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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 12 and 17 are currently pending in the application.
The Election and Restriction Requirement was made on 06/18/2025 and Applicant’s election without traverse of species IB, as illustrated in figures 2 and 10 in the reply filed on 08/07/2025 was acknowledged. The current amendment filed 04/20/2026 has amended claim 17 not readable on the elected species IB, but readable on the non-elected species IIB illustrated in Figs. 3 and 10, which is directed to the HMI device output adjusting method associated with the HMI device being a force sensing device. Therefore, the current claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species IIB, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 11 and 12 are readable on the elected species IB and are considered as follows:
Response to Arguments
In response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the previous Office action dated 02/04/2026, Applicant has amended independent claim 11 and provided on pages 4-5 of the amendment that the current claim 11 is fully supported by paragraph [0025] of the specification. Examiner has respectfully disagreed because this paragraph provides a support for limitations, “wherein the HMI device is connected to a host device, and the HMI device output adjusting method further comprises: receiving an input by the HMI device; causing an event of the host device according to the input,” but does not explicitly provide a support for at least a limitation, “dynamically adjusting the second input information of the second gesture performed to the HMI device, according to the event” in last two lines and lines 5-6 of claim 1. See the detailed rejection made below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the processing device” in line 4 should be changed to -- a processing device -- because of lacking antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; and “a processing device” in line 7 should be changed to -- the processing device -- in order to render the antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “device, and the first input information, the second input information” in lines 3-4 should be changed to -- device and the first input information and the second input information -- or -- device and wherein the first input information and the second input information --, as best understood in light of the disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 11, this claim recites limitations, (i) “dynamically adjusting second input information … according to the first input information by a processing circuit” in lines 5-7 and (ii) “dynamically adjusting the second input information according to the event” in last two lines. Since it is unclear whether the second input information is dynamically adjusted according to the first input information, as required by the limitation (i) or the second input information is dynamically adjusted according to the event, as required by the limitation (ii), it is considered that the invention is not clearly defined.
As per claim 12, this claim is therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 11 above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 11, this claim recites limitations, “collecting first input information of a first gesture performed to a HMI device by the processing circuit; and dynamically adjusting second input information of a second gesture performed to the HMI device according to the first input information by a processing circuit” in lines 3-7, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 10 and the corresponding specification from ¶ [0039]-[0043], discloses a HMI (Human Machine Interface) device output adjusting method comprising: a step 1001 “Collect first input information of a HIM device by the processing circuit” and a step 1003 “Dynamically adjust second input information of the HIM device according to the first input information by the processing circuit.”
Furthermore, the original disclosure, specifically ¶ [0021], discloses “… In the embodiment of FIG.2, the HIM device HD is a touch sensing device 200, such as a touch pad. In such embodiment, the input information may comprise at least one of: a touch region size, a touch location, a touch time, a touch frequency, and a touch track. For example, if the user always touches the region 201 while using the touch sensing device 200, the processing circuit 101 may set the regions of the touch sensing device 200 besides the region 201 to be non-active or to have a lower touch sensing sensitivity (i.e., change the control parameters for detecting touch), to avoid accidental touch. In another example, if the touch frequency is low when the user uses the touch sensing device 200, the touch sensing sensitivity or the report rate of the touch sensing device 200 may be decreased…,” i.e., the first input information of the HIM device comprising at least one of: a touch region size, a touch location, a touch time, a touch frequency, and a touch track and the second input information of the HIM device comprising control parameters, such as the touch sensing sensitivity or the report rate of the HMI device.
Accordingly, the original disclosures discloses the first input information of the HMI device and the second input information or the control parameters of the HMI device, instead of the first input information of a first gesture and the second input information of a second gesture.
Moreover, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 11, this claim recites a limitation, “dynamically adjusting the second input information of the second gesture performed to the HMI device, according to the event of the host device” in lines 5-6 and last 6 lines, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically the corresponding specification at paragraph [0025], discloses: “… the input of the HIM device HD may cause some events to a host device … the processing circuit 101 further dynamically adjusts the parameters of the HIM device HD according to the event …” However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss “dynamically adjusting the second input information of the second gesture performed to the HMI device, according to the event of the host device.”
Moreover, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 12, this claim is therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 11 above.
In addition to claim 12, this claim further recites a limitation, “the first input information, the second input information comprise at least one of: a touch region size, a touch location, a touch time, a touch frequency, and a touch track.” Note that since the term, “at least one,” can be broadly construed to include "two, three, or all", the above underlined limitation is construed to include at least features, “the first input information comprises a touch region size, a touch location, a touch time, a touch frequency, and a touch track; and the second input information comprises a touch region size, a touch location, a touch time, a touch frequency, and a touch track,” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically the original claim 12, provides as much information of this claim. Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, this claim itself does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to the above features of the above underlined limitation, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Moreover, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights