DETAILED ACTIONNotice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 15 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 1-11 and 15-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GILLESPIE et al (2008/0048997) (herein “GILLESPIE”) in view of Banerjee et al (2003/0128195) (herein “Banerjee”) and further in view of Cool (2003/0214490). In regards to claims 1, 7 and 15, GILLESPIE teaches an input system comprising a sensor and a position indicator, the sensor including: an array of electrodes (See; p[0028]-p[0032]); and a sensor controller coupled to the array of electrodes (See; Fig. 3 control 56 and p[0111], p[0118]) and configured to control: a touch mode operation, which determines a position of a proximate object on the array of electrodes by sensing the proximate object based on capacitive coupling using signals caused in the array electrodes (See; p[0256]-p[0258]); and a position indicator mode operation, which determines a position of the position indicator on the array of electrodes using signals caused in the array of electrodes (See; p[0039]-p[0040], p[0091], p[0112]-p[0113] and p[0237]); and the position indicator including: a pressure sensor configured to detect a pressure applied to a tip of the position indicator (See; p[0041]); an indicator controller configured to prepare digital data including pressure information indicative of the pressure applied to the tip of the position indicator (See; p[0041], p[0091] and p[0260]), and a transmitter configured to cause the signals in the array of electrodes to indicate the position of the position indicator on the array of electrodes (See Abstract and p[0083] for a capacitive touch sensor detecting capacitive coupling at the array of electrodes) and transmit the data to the sensor as digital data using a wireless communication protocol (See; p[0031], p[0039]-p[0045], p[0213] and p[0245]). GILLESPIE fails to explicitly teach the sensor having a separate wireless communication link, where a transmitter is configured to transmit the digital data, not to the array of electrodes but to the wireless communication link of the sensor using a wireless communication protocol. However, Banerjee teaches a sensor having a separate wireless communication line, where a transmitter is configured to transmit the digital data, not to the array of electrodes but to the wireless communication link of the sensor using a wireless communication protocol (See; Fig. 3 and p[0030] where a separate Bluetooth connection between the stylus and PDA may transmit pressure data separately from the position data detected by the PDA touchscreen). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify GILLESPIE to use an additional Bluetooth link to transmit pressure information such as in Banerjee so as to allow additional advanced functionalities of the stylus beyond what can be detected by the touchscreen’s electrodes. The combination further fails to explicitly teach a pressure sensor configured to detect a pen pressure applied to a tip of the position indicator having a pen shape. However, Cool teaches a pressure sensor configured to detect a pen pressure applied to a tip of the position indicator having a pen shape (See; Fig. 1 and p[0012] for a force sensor 135 detecting pressure applied to the tip 130 of the stylus having a pen shape. This pressure being transmitted using a wireless link such as Bluetooth). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the stylus of either GILLESPIE or Banerjee to include a tip pressure sensor so as to add further features to the stylus as was common in the art. In regards to claims 2, 8 and 16, Banerjee teaches, wherein the wireless communication protocol is a Bluetooth protocol or a Zigbee protocol (See; Fig. 3 and p[0030] where a separate Bluetooth connection between the stylus and PDA may transmit pressure data separately from the position data detected by the PDA touchscreen) .
In regards to claims 3, 9 and 17, GILLESPIE teaches, wherein the position indicator communicates with the sensor asynchronously (See; p[0113]-p[0145]). Additionally, Banerjee teaches wherein the position indicator communicates with the sensor asynchronously (See; Fig. 3 and p[0030] where a separate Bluetooth connection between the stylus and PDA may transmit pressure data separately from the position data detected by the PDA touchscreen).
In regards to claims 4, 10 and 18, GILLESPIE teaches wherein the position indicator transmits the digital data in a data frame format (See; p[0031]-p[0038] and p[0168]-p[0170])). In regards to claims 5, 11 and 19, GILLESPIE fails to explicitly teach wherein the data frame format includes start bit(s) indicative of a start of a frame, data type bit(s) indicative of a data type, and value bit(s) indicative of a value of the data. However it is well known that digital data frames contain bits, including start, data, data value and end bits. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the well-known bit format in digital data so as to properly communicate the digital data to and from the processors.
In regards to claims 6 and 20, GILLESPIE fails to explicitly teach wherein the data frame format includes end bit(s) indicative of an end of the frame. However it is well known that digital data frames contain bits, including start, data, data value and end bits. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the well-known bit format in digital data so as to properly communicate the digital data to and from the processors.
Claims 12-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GILLESPIE et al (2008/0048997) (herein “GILLESPIE”) in view of Banerjee et al (2003/0128195) (herein “Banerjee”) in view of Cool (2003/0214490) and further in view of Robrecht et al (2006/0139338) (herein “Robrecht”). In regards to claim 12, GILLESPIE fails to explicitly teach comprising a drive current source including a battery or a capacitor. However, Robrecht teaches a drive current source including a battery or a capacitor (See; Fig. 1 and p[0026] for an internal power source such as a battery). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify GILLESPIE to include a battery so as to not need a power cord to supply power, increasing portability of the device.
In regards to claim 13, Robrecht teaches wherein the drive current source is configured to be charged with power transmitted from the sensor (See; p[0026]).
In regards to claim 14, Robrecht teaches wherein the drive current source is configured to be charged when the position indicator is placed in a charging station (See; p[0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. 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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627