CTNF 18/774,199 CTNF 82159 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are rejected below Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Vesikivi (U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0329455) . As to claim 1, Vesikivi teaches an information processing apparatus having a first chassis and a second chassis, the first chassis and the second chassis being connected so as to be relatively openable and closable[0029 – laptop], the information processing apparatus comprising: a touch panel provided in the first chassis[0040 element 128]; a temperature sensor[0073]; a temperature acquisition unit for acquiring a touch panel temperature on the basis of a temperature measured by the temperature sensor[0073 The one or more proximity sensors 224 may comprise temperature sensors 224 a , 224 b disposed in the front side 202 and the back side 204 of the device 200 for sensing the temperature difference between the front side 202 and the back side 204 .]; and a mode setting unit that has a plurality of touch modes including a touch disable mode that disables an operation of input to the touch panel and a touch enable mode that enables an operation of input to the touch panel, and sets any one of touch modes on the basis of the touch panel temperature[0073 When the temperature sensors 224 a, 224 b sense a temperature difference exceeding a certain threshold they can activate the touch screens 250 directly or be coupled to the processor to activate the touch screen. Conversely when the temperature difference is within a certain threshold, the sensors 224 a, 224 b can directly, or as controlled by the processor, deactivate the touch screen 250 .]. As to claim 7, Vesikivi teaches including a notification unit for notifying a touch mode change in the case where a touch mode setting is changed by the mode setting unit[0083 or just the screen not working could be considered a notification] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesikivi (U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0329455) ] in view of Seger (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0039953) . Vesikivi teach the independent claims, but fails to teach all of the limitations of the dependent claims, however, these are obvious variation and taught in part by Seger as follows: As to claim 2, Seger teaches an open/closed determination unit for determining an open/closed state of the first chassis and the second chassis[0329-0330], wherein the mode setting unit sets the touch mode on the basis and the open/closed state of the first chassis and the second chassis [0329-0330.] As shown above in [0073] Vesikivi teaches that it can be based on temperature. As to claim 3, Seger teaches wherein the mode setting unit sets the touch disable mode in the case where the first chassis and the second chassis are in a closed state[0329-0330.] As shown above in [0073] Vesikivi teaches that it can be based on temperature. As to claim 5, Seger teaches wherein the mode setting unit sets the touch enable mode in the case where the first chassis and the second chassis are in an open state[0331], or the touch panel temperature is below a predetermined touch enable threshold value[Vesikivi 0073]. As to claim 6, Seger teaches wherein the mode setting unit sets the touch enable mode in the case where a first condition in which the first chassis and the second chassis are in an open state[0331], or a second condition in which the touch panel temperature is below a predetermined touch enable threshold value, is satisfied after a predetermined period of time elapses since the first condition or the second condition is satisfied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary prior to the effective filing date of the to include the teachings of Seger into the system and methods of Vesikivi. The motivation to combine is that Seger teaches that a touch screen can be disabled when not usable since there is no need for it to be available [0104] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesikivi (U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0329455)] in view of Seger (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0039953) in view Ueda (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0205526) . As to claim 4 Seger teaches wherein the mode setting unit sets the touch disable mode in the case where a state in which the first chassis and the second chassis are closed[0329-0330]. As shown above in [0073] Vesikivi teaches that it can be based on temperature. Vesikivi in view of Seger teach most of the claims but fails to teach all of the limitations of the dependent claim 4, however, these are obvious variation and taught in part by Ueda as follows: As to claim 4, Ueda teaches disabling a display if a temperature threshold value or higher are maintained for a predetermined period of time[0078, 0082, 0087]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary prior to the effective filing date of the to include the teachings of Ueda into the system and methods of Vesikivi modified by Seger . The motivation to combine is that Ueda teaches monitoring a temperature for a period of time can mandate a shutdown if temperature remains too high causing overheating of a computing devices components[0078, 0082, 0087]. Other Art of Record 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Yamaguchi (U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0108832) teaches monitoring of a laptop’s temperature that can be opened and closed. Parikh (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0132769) teaches disabling a touchscreen based on a lid. Watanabe (U.S. PG Pub. 20210018965) teaches a temperature sensor housed in a touch screen. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM. 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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. /NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/774,199 Page 2 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/774,199 Page 3 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/774,199 Page 4 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/774,199 Page 5 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/774,199 Page 6 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/774,199 Page 7 Art Unit: 2119
Prosecution Insights