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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lillie et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140002410 A1, hereinafter “Lillie”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lillie teaches a sensor device (par 0016 Fig 2 sensor device 100) comprising:
a sensor unit including a plurality of first sensor electrodes and a plurality of second sensor electrodes (par 0031 Fig 2 first transmitter electrodes 260 and second receiver electrodes 270) wherein the plurality of first and second sensor electrodes are configured to form a plurality of capacitors at a plurality of intersections of the plurality of first and second sensor electrodes (paras 0032,0033 Fig 2 the capacitive coupling between the transmitter electrodes 260 and receiver electrodes 270 at their cross-over areas); and
a sensor driver configured to transmit a plurality of driving signals to the plurality of first sensor electrodes and receive a plurality of sensing signals from the plurality of second sensor electrodes (par 0039 Fig 2 processing system 110 of input device 100 comprises a driver module 206 [par 0039 driver module 206 configured to operate the first sensor/common electrodes as transmitter electrodes for capacitive sensing] and a receiver module 204 [par 0039 receiver module 204 is coupled to the second sensor/receiver electrodes 270 so that it is able to receive the resulting signals from the second sensor/receiver electrodes]), wherein
the sensor unit includes a plurality of sensing areas (par 0047 Fig 4 the sensor unit may comprise multiple groups of transmitter electrodes 260-1 – 260-n which may be driven singly or in groups), wherein
a number of the plurality of sensing areas is NA, which is an integer greater than 2 (par 0047 Fig 3 the sensor unit may comprise NA groups of transmitter electrodes 260-1-260-n, n>2 and n=16 in Fig 3), wherein
the sensor driver is configured to:
time-divisionally sense each of the plurality of sensing areas once during a first sensing frame period, wherein the first sensing frame period includes a plurality of first sensing periods, and a number of the plurality of first sensing periods is equal to the number of the plurality of sensing areas (par 0048 Fig 4 step 406 sense each of the plurality of sensing areas, e.g. 260-1-260-16, as they are driven over a first sensing frame comprised of 16 first sensing periods, the number of first sensing periods is equal to the number of the plurality of sensing areas [16]; par 0057 each sensing area may be sensed top to bottom);
time-divisionally sense each of the plurality of sensing areas once during a second sensing frame period including a plurality of second sensing periods, wherein a number of the plurality of second sensing periods is equal to the number of the plurality of sensing areas (par 0048 Fig 4 step 406 sense each of the plurality of sensing areas, e.g. 260-1-260-16, as they are driven over a second sensing frame comprised of 16 second sensing periods, the number of first sensing periods is equal to the number of the plurality of sensing areas [16]; par 0057 each sensing area may again be sensed top to bottom); and
set an initial sensing area among the plurality of sensing areas to be sensed during an initial second sensing period of the second sensing frame period to be different from a last sensing area among the plurality of sensing areas sensed during a last first sensing period of the first sensing frame period (par 0057 each sensing area being sensed top to bottom ensures that the initial sensing area to be sensed during an initial second sensing period of the second sensing frame period [e.g. 260-1] will be different from the last sensing area sensed during a last first sensing period of the first sensing frame period [e.g. 260-16]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lillie teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of first sensor electrodes are grouped into the plurality of sensing areas, and wherein each of the plurality of sensing areas has the same number of first sensor electrodes (par 0047 Fig 4 the sensor unit may comprise multiple groups of first sensor/transmitter electrodes 260-1 – 260-n which may be driven singly or in groups, par 0047 Fig 3 the sensor unit may comprise NA groups of transmitter electrodes 260-1-260-n, n>2 and n=16 in Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Lillie teaches the sensor device according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of sensing areas share the plurality of second sensor electrodes (par 0047 Fig 2 the sensing areas comprised of groups of first sensor/transmitter electrodes 260-1-260-n which may be driven singly or in share the plurality of second sensor electrodes 270-1-270-n).
Claim 11 presents the limitations of Claim 1 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 11 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 13 presents the limitations of Claim 3 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 13 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 3, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 14 presents the limitations of Claim 4 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 14 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 4, mutatis mutandis.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5-7, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillie et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140002410 A1, hereinafter “Lillie”) in view of Nathan et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20170228096 A1, hereinafter “Nathan”).
Regarding Claim 2, Lillie teaches the sensor device according to claim 1. However, Lillie appears not to expressly teach wherein
an order in which each of the plurality of sensing areas is randomly sensed during the first sensing frame period is different from an order in which each of the plurality of sensing areas is randomly sensed during the second sensing frame period.
Nathan teaches wherein
an order in which each of the plurality of sensing areas is randomly sensed during the first sensing frame period is different from an order in which each of the plurality of sensing areas is randomly sensed during the second sensing frame period (par 0133 Fig 2 the order of regions/sensing areas to be sampled/sensed are selected at random in each sensing frame period; the order of the random sensing in each sensing frame period will thus be different from frame to frame in at least a portion of the sets of frame periods, meeting the limitation of the claim; note US 20180356935, US 20150097583, and others similarly suggest sensing in random orders).
Lillie and Nathan are analogous art as they each pertain to sensor devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor device of Lillie with the inclusion of the random assignation of area sensing of Nathan. The motivation would have been in order to provide that detection accuracy may be improved by reducing signal-to-noise ratio (Nathan par 0020).
Regarding Claim 5, Lillie as modified teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein
the sensor driver is configured to:
select and sense one of the plurality of sensing areas with a probability of (1/NA) during an initial first sensing period among the plurality of first sensing periods of the first sensing frame period (Nathan par 0133 Fig 2 a random number Nrand may be generated for each sensor area In,m and the sensor areas In,m may be placed in ascending (or descending) order according to the value of the number Nrand; at the initial number assignment the probability for each area to be chosen is 1/NA).
Lillie and Nathan are analogous art as they each pertain to sensor devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor device of Lillie with the inclusion of the random assignation of area sensing of Nathan. The motivation would have been in order to provide that detection accuracy may be improved by reducing signal-to-noise ratio (Nathan par 0020).
Regarding Claim 6, Lillie as modified teaches the sensor device according to claim 5, wherein the sensor driver is configured to:
select and sense one of (NA-1) other sensing areas among the plurality of sensing areas with a probability of 1/(NA-1) during a following first sensing period, immediately after the initial first sensing period, among the plurality of first sensing periods of the first sensing frame period, and wherein the (NA-1) other sensing areas exclude the one of the plurality of sensing areas sensed during the initial first sensing period of the first sensing frame period (Nathan par 0133 Fig 2 in iteratively randomly selecting a sensing area for a next sensing period, Nathan teaches “For example, using the second to fourth [sensing areas/drive electrodes] 22, 23, 28, a randomly selected [sensing area/drive electrode] Dn is driven and sensed by each of the sense electrodes Sm before a different [sensing area/drive electrode] Dn [of the remaining [sensing areas/drive electrodes]] needs to be addressed/randomly chosen for driving/sensing; such method excludes the one of the plurality of sensing areas sensed during the initial first sensing period of the first sensing frame period).
Lillie and Nathan are analogous art as they each pertain to sensor devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor device of Lillie with the inclusion of the random assignation of area sensing of Nathan. The motivation would have been in order to provide that detection accuracy may be improved by reducing signal-to-noise ratio (Nathan par 0020).
Regarding Claim 7, Lillie as modified teaches the sensor device according to claim 6, wherein the sensor driver is configured to:
select and sense one of (NA-2) other sensing areas among the plurality of sensing areas with a probability of 1/(NA-2) during a third first sensing period, immediately after the following first sensing period, among the plurality of first sensing periods of the first sensing frame period, and wherein the (NA-2) other sensing areas exclude the one of the plurality of sensing areas sensed during the initial first sensing period of the first sensing frame period and the one of the (NA-1) other sensing areas sensed during the following first sensing period of the first sensing frame period (Nathan par 0133 Fig 2 in iteratively randomly selecting a sensing area for a next sensing period, Nathan teaches “For example, using the second to fourth [sensing areas/drive electrodes] 22, 23, 28, a randomly selected [sensing area/drive electrode] Dn is driven and sensed by each of the sense electrodes Sm before a different [sensing area/drive electrode] Dn [of the remaining [sensing areas/drive electrodes]] needs to be addressed/randomly chosen for driving/sensing; during a third sensing period, such method excludes the two previously selected sensing areas sensed during the initial first and following second sensing periods of the first sensing frame period).
Lillie and Nathan are analogous art as they each pertain to sensor devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor device of Lillie with the inclusion of the random assignation of area sensing of Nathan. The motivation would have been in order to provide that detection accuracy may be improved by reducing signal-to-noise ratio (Nathan par 0020).
Claim 12 presents the limitations of Claim 2 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 12 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 2, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 15 presents the limitations of Claim 5 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 15 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 5, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 16 presents the limitations of Claim 6 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 16 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 6, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17 presents the limitations of Claim 7 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 17 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 7, mutatis mutandis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 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:
Claim 8:
While closest prior art Lillie (20140002410 A1) and Nathan (20170228096 A1) teach portions of the limitations of Claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 8, namely "wherein the sensor driver is configured to: select and sense the initial sensing area among first (NA-1) sensing areas with a probability of 1/(NA-1) during the initial second sensing period of the second sensing frame period, and wherein the first (NA-1) sensing areas exclude the last sensing area sensed during the last first sensing period of the first sensing frame period" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Claim 18:
While closest prior art Lillie (20140002410 A1) and Nathan (20170228096 A1) teach portions of the limitations of Claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 18, namely "wherein the initial sensing area among first (NA-1) sensing areas is selected and sensed with a probability of 1/(NA-1) during the initial second sensing period of the second sensing frame period, and wherein the first (NA-1) sensing areas exclude the last sensing area sensed during the last first sensing period of the first sensing frame period" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 would be allowable dependent on the allowability of their base claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p EST.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. 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.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624