Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-23 are pending. Bolded claim language below regards newly amended subject matter with a corresponding new rejection citation. Newly amended subject matter that is not bolded does not comprise a new rejection citation (utilizes previous interpretation that is unchanged in view of the new language) or is a newly added claim.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: newly amended subject matter discloses “a writing spring”. Previously claimed subject matter of “a writing spring that receives the first portion…” should instead be “the writing spring” for correct antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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, 15, and 18 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.
Newly amended subject matter states to transmit a first portion (claim 18: just “a portion”) (claim 15 changing second to first portion) of the pressure received from the writing shaft to a writing spring and configured to convert a second portion of the pressure received from the writing shaft into an electric signal. Paragraph [0094] of the current application’s originally filed specification describes the writing spring 1421 resides behind the force sensor 1423. The force exerted by the user is received by the marker tip 1403 and transmitted to the writing shaft 1413 which in turn transmits the force to a force sensor 1423. The force sensor 1423 converts this force to an electronic signal which is then transmitted to an integrated circuit (e.g., the PCBA 1105 shown in FIG. 11) that ultimately sends data to the e- paper tablet 110 for appropriate processing, e.g., the force (e.g., pressure) detected may assist in determining characteristics such as the width or thickness of a line being drawn on the display of the e-paper tablet 110.
At no point in the specification is there a specific description or implication of a portion (first or second) of the force being utilized in different manners. “The” force exerted by the user is transmitted to the sensor. “The” force is converted to an electronic signal. The rejection below will interpret the subject matter as supported by the specification in that there is no first or section portion of the force only “the” force.
Claims 15 and 23 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.
Claims 15 and 23 describes to produce the physical reactionary force continuously. The specification is silent in regards to a time/duration for producing the reactionary force. Therefore, there is no support for continuously producing the physical reactionary force.
5. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 15, 18, and 23 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.
As described above, the first and second portions or “a portion” of a force are not described by the specification. Therefore, one skilled in the art would be unable to make or use the invention without a description of how to determine/identify a first portion and/or second portion of the force to be utilized in the manner claimed.
Further, in view of claims 15 and 23, the physical reactionary force producing a continuous force is found indefinite in response to a first portion of pressure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kügerl et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0247845), herein after referred to as Kügerl, in view of Kato et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0348898), herein after referred to as Kato, and further in view of Neuwirth et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20210031235), herein after referred to as Neuwirth.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kügerl discloses an active pen-stylus (Figure 1 reference pen-shaped input and/or output device 1. A pen that performs input and output is within the scope of an active pen.) that emulates a paper feeling arising from use of the active pen-stylus (Figure 1 and paragraph [0062] describes the pen-shaped input and/or output device 1 uses a haptic signal to give the impression to the user that the pen 1 is being moved over a surface. Paragraphs [0015] and [0075] describes the haptic impression can create various kinds of textures regarding different roughness of different surfaces.) by a user on a display of the [ ] device (Paragraph [0135] describes pen device 1 to be used in conjunction with a display screen.), comprising:
a marker tip (8) located near a proximal end (3) of the active pen-stylus (1) that receives pressure imparted to the active pen-stylus by the user engaging with the display (Figure 1 reference piezoelectric actuator 11 depicted as a shaft through the central portion of the pen 1. Paragraph [0077] describes the actuator 11 to receive a force (pressure) from the pen being moved over a surface, by the user, acts on the sensing tip 8 which exerts a force on the piezoelectric actuator 11. Paragraph [0135] describes the use with a display screen describing the screen to be surface.);
a writing shaft (11) located adjacent to the marker tip (8) near the proximal end (3) of the active pen-stylus (1) that receives the pressure from the marker tip (Paragraph [0077] describes the actuator 11, depicted as a shaft through the central portion of the pen 1 in figure 1, to receive a force from the writing shaft/pen tip 8 being moved over a surface, by the user, which exerts a force on the piezoelectric actuator 11.);
a force sensor (12) located further from the proximal end (3) than the writing shaft (11) (Figure 1 depicts force sensor/evaluation unit 12 further from the proximal end 3 than the writing shaft tip 8 and shaft comprising actuator 11.) that receives the pressure from the writing shaft arising from use of the active pen-stylus (1) by the user, the force sensor (11) configured to transmit a first portion (see 112 above) of the pressure received from the writing shaft (11) to a writing spring (Paragraph [0068] describes the piezoelectric actuator to be connected via a spring-loaded connection. Therefore, at least some portion of the forces exerted onto the piezoelectric actuator must go through the spring-loaded connection which inherently deforms.) and configured to convert a second portion (see 112 above) of the pressure received from the writing shaft (11) into an electronic signal (Paragraph [0077] further describes the force exerted on the actuator 11, by the surface describing a physical force, generates a voltage by the piezoelectric effect. The evaluation unit 12 connected to actuator 11, detects and processes the generated voltage, and outputs a value characteristic (electric signal) that is stored.); and
a (antecedent basis) writing spring that receives the first portion (see 112 above) of the pressure from the force sensor (12) [ ] (Paragraph [0068] describes the piezoelectric actuator to be connected via a spring-loaded connection. Therefore, at least some portion of the forces exerted onto the piezoelectric actuator must go through the spring-loaded connection which inherently deforms), producing a physical reactionary force (via activation unit 10 [0078]) that emulates a conventional writing feeling by mimicking a displacement to force ratio between a conventional writing implement and a conventional writing surface (Paragraph [0078] describes the saved profile of the value characteristic is used by the activation unit 10 to apply a voltage to the actuator 11 and cause it to vibrate and give the user the impression of the pen 1 being moved over the previously saved (reactionary) surface. Paragraphs [0035] and [0075] describes to use 11 to create an impression for a user moving the tip across a surface via vibrations to create haptic impressions of various kinds of textures of different surfaces in which the pen 1 is moved across.), the physical reactionary force (10) transmitted to the force sensor (12) ([0078] 12 is used by 10), and from the force sensor (12) to the writing shaft (11) ([0078] applying voltage to 11), and from the writing shaft (12) to the marker tip (8) ([0078] and [0081] the vibration is not applied to the body 2 but create a haptic impression of the pen being moved over the surface (inherently via the tip 8).), and from the marker tip (12) to the user (Paragraphs [0035] and [0075] describes to use 11 to create an impression for a user moving the tip across a surface via vibrations to create haptic impressions of various kinds of textures of different surfaces in which the pen 1 is moved across.).
Kügerl does not specifically disclose the display to be of a tablet device.
Kato discloses a tablet device to process position and pressure information from an electronic pen (Figure 1 tablet 200 and pen 2 as described in paragraphs [0045]-0047].)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s pen on the surface of a display with the known technique of the displaying being of a tablet device as disclosed by Kato (paragraph [0045]) yielding the predictable results of a portable device.
Kügerl does not specifically disclose a physical shape of the writing spring mechanically deforms.
Neuwirth discloses a piezoelectric actuator comprising springs that mechanically (defined as the change in shape or size of a material when subjected to external forces) deform in physical shape in creating a physical reactionary force (Figure 2 springs 8 described in paragraph [0057] to compress (inherently physically) and tensioned with the piezoelectric actuator to provide movement/vibrations. Please note Neuwirth is the same applicant TDK electronics AG as Kügerl and comprises an identical embodiment figure 7 of the piezoelectric actuator 11 as Kügerl’s figure 4.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s spring-connected piezoelectric actuator with the known technique of the spring to mechanically deform in physical shape in creating a physical reactionary force yielding the predictable results of preventing tiling movement of the man-machine interface 2 relative to the base plate 8 (the portions connected to the opposite sides of the piezoelectric actuator) as disclosed by Neuwirth (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Kügerl and Kato discloses the pen-stylus of claim 1, further comprising:
an integrated circuit located on the pen-stylus that processes received signals and transmits processed electronic signals back to the tablet device associated with the pen-stylus, wherein the processed electronic signals enable updating of the display on the tablet device, wherein the force sensor sends the electronic signal to the integrated circuit, wherein the electronic signal is an input to the electronic signals processed by the integrated circuit and transmitted to the tablet device (Kügerl: pen-shaped device 1 is described as an input and/or output device. Kato: Figure 3 1R and paragraphs [0056]-[0059] describes the position detecting device 300 to include processing control part 307 to process position detection via signals received from the pen 1. Paragraph [0047] describes an input of drawing a line (updating a display) in view of the position detected by device 300.).
Regarding claim 12, Kato discloses the pen-stylus of Claim 11 wherein the processed electronic signal is used by the tablet device to draw a line on a display of the tablet device (Figure 3 1R and paragraphs [0056]-[0059] describes the position detecting device 300 to include processing control part 307 to process position detection via signals received from the pen 1. Paragraph [0047] describes an input of drawing a line (updating a display) in view of the position detected by device 300.).
7. Claim(s) 2 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kügerl-Kato-Neuwirth in view of Dietz et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0043242), herein after referred to as Dietz.
Regarding claim 2, Kügerl discloses the active pen-stylus of Claim 1 wherein the writing spring emulates the conventional writing feeling provided by the saved profile (Paragraphs [0015], [0075], [0078], and [0109] describing reproducing textures of a surface in a realistic way.).
Kügerl does not specifically disclose textures of the saved profiles to specifically provide a conventional pen and conventional paper writing feeling.
Dietz discloses a piezoelectric vibration of a stylus tip (Figure 4 420) to change the friction of the tip to emulate the feel of various writing instruments being used on different types of surfaces such as a pen on paper (paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s disclosed ability to save profiles of different surface with the known technique of the surface to be conventional paper and provide a conventional writing feeling provided by a conventional pen and the conventional paper yielding the predictable results of emulating the feel of various combination of different writing instruments being used on different types of surfaces as disclosed by Dietz (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Kügerl discloses the pen-stylus of claim 1.
Kügerl does not specifically disclose wherein the writing spring emulates the conventional writing feeling from one of a pencil, a quill, an ink brush, a needle, an engraving tool, and a chisel.
Dietz discloses emulating the conventional writing feeling from one of a pencil (Paragraphs [0007] and [0042]), a quill, an ink brush (Paragraph [0059]), a needle, an engraving tool, and a chisel (Paragraphs [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s emulation/haptic impression with the known technique of emulating the conventional writing feeling from one of a pencil, an ink brush, and a chisel yielding the predictable results of simulating the effect of various-shaped stylus tips as disclosed by Dietz (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 14, Kügerl discloses the pen-stylus of Claim 1 wherein the writing spring emulates the conventional writing feeling of various surface roughness (Paragraphs [0015] and [0075] describes the haptic impression can create various kinds of textures regarding different roughness of different surfaces.)
Kügerl does not specifically disclose wherein the writing spring emulates the conventional writing feeling from one of cardboard, a stone tablet, a clay tablet, a bamboo slat, papyrus, a wax tablet, vellum, parchment, copperplate, slate, and porcelain.
Dietz discloses wherein the writing spring emulates the conventional writing feeling from one of cardboard (Paragraph [0007]), a stone tablet, a clay tablet, a bamboo slat, papyrus, a wax tablet, vellum, parchment, copperplate, slate, and porcelain.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s emulation/haptic impression with the known technique of emulating the conventional writing feeling from one of cardboard yielding the predictable results of providing a desired feel of the writing instrument on a desired writing surface as disclosed by Dietz (paragraph [0007]).
8. Claim(s) 3, 5-7, 15-16, 18-20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kügerl-Kato-Neuwirth in view of Allen et al. (US Patent 5,103,667).
Regarding claim 3, Kügerl and Neuwirth discloses the active pen-stylus of Claim 1 wherein the writing spring comprises a [ ] material that physically compresses and undergoes geometric deflection (Neuwirth: Figure 2 springs 8 described in paragraph [0057] to compress (inherently physically) with the piezoelectric actuator to provide movement/vibrations.) to produce the physical reactionary force that emulates the conventional writing feeling (Kügerl: Paragraph [0078] describes the saved profile of the value characteristic is used by the activation unit 10 to apply a voltage to the actuator 11 and cause it to vibrate (geometric deflection) and give the user the impression of the pen 1 being moved over the previously saved surface. Paragraphs [0035] and [0075] describes to use 11 to create an impression for a user moving the tip across a surface via vibrations to create haptic impressions of various kinds of textures of different surfaces in which the pen 11 is moved across.).
Neither Kügerl or Neuwirth disclose the writing spring to comprise a silicon material.
Allen discloses a spring made of a silicon material (Figure 1 reference silicon mass 110 suspended in a double support system including flexures 112 and 114 described in column 3 line 32 to column 4 line 28 to move in response to external forces (implemented for an accelerometer).).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl and Neuwirth spring with the known technique of comprising a silicon material yielding the predictable results of preventing excess movement that may destroy the device as disclosed by Allen (column 3 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 5, Allen discloses the active pen-stylus of Claim 3 wherein the writing spring (Figure 1) comprises a material compression pad (110) surrounded by a flexure (112+114) that provides the geometric deflection (column 3 lines 55-57), wherein the writing spring is a singular piece (Figure 1 mass/pad 110, flexures 112 and 114, and frame 120 depicted as a single piece and described in column 3 lines 32-35.).
Regarding claim 6, Allen discloses the active pen-stylus of Claim 5 wherein the flexure comprises a region on the writing spring that includes a recessed portion and a raised portion (Figure 1 reference flexures 112+114 comprising a identified by a maximum recessed point including sloped edges of raised portions.).
Regarding claim 7, Kügerl discloses the active pen-stylus of Claim 5 wherein the writing spring is configured to produce the physical reactionary force to emulate uneven and porous material characteristics of cellulous fibers (Paragraph [0015] describes the profile to reproduce a texture of the surface regarding the roughness. A texture and roughness of a surface inherently includes characteristics of porous material and cellulous fibers which are directly linked to surface roughness.).
Regarding claim 15, Kügerl and Neuwirth discloses the pen-stylus of claim 3 wherein the writing spring produces the physical reactionary force (Kügerl: via activation unit 10 [0078]) continuously (see 112 above) in response to receiving the first portion (See 112 above) of the pressure from the force sensor (Kügerl: 12) (Kügerl: Paragraph [0068] describes the piezoelectric actuator to be connected via a spring-loaded connection. Therefore, at least some portion of the forces exerted onto the piezoelectric actuator must go through the spring-loaded connection which inherently deforms. Neuwirth: Figure 2 springs 8 described in paragraph [0057] to compress (inherently physically) with the piezoelectric actuator to provide movement/vibrations.).
Regarding claim 16, Kügerl discloses the pen-stylus of claim 1.
Kügerl does not specifically disclose the pen-stylus further comprising: a writing shaft impact shock absorber that receives excess forces imparted to the pen-stylus to shield the force sensor from receiving the excess forces, the writing shafter impact shock absorber interposed between the writing shaft and the force sensor.
Allen discloses an impact shock absorber that receives excess forces imparted to the spring to shield the device from receiving the excess forces (Figure 1 reference cap 140 and base 150 formed with spring 110+120 to form air gaps 142+152. Column 3 line 55 to column 4 line 15 describes the air gaps to prevent excess movement of the mass 110, part of the spring, that may destroy the device (shielding from excess forces). The overforces may be hundreds of times greater than normal operating forces (acting like an impact shock absorber).).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s pen-stylus device with writing shaft that receives forces transmitted to a force sensor with the known technique of a shock absorber that receives excess forces imparted to the pen-stylus to shield the force sensor from receiving the excess forces, the writing shafter impact shock absorber interposed between the writing shaft and the force sensor yielding the predictable results of preventing excess movement which may destroy the device as disclosed by Allen (Column 3 line 55 to column 4 line 15).
a writing shaft impact shock absorber that receives excess forces imparted to the pen-stylus to shield the force sensor from receiving the excess forces, the writing shafter impact shock absorber interposed between the writing shaft and the force sensor.
Regarding independent claim 18, Kügerl discloses an active pen-stylus (Figure 1 reference pen-shaped input and/or output device 1. A pen that performs input and output is within the scope of an active pen.) that emulates a paper feeling arising from use of the active pen-stylus (Figure 1 and paragraph [0062] describes the pen-shaped input and/or output device 1 uses a haptic signal to give the impression to the user that the pen 1 is being moved over a surface. Paragraphs [0015] and [0075] describes the haptic impression can create various kinds of textures regarding different roughness of different surfaces.) by a user on a display of the [ ] device (Paragraph [0135] describes pen device 1 to be used in conjunction with a display screen.), comprising:
a marker tip (8) located near a proximal end (3) of the active pen-stylus (1) that receives pressure imparted to the active pen-stylus by the user engaging with the display (Figure 1 reference piezoelectric actuator 11 depicted as a shaft through the central portion of the pen 1. Paragraph [0077] describes the actuator 11 to receive a force (pressure) from the pen being moved over a surface, by the user, acts on the sensing tip 8 which exerts a force on the piezoelectric actuator 11. Paragraph [0135] describes the use with a display screen describing the screen to be surface.);
a [ ] writing spring having a physical shape that receives a portion (see 112 above) of the pressure (Paragraph [0068] describes the piezoelectric actuator to be connected via a spring-loaded connection (inherently a physical component comprising a physical shape).) received by the marker tip (8) from the user (Paragraph [0077] describes as the pen is moved over the surface (by the user), the surfaces acts on the tip 8 to exert a force on the actuator 11.) to [ ] to produce a physical reactionary force (via activation unit 10 [0078]) that emulates a conventional writing feeling by mimicking a displacement to force ratio between a conventional writing implement and a conventional writing surface (Paragraph [0078] describes the saved profile of the value characteristic is used by the activation unit 10 to apply a voltage to the actuator 11 and cause it to vibrate and give the user the impression of the pen 1 being moved over the previously saved (reactionary) surface. Paragraphs [0035] and [0075] describes to use 11 to create an impression for a user moving the tip across a surface via vibrations to create haptic impressions of various kinds of textures of different surfaces in which the pen 1 is moved across.), the physical reactionary force (10) transmitted to the to the user by the marker tip (8) (Paragraphs [0035] and [0075] describes to use 11 to create an impression for a user moving the tip across a surface via vibrations to create haptic impressions of various kinds of textures of different surfaces in which the pen 1 is moved across.);
[ ].
Kügerl does not specifically disclose the display to be of a tablet device.
Kato discloses a tablet device to process position and pressure information from an electronic pen (Figure 1 tablet 200 and pen 2 as described in paragraphs [0045]-0047].)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s pen on the surface of a display with the known technique of the displaying being of a tablet device as disclosed by Kato (paragraph [0045]) yielding the predictable results of a portable device.
Kügerl does not specifically disclose a physical shape of the writing spring mechanically deforms.
Neuwirth discloses a piezoelectric actuator comprising springs that mechanically (defined as the change in shape or size of a material when subjected to external forces) deform in physical shape in creating a physical reactionary force (Figure 2 springs 8 described in paragraph [0057] to compress (inherently physically) and tensioned with the piezoelectric actuator to provide movement/vibrations. Please note Neuwirth is the same applicant TDK electronics AG as Kügerl and comprises an identical embodiment figure 7 of the piezoelectric actuator 11 as Kügerl’s figure 4.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s spring-connected piezoelectric actuator with the known technique of the spring to mechanically deform in physical shape in creating a physical reactionary force yielding the predictable results of preventing tiling movement of the man-machine interface 2 relative to the base plate 8 (the portions connected to the opposite sides of the piezoelectric actuator) as disclosed by Neuwirth (paragraph [0057]).
Neither Kügerl or Neuwirth disclose wherein the writing spring is a singular piece that comprises a material compression pad surrounded by a flexure that provides a geometric deflection, and wherein the flexure comprises a region on the writing spring that includes a recessed portion and a raised portion.
Allen discloses a spring made of a singular piece (Figure 1 mass/pad 110, flexures 112 and 114, and frame 120 depicted as a single piece and described in column 3 lines 32-35.) that comprises a material compression pad (110) surrounded by a flexure (112+114) (Figure 1 reference silicon mass 110 suspended in a double support system including flexures 112 and 114 described in column 3 line 32 to column 4 line 28 to move in response to external forces (implemented for an accelerometer).) that provides the geometric deflection (column 3 lines 55-57), and wherein the flexure comprises a region on the writing spring that includes a recessed portion and a raised portion (Figure 1 reference flexures 112+114 comprising a identified by a maximum recessed point including sloped edges of raised portions.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl and Neuwirth spring with the known technique of a writing spring that is a singular piece that comprises a material compression pad surrounded by a flexure that provides a geometric deflection, and wherein the flexure comprises a region on the writing spring that includes a recessed portion and a raised portion yielding the predictable results of preventing excess movement that may destroy the device as disclosed by Allen (column 3 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 19, Kügerl discloses the active pen-stylus of Claim 18 wherein the writing spring is configured to produce the physical reactionary force to emulate uneven and porous material characteristics of cellulous fibers (Paragraph [0015] describes the profile to reproduce a texture of the surface regarding the roughness. A texture and roughness of a surface inherently includes characteristics of porous material and cellulous fibers which are directly linked to surface roughness.).
Regarding claim 20, Allen discloses the active pen-stylus of claim 19 wherein the writing spring is constructed of silicon (Figure 1 reference silicon mass 110 suspended in a double support system including flexures 112 and 114 described in column 3 line 32 to column 4 line 28 to move in response to external forces (implemented for an accelerometer).).
Regarding claim 23, Kügerl and Neuwirth discloses the pen-stylus of claim 18 wherein the writing spring produces the physical reactionary force (Kügerl: via activation unit 10 [0078]) continuously (see 112 above) in response to the marker tup receiving pressure continuously (see 112 above) from the user engaging with the display (Kügerl: 12) (Kügerl: Figure 1 reference piezoelectric actuator 11 depicted as a shaft through the central portion of the pen 1. Paragraph [0077] describes the actuator 11 to receive a force (pressure) from the pen being moved over a surface, by the user, acts on the sensing tip 8 which exerts a force on the piezoelectric actuator 11. Paragraph [0135] describes the use with a display screen describing the screen to be surface.).
9. Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kügerl-Kato-Neuwirth in view of Barel (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0334661).
Regarding claim 10, Kato discloses the active pen-stylus of Claim 1, wherein the mark tip [ ] receives signals from the tablet device (Figure 1 tablet 200 and pen 2 described in paragraph [0056] wherein the tablet device 200 comprises a position detecting device 300 that transmits a signal to the pen 1 by electromagnetic induction.)
Neither Kügerl or Kato disclose wherein the marker tip is replaceable and includes an antenna.
Barel discloses wherein the marker tip is replaceable (Figure 1 reference moved and placed tip in stylus described in paragraph [0029] as a removable nib/tip. Figure 2 reference 232+234 described in paragraph [0034] as releasable connecting elements.) and includes an antenna (Figures 1-6C reference tup electrode 14 described in paragraph [0034] to be connected with transceiver TRX2 for performing the function of transmitting and receiving signals via the tup, describing electrode 14 to perform the function of an antenna (rod/wire to transmit/receive wireless signals).).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl-Kato’s tip with the known technique of being replaceable and including an antenna yielding the predictable results of allowing easy control of size, shape, and/or height of the tip as disclosed by Barel (paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 17, Kügerl discloses the active pen-stylus of Claim 1, wherein the mark tip [ ] attaches to the writing shaft (Figure 1 tip 8 attaching to shaft 11 via element 5.)
Kügerl does not specifically disclose wherein the marker tip is replaceable.
Barel discloses wherein the marker tip is replaceable (Figure 1 reference moved and placed tip in stylus described in paragraph [0029] as a removable nib/tip. Figure 2 reference 232+234 described in paragraph [0034] as releasable connecting elements.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl-Kato’s tip with the known technique of being removably attachable yielding the predictable results of allowing easy control of size, shape, and/or height of the tip as disclosed by Barel (paragraph [0064]).
10. Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kügerl-Kato-Neuwirth-Allen in view of Dietz.
Regarding claim 21, Kügerl discloses the pen-stylus of claim 18.
Kügerl does not specifically disclose wherein the writing spring emulates the conventional writing feeling from one of a pencil, a quill, an ink brush, a needle, an engraving tool, and a chisel.
Dietz discloses emulating the conventional writing feeling from one of a pencil (Paragraphs [0007] and [0042]), a quill, an ink brush (Paragraph [0059]), a needle, an engraving tool, and a chisel (Paragraphs [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s emulation/haptic impression with the known technique of emulating the conventional writing feeling from one of a pencil, an ink brush, and a chisel yielding the predictable results of simulating the effect of various-shaped stylus tips as disclosed by Dietz (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 22, Kügerl discloses the pen-stylus of Claim 1 wherein the writing spring emulates the conventional writing feeling of various surface roughness (Paragraphs [0015] and [0075] describes the haptic impression can create various kinds of textures regarding different roughness of different surfaces.)
Kügerl does not specifically disclose wherein the writing spring emulates the conventional writing feeling from one of cardboard, a stone tablet, a clay tablet, a bamboo slat, papyrus, a wax tablet, vellum, parchment, copperplate, slate, and porcelain.
Dietz discloses wherein the writing spring emulates the conventional writing feeling from one of cardboard (Paragraph [0007]), a stone tablet, a clay tablet, a bamboo slat, papyrus, a wax tablet, vellum, parchment, copperplate, slate, and porcelain.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Kügerl’s emulation/haptic impression with the known technique of emulating the conventional writing feeling from one of cardboard yielding the predictable results of providing a desired feel of the writing instrument on a desired writing surface as disclosed by Dietz (paragraph [0007]).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In continuation with the interview discussion filed 8/18/2025 and the non-final office action 10/17/2025 the disagreement can be summarized in regards to the utilized components of the invention and applied prior art. Applicant argues that no electrical components are needed to provide the paper emulation. Applicant’s argument pertains to a scope of mechanical force vs an electrical one and argue the newly amended subject matter is in view of the refusal of the examiner to accept the dual nature of conventional force sensors in pen-stylus markers.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no refusal of acceptance regarding the nature of force sensors. There is only a disagreement in the interpretation regarding the claimed limitations intended to reflect applicant’s invention in view of the prior art. Applicant reiterates that the emulation is performed without electrical connections. This implies that the amendment of mechanical forces was intended to overcome the prior art’s piezoelectric actuator. However, as previously rejected and rebutted a piezoelectric actuator undergoes mechanical deformation and therefore discloses the claimed subject matter. A single piece spring that biases the force sensor and/or the newly amended subject matter of defining the physical reactionary force transmitted to various components does not negate the use of other components such as a piezoelectric actuator that utilizes springs to bias the actuator and utilized in combination with the piezoelectric actuator to provide a force to the user for emulation.
The current application’s originally filed specification Paragraph [0096] details the writing spring 1421 to provide tactile feeling during operation to emulate paper writing feeling for users. Said paragraph further details that conventional linear springs (such as those depicted by Neuwirth figure 2) are sufficiently stiff that are unable to pick up smaller forces and unlikely to deflect to convey the nuances of paper texture. However, this is still of discloser of linear springs capable of providing the force feedback. This does highlight a hardware difference between the current application’s single piece spring and the prior art linear spring such that the specification defines the particular arrangement of figure’s 16-17 recesses and raised portions enable the single piece spring to perform the paper texture emulation (implied better than the linear springs).
The particular hardware difference of the spring, disclosed by the current application as the benefit for performing the emulation better than the prior art linear springs, is found disclosed by Allen. Allen’s single piece spring 120 with in an accelerometer is found to have a direct correlation to Kügerl’s piezoelectric actuator connected via spring which measures acceleration applied (paragraph [0026]). If there is a hardware or installation difference in the spring of Allen vs the current application such should be claimed. However, in the current state the previously recited art is found to reject the subject matter. This action is final necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
12. 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 CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3142. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights