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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and prosecuted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 October 2025 was considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 15 October 2025, with respect to Claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of Claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is necessitated due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the limitations “determining that the touch event occurs within a predetermined region of the capacitive touch screen, the predetermined region representing an area of the capacitive touch screen with sensors that generate relatively uniform saturation levels compared to another area of the capacitive touch screen that is outside of the predetermined region” are not supported by the original disclosure.
The cited portion provided to support the amendments is [0056]. However, [0056] discusses how the touch screen is calibrated by utilizing “a conductor (or test tool)” placed at different positions across the touch screen where each position is associated with a sensor to generate touch screen data. Then, “data is collected regarding a saturation level of the sensor 108 to generate the heat map 504. The heat map 504 indicates regions of uniformity and non-uniformity across the touch panel 202. Sensors 108 at the corners or along an edge of the touch panel 202 can have non-uniform saturation levels, as shown in FIG. 5. In contrast, sensors 108 towards a center of the touch panel 202 can have relatively uniform saturation levels. In particular, the sensors within the signal uniformity area 502 have similar responses.” The saturation levels do not correspond to a “touch event” as currently claimed but rather during the touch screen calibration process, which registers data gathered by the sensors from a conductor or test tool, not data from a corresponding touch event by the user.
As such, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., USPN 11,755,154, hereinafter Zhang, in view of Jun et al., US PG-Pub 2015/0109243, hereinafter Jun.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a method (Col. 4, ll. 14-26) comprising:
detecting a touch event using a capacitive touch screen (Col. 6, ll. 15-21, “The display 102 can be operable as a touch input device, such as a capacitive touch screen display”) of an electronic device (computing device 100), the touch event representing a user interacting with the capacitive touch screen to perform a touch-based gesture (Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 6, ll. 41-44, “the display 102 can be a multi-touch device configured to sense multiple touches, gestures, tool inputs, and similar inputs to receive input for the computing device 100”);
determining that the touch event occurs within a predetermined region of the capacitive touch screen (Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27), the predetermined region representing an area of the capacitive touch screen with sensors that generate substantially uniform responses (Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49); and
detecting a presence of a screen protector (cover layer 126) on the capacitive touch screen based on touch screen data provided by the capacitive touch screen (Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49), the touch screen data including information associated with the touch event (Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49).
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach sensors that generate relatively uniform saturation levels compared to another area of the capacitive touch screen that is outside of the predetermined region.
Jun teaches sensors that generate relatively uniform saturation levels compared to another area of the capacitive touch screen that is outside of the predetermined region (Jun: Figs. 5-6F, and corresponding descriptions; [0083]-[0084], “baseline values may be calculated at start-up or may be updated during operation of the touchscreen to account for variations in noise experienced by the touchscreen electrodes,” and “The numerical difference values 601 of FIG. 6A may be illustrated graphically as heat map 602 in FIG. 6B. The shade of each cell or mutual capacitance 601 of heat map 602 may indicate of the numerical difference values 601 of FIG. 6A.”, noting how a saturation levels are used to create a heat map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the saturation levels taught by Jun into the device taught by Zhang in order to determine if a conductive object is proximate to the array (Jun: [0081]), thereby providing a more accurate touch sensing device.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the touch screen data is based on at least one of the following:
mutual capacitance between transmitting and receiving sensors of the capacitive touch screen (Zhang: Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 6, ll. 41-44, “the display 102 can be a multi-touch device configured to sense multiple touches, gestures, tool inputs, and similar inputs to receive input for the computing device 100”; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49); or
self-capacitance of sensors of the capacitive touch screen (Zhang: Figs. 6A-7, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 19, ll. 11-61).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving contextual information about a status of one or more parameters of the electronic device (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 10, l. 7), and
wherein the detecting the presence of the screen protector comprises detecting the presence of the screen protector based on the touch event and the contextual information (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 11, l. 44).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the contextual information includes a grounding condition of the electronic device (Zhang: Fig. 7, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 19, ll. 47-61).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the detecting of the touch event comprises detecting multiple touch events over a first time period (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 10, l. 39); and
the detecting the presence of the screen protector comprises determining that a confidence score criterion regarding the presence of the screen protector is met over the first time period (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 11, l. 44).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the detecting the presence of the screen protector is further based on a number of times the presence of the screen protector has been detected during the first time period (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 11, l. 44).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
executing, responsive to detecting the presence of the screen protector, a notification action including at least alerting the user that the screen protector is present (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 12, l. 28, noting settings may be adjusted based on the presence of a cover layer).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
determining that a current touch sensitivity threshold associated with detecting touch-based gestures is suboptimal based on the detected presence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 10, l. 39),
wherein the executing of the notification action comprises executing the notification action to prompt the user to select a mode associated with a second touch sensitivity threshold that is optimal based on the detected presence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 11, l. 44).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a current touch sensitivity threshold associated with detecting touch-based gestures is suboptimal based on the detected presence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 11, l. 44); and
automatically selecting a second touch sensitivity threshold that is optimal based on the detected presence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 11, l. 44).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the second touch sensitivity threshold increases an effective sensitivity of the electronic device for detecting subsequent touch-based gestures (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 12, l. 28).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
after detecting the presence of the screen protector, detecting a second touch event using the capacitive touch screen of the electronic device (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 11, l. 45 to Col. 12, l. 28); and
detecting an absence of the screen protector based on other touch screen data provided by the capacitive touch screen, the other touch screen data including information associated with the second touch event (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 12, l. 28).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising:
executing, responsive to detecting the absence of the screen protector, a second notification action including at least alerting an operator that the screen protector is absent (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 12, l. 28, noting settings may be adjusted based on the absence of a cover layer).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining that a current touch sensitivity threshold associated with detecting touch-based gestures is suboptimal based on the detected absence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 11, l. 44),
wherein the executing of the second notification action comprises executing the second notification action to prompt the user to select another mode associated with a first touch sensitivity threshold that is optimal based on the detected absence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 12, l. 28).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining that a current touch sensitivity threshold associated with detecting touch-based gestures is suboptimal based on the detected absence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 11, l. 44); and
automatically selecting a first touch sensitivity threshold that is optimal based on the detected absence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 12, l. 28).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the first touch sensitivity threshold decreases an effective sensitivity of the electronic device for detecting subsequent touch-based gestures (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28, specifically, Col. 10, l. 40 to Col. 12, l. 28).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang teaches an apparatus (computing device 100) comprising:
a capacitive touch screen configured to generate touch screen data (Col. 6, ll. 15-21, “The display 102 can be operable as a touch input device, such as a capacitive touch screen display”); and
a processor configured to:
detect a touch event that represents a user interacting with the capacitive touch screen to perform a touch-based gesture (Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 6, ll. 41-44, “the display 102 can be a multi-touch device configured to sense multiple touches, gestures, tool inputs, and similar inputs to receive input for the computing device 100”);
determine that the touch event occurs within a predetermined region of the capacitive touch screen (Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27), the predetermined region representing an area of the capacitive touch screen with sensors that generate substantially uniform responses (Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49); and
detect a presence of a screen protector (cover layer 126) on the capacitive touch screen based on the touch screen data provided by the capacitive touch screen (Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49), the touch screen data including information associated with the touch event (Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49).
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach sensors that generate relatively uniform saturation levels compared to another area of the capacitive touch screen that is outside of the predetermined region.
Jun teaches sensors that generate relatively uniform saturation levels compared to another area of the capacitive touch screen that is outside of the predetermined region (Jun: Figs. 5-6F, and corresponding descriptions; [0083]-[0084], “baseline values may be calculated at start-up or may be updated during operation of the touchscreen to account for variations in noise experienced by the touchscreen electrodes,” and “The numerical difference values 601 of FIG. 6A may be illustrated graphically as heat map 602 in FIG. 6B. The shade of each cell or mutual capacitance 601 of heat map 602 may indicate of the numerical difference values 601 of FIG. 6A.”, noting how a saturation levels are used to create a heat map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the saturation levels taught by Jun into the device taught by Zhang in order to determine if a conductive object is proximate to the array (Jun: [0081]), thereby providing a more accurate touch sensing device.
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang, as modified by Jun, teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine that a current touch sensitivity threshold associated with detecting touch-based gestures is suboptimal based on the detected presence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28); and
execute a notification action to prompt the user to select a mode associated with a second touch sensitivity threshold that is optimal based on the detected presence of the screen protector (Zhang: Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49; Col. 9, l. 4 to Col. 12, l. 28).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (Col. 23, ll. 50-64) that, responsive to execution by a processor (processor 1002), cause an electronic device (computing device 100) to:
detect a touch event that occurs on a capacitive touch screen of the electronic device (Col. 6, ll. 15-21, “The display 102 can be operable as a touch input device, such as a capacitive touch screen display”), the touch event representing a user interacting with the capacitive touch screen to perform a touch-based gesture (Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 6, ll. 41-44, “the display 102 can be a multi-touch device configured to sense multiple touches, gestures, tool inputs, and similar inputs to receive input for the computing device 100”);
determine that the touch event occurs within a predetermined region of the capacitive touch screen (Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27), the predetermined region representing an area of the capacitive touch screen with sensors that generate substantially uniform responses (Figs. 1A-1B, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49); and
detect a presence of a screen protector (cover layer 126) on the capacitive touch screen based on touch screen data provided by the capacitive touch screen (Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49), the touch screen data including information associated with the touch event (Figs. 1A-2, and corresponding descriptions; Col. 7, ll. 3-27; Col. 8, ll. 19-49).
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach sensors that generate relatively uniform saturation levels compared to another area of the capacitive touch screen that is outside of the predetermined region.
Jun teaches sensors that generate relatively uniform saturation levels compared to another area of the capacitive touch screen that is outside of the predetermined region (Jun: Figs. 5-6F, and corresponding descriptions; [0083]-[0084], “baseline values may be calculated at start-up or may be updated during operation of the touchscreen to account for variations in noise experienced by the touchscreen electrodes,” and “The numerical difference values 601 of FIG. 6A may be illustrated graphically as heat map 602 in FIG. 6B. The shade of each cell or mutual capacitance 601 of heat map 602 may indicate of the numerical difference values 601 of FIG. 6A.”, noting how a saturation levels are used to create a heat map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the saturation levels taught by Jun into the device taught by Zhang in order to determine if a conductive object is proximate to the array (Jun: [0081]), thereby providing a more accurate touch sensing device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the limitation “computing, for the frame, a confidence score indicative of the presence of the screen protector using a machine-learned model and using the at least one feature as an input to the machine-learned model.”
As such, Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim. Claim 4 is similarly objected to due to its dependence on Claim 3. It should be noted that in order to overcome these objections, the 112(a) issues need to be resolved.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN T REED whose telephone number is (571)272-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0800-1800.
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.
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.
STEPHEN T. REED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Stephen T. Reed/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627