Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/798,783

MULTI-INPUT INTERFACE COMPUTER DEVICE AND METHODS FOR USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 08, 2024
Examiner
LEE, NICHOLAS J
Art Unit
2624
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Codek Foundries Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
779 granted / 951 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
970
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
55.8%
+15.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 951 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 12-15 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the rejection below in view of Chang. 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 12-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2010/0315335 A1 to Villar et al (“Villar”) in view of US Patent No. 5,298,919 to Chang. As to claim 1, Villar discloses a multi-input interface device (See Fig. 7), comprising: a housing (101); a first sensor unit (110) positioned within the housing and comprising a first optical sensor; and a second sensor unit (707) positioned within the housing and comprising a second optical sensor; wherein the first optical sensor is configured to detect a translational movement of the housing in a plane relative to a surface supporting a bottom surface of the housing (¶ 0030, “x and y displacement in the plane of the surface”); and wherein the second optical sensor is configured to detect a rotational movement (¶ 0064, 0077-0078), and an interface module (109) configured to translate data indicative of the translational movement and data indicative of the rotational movement into a set of movements for information displayed on a display screen of a display device (¶ 0030-0032, 0060-0080; Villar discloses translating translational and rotational movements into a set of movements to be displayed into movements that are depicted in Fig. 6-9.). Villar fails to disclose a second optical sensor configured to detect rotational movement of the housing about an axis perpendicular to the bottom surface of the housing. Chang discloses a second optical sensor configured to detect rotational movement of the housing about an axis perpendicular to the bottom surface of the housing (col. 11, lines 45-50, “measuring rotational movement of the housing about an axis perpendicular to the x-y plane”). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Villar with the teachings of Chang of a sensor configured to detect rotational movement of the housing about an axis perpendicular to the bottom surface of the housing, as suggested by Chang thereby similarly using known configurations of sensors for detecting rotational movement about an axis perpendicular to a surface in the device of Villar. As to claim 2, Villar discloses wherein a portion of the first sensor unit is open on the bottom surface of the housing (See Fig. 7, 110; ¶ 0030). As to claim 3, Villar discloses further comprising: an additional housing separate from the housing (See Fig. 7, 702); a third sensor unit positioned within the additional housing and comprising an additional sensor (See Fig. 7, 708; Villar discloses a button 708 that can be actuated by a user.). As to claim 4, Villar discloses wherein the additional sensor is one of: an optical sensor, an infrared sensor, a mechanical sensor (See Fig. 7, 708; ¶ 0066), a gyroscopic sensor, an electro-magnetic induction sensor, an accelerometer, a thermal sensor, a pressure sensor, or a capacitive sensor. As to claim 8, Villar discloses an input device (See Fig. 7, 708) configured for actuation by a user of the multi-input interface device (¶ 0066). As to claim 9, Villar discloses wherein the interface module is further configured to translate the data indicative of the translational movement and the data indicative of the rotational movement into an operation (¶ 0030-0032, 0054, 0060-0080; Villar discloses translating translational and rotational movements into a set of movements to be displayed into movements that are depicted in Fig. 6-9.). As to claim 10, Villar discloses further comprising: an input device (Fig. 7, 708) configured for actuation by a user of the multi-input interface device (¶ 0066); wherein the interface module translates the data indicative of translational movement, the data indicative of the rotational movement, and a signal resulting from the actuation of the input device into the operation (¶ 0030-0032, 0054, 0060-0080; Villar discloses translating translational and rotational movements into a set of movements to be displayed into movements that are depicted in Fig. 6-9.). As to claim 12, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 13, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 2. As to claim 14, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 3. As to claim 15, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 4. As to claim 19, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 10. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6PM. 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 at 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 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. /NICHOLAS J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 08, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 21, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 26, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 23, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 25, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 25, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600300
FULL DISPLAY MIRROR ASSEMBLY WITH THROUGH BEZEL INFRARED ILLUMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603041
DISPLAY PANEL AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596255
POLARIZATION MECHANISM TO REDUCE WAVEGUIDE REFLECTIONS IN A HEAD-WORN DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597378
DISPLAY SCREEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597286
ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 951 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month