrariwise, in the claim, a second touch controller seems to be an active touch IC, wherein said active touch IC receives data from an idle touch IC, said active touch IC performs a calculation, and said active touch IC sends a result of the calculation to the idle touch IC. Because the idle/active states of the claimed controllers in combination with the functions of the claimed controllers contradict the disclosed controllers’ combinations of states and functions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the limitations “the second touch controller … the first touch controller”.
Other rejected claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Regarding claims 1-20 and 22-25: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitation “inactivity” have been fully considered and are moot in view of the deletion of the limitation “inactivity”.
Regarding the limitations “active state” and “idle state”: The metes and bounds of these limitations cannot be reasonably determined for the reasons stated above. See especially the instant depicted in Figs. 4A-B. During the instant depicted in Figs. 4A-B, a user is touching both inner and outer panels, while said user has no intent of providing touch input to an outer panel, and said user has no intent of providing touch input to an inner panel. During this instant, both panels appear equally active by virtue of both panels being touched by a gripping hand of the user. During this instant, both panels appear equally idle by virtue of the user’s complete absence of intent to provide touch input to any panel. Because both panels are touched without any intent to provide touch input, it is unclear in what sense either panel could possibly be construed as “being in an idle state” while the other panel were somehow construed as “being in an active state”.
Regarding the limitation “when a user is using the second touch panel”: It is unclear whether or not the “user is using the second touch panel” during the instant shown in Fig. 4B, insofar as the user has no intent to provide touch input to the second touch panel during the instant shown in Fig. 4B.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the limitation “send the detected touch data” have been fully considered and the Examiner notes the following: There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the detected touch data”. Claim 2 recites “detect touch on the first touch panel”. Clearly, “touch” is detected, whereas “touch data” are not detected. A similar argument regarding a similar recitation in claim 12 is similarly non-persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding trademarks have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding obviousness have been fully considered but are not presently addressed because the amended claims are presently too indefinite to apply prior art. In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03. Prior art references previously cited against previously pending claims remain available to the Examiner for future rejections of claims amended in the future.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
07/12/2026
Prosecution Insights