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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (details of shielding unit) in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 1-14 are pending, but claims 10-14 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected subject matter, and claims 1-9 are examined as follows.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Touch input device with shielding sheet and conductive layer that recognize precise stylus touch”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 4 reads “a display unit below the sensor”, however the sensor lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the sensor was interpreted as the subsequent “single sensor unit”.
Claim 9 uses the term “and/or” which does not clearly convey whether the subsequent limitation is positively required or is optional. As such, the term “and/or” was interpreted as “or” for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in WO2021/150045-A1 (hereinafter Kim) in view of Maezawa et al. in JP-2005142551-A (hereinafter JP551). The national entry publication US 2023/0067179 was used as translation for WO-2021/150045-A1, and a machine translation was used to reference the specification of JP-2005142551-A.
Regarding claim 1, Kim disclose a touch input device (Kim’s Fig. 93 and abstract) that drives a stylus pen (Kim’s abstract) comprising a resonance circuit unit (Kim’s Figs. 12, 25) and senses a pen signal (Kim’s Fig. 12 and par. 677) from the stylus pen (Kim’s Fig. 12), the touch input device comprising:
a cover layer (Kim’s Fig. 93 and par. 668: window 22);
a display unit (Kim’s Fig. 93 and par. 546: see 251) disposed below a single sensor unit (Kim’s Fig. 93 and par. 668: touch electrode layer 21);
the single sensor unit disposed between the cover layer and the display unit (Kim’s Fig. 93: see 21 between 22 and 251), and comprising a pattern (Kim’s Figs. 12, 20 and par. 668: pattern of electrodes 111 and 121) for sensing touch (Kim’s par. 667) and at least one pattern (Kim’s Figs. 12, 20 and par. 784: pattern of electrodes 111 and 121) for driving the stylus pen and sensing the pen signal (Kim’s par. 784: touch electrode 21 generates electric field by driving signal, thus RC of pen 10 resonates);
a shielding unit disposed below the display unit (Kim’s Fig. 93 and par. 1016: ferrite sheet 25 under display 251).
Kim fails to disclose wherein the shielding unit comprises a magnetic field shielding sheet disposed below the display unit and a conductive layer disposed below the magnetic field shielding sheet, and wherein the shielding unit has a permeability and a thickness, which allow a change rate of an inductance value of the resonant circuit unit to be -10% to +10% of a reference inductance value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of shielding for electromagnetic stylus (JP551’translation pg. 3 2nd paragraph), JP551 disclose a shielding unit comprising a magnetic field shielding sheet (JP551’s Fig. 1 and translation pg. 5 2nd paragraph: magnetic layer 2) and a conductive layer disposed below the magnetic field shielding sheet (JP551’s Fig. 1 and translation pg. 5 2nd paragraph: conductive layer 1), wherein the shielding unit has a permeability and a thickness (JP551’s translation pg. 6 4th paragraph from bottom).
Furthermore, JP551 also discloses ranges of permeability and thickness that overlap the requirements of instant claims 2 and 3, which by virtue of dependency from claim 1 meet the requirement of allowing a change rate of an inductance value of the resonant circuit unit to be -10% to +10% of a reference inductance value (JP551’s translation pg. 4 1st paragraph regarding permeability of 50-4000 [overlaps instant claim 2] and translation pg. 7 1st paragraph regarding thickness of 10µm-50µm [overlaps instant claim 3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Kim’s shielding unit (Kim’s Fig. 93: see 25) includes a magnetic fielding sheet and a conductive layer (as taught by JP551), in order to obtain the benefit of suppressing effects against high frequency noise (JP551’s translation pg. 3 last paragraph).
Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art that the permeability and thickness of Kim in view of JP551’s shielding unit are optimized through routine optimization (See MPEP2144.05.II) to arrive at values that meet the requirement “allow a change rate of an inductance value of the resonant circuit unit to be -10% and +10% of a reference inductance value”; because JP551 already discloses permeability and thickness values overlapping instant claims 2 and 3, and doing so provides the benefit of varying the permeability and thickness that increases shielding property at high frequencies (JP551’s Figs. 2-4 and translation pg. 8 2nd paragraph from bottom, and pg. 10 2nd-5th paragraphs from top).
By doing such combination, Kim in view of JP551 disclose:
wherein the shielding unit (Kim’s Fig. 93: see 25 equivalent to JP’s Fig. 1) comprises a magnetic field shielding sheet (Kim’s Fig. 93: see 25 includes magnetic layer 2 per JP551’s Fig. 1 and translation pg. 5 2nd paragraph) disposed below the display unit (Kim’s Fig. 93: see 25 below 251) and a conductive layer disposed below the magnetic field shielding sheet (JP551’s Fig. 1 and translation pg. 5 2nd paragraph: see conductive layer 1 below layer 2), and
wherein the shielding unit (Kim’s Fig. 93: see 25 equivalent to JP’s Fig. 1) has a permeability and a thickness (JP551’s translation pg. 6 4th paragraph from bottom), which allow a change rate of an inductance value of the resonant circuit unit to be -10% to +10% of a reference inductance value (upon routine optimization of values of permeability and thickness, which already overlap the ranges of instant claims 2 and 3 as explained above).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of JP551 further disclose wherein the shielding unit has a permeability of 10 or more to 300 or less (JP551’s translation pg. 4 1st paragraph: permeability of 50-4000). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the overlapping values of permeability in order to obtain the benefit of increasing shielding properties as explained for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of JP551 disclose wherein the shielding unit has a thickness of 10 µm or more to 300 µm or less (JP551’s translation pg. 7 1st paragraph: 10µm-50µm).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of JP551 as applied above, in further view of Ito et al. in US 2017/0185173 (hereinafter Ito).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of JP551 fail to explicitly disclose wherein the inductance value of the resonance circuit unit when the stylus pen is moved upward to a predetermined height from a touch surface of the touch input device is -10% to +10% of an inductance value of the resonance circuit unit when the stylus pen is disposed on the touch surface.
Kim discloses sensing a hovering state of the stylus and controlling a magnitude of the resonance signal accordingly (Kim’s par. 817), the stylus resonating with the touch screen driving signal even during hovering (Kim’s par. 865, 899), the degree of resonance affected by the mutual inductance (Kim’s Figs. 47-49 and par. 885), and an application where input in hover state is prevented (Kim’s Figs. 195-196 and par. 1730-1731).
Furthermore, Ito disclose that the mutual inductance between a touch sensor and the RC of a stylus varies according to inclination of the pen with respect to the sensor (Ito’s par. 14) due to the variation of the distance between the RC circuit of the pen and the shield plate of the touch sensor (Ito’s par. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Kim’s sensing of the hovering state (Kim’s par. 817) is based on a variation of the mutual inductance caused by the distance between the RC circuit of the pen and the shield plate of the touch sensor (Ito’s par. 12), and that in order to trigger a hovering state (Kim’s par. 817), it is also obvious to perform routine experimentation (See MPEP2144.05.II) of ranges of variation of the inductance (such as -10% to 10%) with respect to a predetermined hover height (such as the height at point B where the stroke NL is prevented from being input in Kim’s Fig. 195 and par. 1728-1731);
in order to obtain the predictable result of detecting hover by the known variable of mutual inductance (mutual inductance of Ito’s par. 14 and Kim’s Figs. 48-49 and par. 885), and to perform routine experimentation to obtain a specific trigger of hover state for applications where input in hover state is not wanted (Kim’s Figs. 195-196 and par. 1730-1731).
By doing such combination, Kim in view of JP551 and Ito disclose:
wherein the inductance value of the resonance circuit unit (Kim’s Figs. 47-49: see M0 which varies according to distance from window 22 per Ito’s par. 12, 14) when the stylus pen is moved upward to a predetermined height (Kim’s Fig. 195: hover height at point B) from a touch surface of the touch input device (Kim’s Fig. 29a, 195: contact at point A or point C) is -10% to +10% (range of inductance M0 obtained through routine experimentation for hover height of Fig. 195 at point B [which is to prevent input] from contact height at point A or C [which is to enter input]) of an inductance value of the resonance circuit unit when the stylus pen is disposed on the touch surface (Kim’s Fig. 29a, 47-49: resonance M0 at contact).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of JP551 fail to explicitly disclose wherein an inductance value of the resonance circuit unit when the stylus pen is disposed perpendicular to a touch surface of the touch input device and then tilted at a predetermined angle is -10% to +10% of an inductance value when the stylus pen is disposed perpendicular to the touch surface.
Kim discloses sensing an inclination state of the stylus, controlling a magnitude of the resonance signal and adjusting touch data according to the inclination (Kim’s par. 818), and the degree of resonance affected by the mutual inductance (Kim’s Figs. 47-49 and par. 885).
Furthermore, Ito disclose that the mutual inductance between a touch sensor and the RC of a stylus varies according to inclination of the pen with respect to the sensor (Ito’s par. 14) due to the variation of the distance between the RC circuit of the pen and the shield plate of the touch sensor (Ito’s par. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that in order to control the magnitude of the resonance signal according to the inclination (Kim’s par. 818), it is obvious to perform routine experimentation (See MPEP2144.05.II) of ranges of variation of the inductance (such as -10% to 10%) with respect to inclination angles from a pen being perpendicular (Ito’s par. 14, e.g. from Kim’s Fig. 12a→Fig. 78);
in order to obtain the predictable result of obtaining the controlled resonance signals (Kim’s par. 818) according to determined tilt angles (Ito’s par. 14) through routine experimentation of the variation of mutual inductance (Kim’s Figs. 48-49) as caused by inclination (Ito’s par. 14).
By doing such combination, Kim in view of JP551 and Ito disclose:
wherein an inductance value of the resonance circuit unit (Kim’s Figs. 48-49: see M0 which varies according to inclination angle from window 22 per Ito’s par. 14) when the stylus pen is disposed perpendicular to a touch surface of the touch input device and then tilted at a predetermined angle (e.g. from Kim’s Fig. 12a→Fig. 78) is -10% to +10% (range of inductance M0 obtained through routine experimentation for tilt of Ito’s par. 14 or inclination of Kim’s par. 818) of an inductance value of the resonance circuit unit when the stylus pen is disposed perpendicular to the touch surface (Kim’s Fig. 12a, 48-49: resonance M0 when perpendicular).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of JP551 as applied above, in further view of Park et al. in US 2023/0036968 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of JP551 fail to disclose wherein the conductive layer comprises at least one slit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of magnetic shield units for digitizers with stylus, Park discloses the conductive layer comprising at least one slit (Park’s Fig. 7 and par. 115)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Kim in view of JP551’s conductive layer (JP551’s Fig. 1: see conductive layer 1) comprises at least one slit (Park’s Fig. 7 and par. 115), in order to obtain the benefit of reducing the influence of the magnetic field and the generated eddy current (Park’s par. 115).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of JP551 and Park disclose wherein the slit has a shape extending from one edge of the conductive layer in an inward direction of the conductive layer (Park’s Fig. 7: see slit 634).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of JP551 and Park disclose wherein the slit has a shape of a dotted line in a horizontal or vertical direction of the conductive layer (Park’s Figs. 8, 14 and par. 116, 179: see slits 834/1438, slits 1438 have a shape of dotted line in the vertical direction of the paper).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose ALL limitations of claim 1, in addition to “wherein an amount of increase in inductance value of the resonant circuit unit caused by the magnetic shielding sheet and an amount of decrease in inductance value of the resonant circuit unit caused by the conductive layer are equal to each other, or a sum of the amount of increase and the amount of decrease is -10% to +100% of the reference inductance value”.
Kim does not disclose these features, and while JP551 discloses variations of the permeability and thickness of the shield unit (as explained for claims 1-3), JP551 fails to disclose how each of the magnetic shield sheet and the conductive layer separately or by addition affect the inductance value of the resonant circuit, and thus fail to make obvious the limitations of claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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 at 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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621