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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is indefinite because the claim is drawn to an apparatus but the charge/discharge switching element are drawn to method steps. (MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
There is a difference between a charge/switching element discharging than a charge/switching element configured to discharge.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is indefinite because the claim is drawn to an apparatus but the control device is drawn to method steps. (MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
There is a difference between a control device executing than a control device configured to execute.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is indefinite because the claim is drawn to an apparatus but the measurement instrument is drawn to method steps. (MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
There is a difference between a measurement instrument acquiring than a measurement instrument configured to acquire.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite because the claim is drawn to an apparatus but the charge/discharge switching element are drawn to method steps. (MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
There is a difference between a charge/switching element discharging than a charge/switching element configured to discharge.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite because the claim is drawn to an apparatus but the control device is drawn to method steps. (MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
There is a different between a control device executing than a control device configured to execute.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite because the claim is drawn to an apparatus but the measurement instrument is drawn to method steps. (MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
There is a different between a measurement instrument acquiring than a measurement instrument configured to acquire.
Examiner suggest applicant review claims for similar and additional issues.
Claims 2-11 and 13 are rejected for containing 112 rejections above and for depending on rejected claim.
Examiner’s Note:
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as outlined above. No prior art rejection has been applied to these claims because the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach the following features recited in these claims:
Regarding claim 1, the measuring instrument detects a position where the conductor is in contact with the electrostatic sensor based on a first potential first sampling value (V11) and a first potential second sampling value (V12) in the process of charging, wherein the first potential first sampling value is the first potential acquired at a first sampling time point (ST1) after a predetermined time has elapsed since start of charging the electrostatic sensor, and the first potential second sampling value is the first potential acquired at a second sampling time point (ST2) after a predetermined time has elapsed since the first sampling time point as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the measuring instrument detects an area where the conductor is in contact with the electrostatic sensor based on a first potential second sampling value, wherein the first potential second sampling value is the first potential acquired at a second time point which is later than a first time point after a predetermined first time has elapsed since start of charging the electrostatic sensor and when a change in the potential of the measurement electrode is in a transitional state before reaching a saturated state, and after a predetermined second time has elapsed since the start of charging the electrostatic sensor in the process of charging as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 12.
Prior art of record:
Nakajima et al. (US 20150346907) teach an input state detection device capable of reliably detecting contact and pressing of an object. A state switching switch can switch a first state in which a voltage application terminal of a constant-voltage power supply is connected to a side of a first electrode and a detection terminal of a detector is connected to a side of second electrodes, and a second state in which the voltage application terminal of the constant-voltage power supply is connected to the side of the second electrodes and the detection terminal of the detector is connected to the side of the first electrode. An input detector detects whether the object is in a non-contact state or in a contact but not pressing state with respect to a surface on the side of the second electrodes based on a value detected by the detector with the state switching switch in the first state.
Nakalima et al. does not teach the limitations above.
Philipp (US 20040104826) teach the position of an object, which may be a user's finger, along a body is sensed capacitively. A measurement circuit meters the simultaneous injection of electrical charge into the two ends of the body, which may be shaped as a straight line or as a curve. A computing device computes the ratio of the relative changes in the amount of charge injected into each end of the element. The result of this computation is a one dimensional coordinate number plus a detection state indication, both of which can be fed to another functional element, such as an appliance controller, which interprets the coordinate and detection state as a command or measurement.
Philipp does not teach the limitations above.
Takada et al. (US 20180107302) teach a display apparatus with a touch detection function, the display apparatus includes: an input surface; a touch detection electrode; a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode across a dielectric layer; a touch detection controller configured to detect contact with or proximity to the input surface by a detection target object based on electrostatic capacitance between the first electrode and the touch detection electrode
Takada et al. does not teach the limitations above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights