DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the response to this Office action, the Office respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Office in prosecuting this application.
The Office has cited particular figures, elements, paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the Office.
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2024 and 02/20/2025 is being considered by the Examiner.
Disposition of the Claims
4. The instant application was effectively filed on January 15, 2024, wherein claims 1-2, 4-33, 35-39 and 42-62 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Furthermore, regarding argument with respect to claim 39, Applicant argues “Applicant thus respectfully submits that Lida fails to teach, suggest, or disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every feature of Claim 39 as amended. For example, Lida fails to disclose "[a]n electromagnetic shield for a sensor ...wherein the electromagnetic shield is positioned behind a mechanical member associated with the sensor on a portion of the mechanical member opposite from another portion of the mechanical member closer in proximity to the sensor, as recited in amended Claim 39. And for the reasons set forth below, Applicant respectfully submits that Lida in view of Chan does not render obvious this recited claim feature” (see remarks pg. 10).
However, in response to the Applicant's argument Examiner states, regarding piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Additionally, it has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). Thus, Examiner maintains prior art Lida in view of Chan teaches limitations of claim 39 as presented below.
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(s) 1-2, 4-7, 32-33 and 35-38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marijanovic et al. US PG- Pub 20200278753 A1 (hereinafter Mari) in view of Kim et al. US PG-PUB 20220011899 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Mari teaches A system (Fig. 4; resonant phase sensing system 113) comprising: a sensor (Fig. 4; a resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402); and a measurement circuit communicatively coupled to the sensor and configured to: measure phase information associated with the sensor (Para. [0033]; processing IC 412 may be communicatively coupled to resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402); based on the phase information (Para. [0033]; processing IC 412 implements a measurement circuit to measure phase information associated with resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402), determine a change in capacitance and a change in inductance associated with the sensor (Para. [0033]; processing IC 412 which comprises a measurement circuit measures phase information associated with resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402 and based on the phase information, determine a displacement of mechanical member 105 relative to resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402); and detect physical interaction by a user with a mechanical member associated with the sensor based on the change in capacitance and the change in inductance (Para. [0027], [0033]; processing IC 412 may be configured to determine an occurrence of a physical interaction (e.g., press or release of a virtual button) associated with a human-machine interface associated with mechanical member 105 based on the phase information by determining a displacement of mechanical member 105 relative to resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402. Wherein impedance (e.g., inductance, capacitance, and/or resistance) of the resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402 changes in response to displacement of mechanical member 105), although Mari further teaches a portion of the user’s body changing in proximity to the mechanical member, the portion of the user’s body touching the mechanical member, or a force being applied to or released from the mechanical member (Para. [0027]; teaches force applied to mechanical member; [0029]; teaches proximity to mechanical member and [0030]; force is applied to and/or removed from mechanical member 105).
Mari fails to further disclose wherein: the change in capacitance indicates that a portion of the user's body is increasing or decreasing in proximity to the mechanical member; and the change in inductance indicates that a force is being applied to or released from the mechanical member
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches change in capacitance indicates that a portion of the user's body is increasing or decreasing in proximity to the mechanical member; and the change in inductance indicates that a force is being applied to or released from the mechanical member (Para. [0073]-[0084]; a touch input by contact may be sensed by a change in capacitance occurring in the housing 500 or the rear cover 53, when a user's hand 1 approaches the first touch switch unit TSW-1 and when it is determined that the user applies a touch to the first touch switch unit TSW-1, as described above, a touch input by force may be sensed by a change in inductance caused due to a decrease in a distance between the housing 500 and the inductor element LE. Additionally; the electronic device 10 may be configured such that whether a touch applied to the one side surface of the electronic device 10 by a user's hand 1 is an intended contact touch is determined by measuring an amount of change in capacitance, and force strength of the touch is then determined by measuring an amount of change in inductance)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim, in order to discern the type of the touch operation Kim-(Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The system of Claim 1, Mari further teaches wherein the measurement circuit is configured to determine that the user has physically interacted with the mechanical member in response to the change in capacitance occurring proximate in time to the change in inductance (Para. [0027], [0033]; processing IC 412 may be configured to determine an occurrence of a physical interaction (e.g., press or release of a virtual button) associated with a human-machine interface associated with mechanical member 105 based on the phase information by determining a displacement of mechanical member 105 relative to resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402. Wherein impedance (e.g., inductance, capacitance, and/or resistance) of the resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402 changes in response to displacement of mechanical member 105) wherein the impedance calculated comprises both inductance and capacitance which are obtained at same time).
Regarding claim 4, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The system of Claim 1, Mari further teaches wherein the mechanical member is integral to a virtual button replacing a mechanical button of a device (Para. [0027]; a virtual button of mobile device 102).
Regarding claim 5, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The system of Claim 1, Mari further teaches wherein the physical interaction includes one or more of: a portion of the user’s body changing in proximity to the mechanical member, the portion of the user’s body touching the mechanical member, or a force being applied to or released from the mechanical member (Para. [0027]; teaches force applied to mechanical member; [0029]; teaches proximity to mechanical member and [0030]; force is applied to and/or removed from mechanical member 105).
Regarding claim 6, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The system of Claim 1, Mari further teaches wherein the sensor is integral to a resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor (Fig. 4; sensor 402).
Regarding claim 7, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The system of Claim 1, Mari further teaches wherein the sensor comprises an inductive coil (Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 4; inductive coil 202).
Regarding claim 32, Mari teaches A method (Para. [0008]; a method may include measuring phase information) comprising: measuring phase information associated with a sensor (Para. [0033]; processing IC 412 may be communicatively coupled to resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402); based on the phase information (Para. [0033]; processing IC 412 implements a measurement circuit to measure phase information associated with resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402), determining a change in capacitance and a change in inductance associated with the sensor (Para. [0033]; processing IC 412 which comprises a measurement circuit measures phase information associated with resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402 and based on the phase information, determine a displacement of mechanical member 105 relative to resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402) (Para. [0033]; processing IC 412 which comprises a measurement circuit measures phase information associated with resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402 and based on the phase information, determine a displacement of mechanical member 105 relative to resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402); and detecting physical interaction by a user with a mechanical member associated with the sensor based on the change in capacitance and the change in inductance (Para. [0027], [0033]; processing IC 412 may be configured to determine an occurrence of a physical interaction (e.g., press or release of a virtual button) associated with a human-machine interface associated with mechanical member 105 based on the phase information by determining a displacement of mechanical member 105 relative to resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402. Wherein impedance (e.g., inductance, capacitance, and/or resistance) of the resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402 changes in response to displacement of mechanical member 105)
Mari fails to further disclose wherein: the change in capacitance indicates that a portion of the user's body is increasing or decreasing in proximity to the mechanical member; and the change in inductance indicates that a force is being applied to or released from the mechanical member
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches change in capacitance indicates that a portion of the user's body is increasing or decreasing in proximity to the mechanical member; and the change in inductance indicates that a force is being applied to or released from the mechanical member (Para. [0073]-[0084]; a touch input by contact may be sensed by a change in capacitance occurring in the housing 500 or the rear cover 53, when a user's hand 1 approaches the first touch switch unit TSW-1 and when it is determined that the user applies a touch to the first touch switch unit TSW-1, as described above, a touch input by force may be sensed by a change in inductance caused due to a decrease in a distance between the housing 500 and the inductor element LE. Additionally; the electronic device 10 may be configured such that whether a touch applied to the one side surface of the electronic device 10 by a user's hand 1 is an intended contact touch is determined by measuring an amount of change in capacitance, and force strength of the touch is then determined by measuring an amount of change in inductance)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim, in order to discern the type of the touch operation Kim-(Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 33, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The method of Claim 32, Mari teaches further comprising determining that the user has physically interacted with the mechanical member in response to the change in capacitance occurring proximate in time to the change in inductance (Para. [0027], [0033]; processing IC 412 may be configured to determine an occurrence of a physical interaction (e.g., press or release of a virtual button) associated with a human-machine interface associated with mechanical member 105 based on the phase information by determining a displacement of mechanical member 105 relative to resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402. Wherein impedance (e.g., inductance, capacitance, and/or resistance) of the resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor 402 changes in response to displacement of mechanical member 105) wherein the impedance calculated comprises both inductance and capacitance which are obtained at same time).
Regarding claim 35, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The method of Claim 32, Mari further teaches wherein the mechanical member is integral to a virtual button replacing a mechanical button of a device (Para. [0027]; a virtual button of mobile device 102).
Regarding claim 36, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The method of Claim 32, Mari further teaches wherein the physical interaction includes one or more of: a portion of the user’s body changing in proximity to the mechanical member, the portion of the user’s body touching the mechanical member, or a force being applied to or released from the mechanical member (Para. [0027]; teaches force applied to mechanical member; [0029]; teaches proximity to mechanical member and [0030]; force is applied to and/or removed from mechanical member 105).
Regarding claim 37, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The method of Claim 32, Mari further teaches wherein the sensor is integral to a resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor (Fig. 4; sensor 402).
Regarding claim 38, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The method of Claim 32, Mari further teaches wherein the sensor comprises an inductive coil (Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 4; inductive coil 202).
Claim(s) 39 and 42-43 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lida et al. US PG-Pub 20130234734 A1 (hereinafter Lida) in view of Chan et al. US PG-Pub 20190265832 A1 (hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claim 39, Lida teaches An electromagnetic shield for a sensor (Para. [0284]; The shield layer 69 is used to shield an electromagnetic noise that enters the capacitive elements 60s from the back surface side of the sensor unit 6), the electromagnetic shield comprising: shielding material configured to shield passage of electromagnetic energy (Para. [0284]; The shield layer 69 is used to shield an electromagnetic noise); and at least one void formed in the shielding material (Para. [0284]; The shield layer 69 is formed in a mesh form wherein Examiner interpret the opening/slit/spacing in the mesh as claimed “void”)
Lida fails to further disclose wherein the electromagnetic shield is positioned behind a mechanical member associated with the sensor on a portion of the mechanical member opposite from another portion of the mechanical member closer in proximity to the sensor.
However, in the same field of touch sensing, Chan teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield is positioned behind a mechanical member associated with the sensor on a portion of the mechanical member opposite from another portion of the mechanical member closer in proximity to the sensor (See Fig. 4b; arrangement of the shielding 49, button 48 and sensor 40).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Chan, in order to shield noise from the sensor.
Regarding claim 42, Lida as modified by Chan teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 39, Lida further teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a mesh of shielding material with the at least one void comprising one or more openings formed in the mesh (Para. [0284]; the shield layer 69 is used to shield an electromagnetic noise that enters the capacitive elements 60s from the back surface side of the sensor unit 6 and is formed in a mesh form).
Regarding claim 43, Lida as modified by Chan teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 42, Lida further teaches wherein the mesh is electrically grounded (Para. [0284]; The shield layer 69 is connected to a ground potential).
Claims 8, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim in view of Lida et al. US PG-Pub 20130234734 A1 (hereinafter Lida).
Regarding claim 8, Mari as modified by Kim teaches The system of Claim 1, Mari further teaches wherein the sensor comprises an inductive coil (Fig. 2; coil 202), Mari as modified by Kim fails to disclose further comprising an electromagnetic shield for the sensor, the electromagnetic shield comprising: shielding material configured to shield passage of electromagnetic energy; and at least one void formed in the shielding material.
However, in the same field of touch input, Lida teaches an electromagnetic shield for the sensor (Para. [0284]; The shield layer 69 is used to shield an electromagnetic noise that enters the capacitive elements 60s from the back surface side of the sensor unit 6), the electromagnetic shield comprising: shielding material configured to shield passage of electromagnetic energy (Para. [0284]; The shield layer 69 is used to shield an electromagnetic noise); and at least one void formed in the shielding material (Para. [0284]; The shield layer 69 is formed in a mesh form wherein Examiner interpret the opening/slit/spacing in the mesh as claimed “void”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim with the teachings as taught by Lida in order to shield an electromagnetic noise from enter the sensing unit Lida-(Para. [0284]).
Regarding claim 11, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida teaches The system of Claim 8, Lida further teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a mesh of shielding material with the at least one void comprising one or more openings formed in the mesh (Para. [0284]; the shield layer 69 is used to shield an electromagnetic noise that enters the capacitive elements 60s from the back surface side of the sensor unit 6 and is formed in a mesh form).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim with the teachings as taught by Lida in order to shield an electromagnetic noise from enter the sensing unit Lida-(Para. [0284]).
Regarding claim 12, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida teaches The system of Claim 11, Lida further teaches wherein the mesh is electrically grounded (Para. [0284]; The shield layer 69 is connected to a ground potential).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim with the teachings as taught by Lida in order increase shielding effect Lida-(Para. [0284]).
Claims 9 and 10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim and Lida and further in view of Chan et al. US PG-Pub 20190265832 A1 (hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claim 9, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida teaches The system of Claim 8, although Mari as modified by Kim and Lida teaches having the disclosed elements electromagnetic shield, mechanical member and sensor, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida fails to further disclose the claimed arrangement wherein the electromagnetic shield is positioned between the mechanical member and the sensor.
However, in the same field of touch sensing, Chan teaches claimed arrangements wherein the electromagnetic shield is positioned between the mechanical member and the sensor (See Fig. 4b; shielding 49 is disposed between button 48 and sensor 40).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to re-arrange parts of taught by Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Chan, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 10, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida teaches The system of Claim 8, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida fails to further disclose wherein the electromagnetic shield is positioned behind the mechanical member on a portion of the mechanical member opposite from another portion of the mechanical member closer in proximity to the sensor.
However, in the same field of touch sensing, Chan teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield is positioned behind the mechanical member on a portion of the mechanical member opposite from another portion of the mechanical member closer in proximity to the sensor (See Fig. 4b; arrangement of the shielding 49, button 48 and sensor 40).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Chan, in order to shield noise from the sensor.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim and Lida and further in view of Tang et al. US PG-Pub 20210278920 A1 (hereinafter Tang).
Regarding claim 13, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida teaches The system of Claim 11, Lida teaches shielding layer is formed of mesh (Para. [0284]), Mari as modified by Kim and Lida fails to further disclose wherein the mesh is electrically floating.
However, in the same field of touch sensor with shielding, Tang teaches shielding layer is formed of metal mesh (Para. [0053]; the shielding layer may be a patterned metal layer, for example, a metal mesh) and wherein the mesh is electrically floating (Para. [0054]; the shielding layer 130 may provide effective shielding when it is electrically connected to a reference voltage (grounding), or electrically floating).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Tang, in order to shield/block noise from the sensor Tang-(Para. [0054]).
Claim 14-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim and Lida and further in view of Kato US PG-Pub 20190191599 A1 (hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 14, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida teaches The system of Claim 8, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida fails to further disclose wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a plurality of islands of shielding material with the at least one void comprising spacing between adjacent islands of the plurality of islands.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Kato teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a plurality of islands of shielding material with the at least one void comprising spacing between adjacent islands of the plurality of islands (Fig. 1 and Para. [0092]; the electromagnetic wave shielding material 1 has a configuration in which the plurality of the electrically-closed resonance loops 3 are arranged like floating islands).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Kato, in order to suppress the reflection of the electromagnetic waves without grounding Kato-(Para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 15, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida and Kato teaches The system of Claim 14, Kato further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of islands is electrically grounded (Para. [0092] suggests shielding maybe completely grounded).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Kato, in order to occurrence of interference/noise Kato-(Para. [0091]).
Regarding claim 16, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida and Kato teaches The system of Claim 14, Kato further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of islands is electrically floating (Para. [0092]; suggests maybe arrange without ground thereby floating).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Kato, in order to suppress the reflection of the electromagnetic waves without grounding Kato-(Para. [0092]).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Kato and further in view of Kim US PG- Pub 20190114011 A1 (hereinafter Kim4011).
Regarding claim 17, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida and Kato teaches The system of Claim 14, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida and Kato fails to further disclose wherein: at least one first island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a first terminal of the sensor; and at least one second island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a second terminal of the sensor.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Kim4011 teaches wherein: at least one first island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a first terminal of the sensor; and at least one second island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a second terminal of the sensor (Fig. 6, 8, 11 and [0104]; In addition, since the shield layer 410 disposed below the first conductive lines CFL1 has the island shape on a plane, impact resistance of the touch sensor 200 and a display device including the same can be reinforced).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida and Kato with the teachings as disclosed by Kim4011, in order to shield touch sensor.
Claims 18-19, 21-23, 25, 27-28 and 30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and further in view of Glad et al. US PG-Pub 20240402854 A1 (hereinafter Glad).
Regarding claim 18, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida teaches The system of Claim 8, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida fails to further disclose wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a coil shield with the at least one void comprising one or more spaces formed in the coil shield.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Glad teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a coil shield with the at least one void comprising one or more spaces formed in the coil shield (Fig. 5b and Para. [0093]; shield layer 504 comprise coil shield 512 with opening and gap 552).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to prevent a continuous flow of electrical current to flow around the inductance coil. Additionally, the presence of the coil shield may absorb thermal energy. wherein absorbing thermal energy improving the durability and longevity of a capacitance module Glad-(Para. [0113] and [0116]).
Regarding claim 19, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 18, Mari further teaches wherein the sensor is an inductive coil (Fig.’s 2 and 4; inductive coil 202) Mari as modified by Kim and Lida fails to further disclose and the coil shield substantially overlaps the coil shield.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Glad teaches wherein the sensor is an inductive coil (Fig.’s 2 and 4; inductive coil 202) and the coil shield substantially overlaps the coil shield (Fig. 5b; 510 and 512 overlap; Fig. 6b; 606, 616).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
Regarding claim 21, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 18, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida fails to further disclose wherein the coil shield is electrically floating.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Glad teaches wherein the coil shield is electrically floating (Para. [0118]; the coil shields may be electrically floating).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
Regarding claim 22, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 18, Glad further teaches wherein terminals of the coil shield are electrically shorted together (Para. [0118]; The coil shields may be electrically connected to the other coil shields on different layers and in the same corner).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
Regarding claim 23, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 22, Glad further teaches wherein the terminals of the coil shield are electrically shorted to a terminal of the inductive coil (Para. [0116]-[0119]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 18, Glad further teaches further comprising a second coil shield arranged such that the inductive coil is between the coil shield and the second coil shield (See Fig. 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
Regarding claim 27, Mari as modified by Kim and Lida teaches The system of Claim 8, Mari as modified by Lida fails to further disclose wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a plurality of concentric rings with the at least one void comprising spaces between adjacent rings of the plurality of concentric rings.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Glad teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a plurality of concentric rings with the at least one void comprising spaces between adjacent rings of the plurality of concentric rings (Fig. 15 and Para. [0145]; the coil shield 1504 has a circular shape disposed in multiple segments and multiple barriers and the coil shield includes a pair of segmented concentric rings with openings and gaps).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to reduce generated heat and magnetic fields Glad-(Para. [0140]).
Regarding claim 28, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 27, Glad further teaches wherein the sensor is an inductive coil and the plurality of concentric rings substantially overlap the coil shield (see Fig. 15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to reduce generated heat and magnetic fields Glad-(Para. [0140]).
Regarding claim 30, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 27, Glad further teaches wherein at least one ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically floating (Fig. 15 and Para. [0145]; the coil shield 1504 has a circular shape disposed in multiple segments and multiple barriers and the coil shield includes a pair of segmented concentric rings and Para. [0118]; the coil shields may be electrically floating).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim and Lida with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to shield/block noise.
Claim 29 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad and further in view of Hwang et al. US PG-Pub 20180166507 A1 (hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding claim 29, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 27, Glad further teaches as shown in Fig. 15 and Para. [0145]; the coil shield 1504 has a circular shape disposed in multiple segments and multiple barriers and the coil shield includes a pair of segmented concentric rings with openings and gaps,
Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad fails to disclose wherein at least one ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically grounded.
However, in the same field of touch sensing with electromagnetic shielding, Hwang teaches wherein at least one ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically grounded (Para. [0127]; the shielding layer 340 is electrically floating or electrically grounded. Para. [0147]; The shielding layer 340 comprises plurality of closed loop patterns 343a to 343d wherein the plurality of closed loop patterns 343a to 343d can have concentric rectangular shapes).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad with the teachings as disclosed by Hwang, in order to prevent deterioration caused by display noise and touch noise occurring in the device Hwang-(Para. [0163]).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad and further in view of Kim et al. US PG-Pub 20220255353 A1 (hereinafter Kim5353).
Regarding claim 20, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 18, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad fails to further disclose wherein the coil shield is electrically grounded.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Kim5353 teaches wherein the coil shield is electrically grounded (Para. [0102]; the coil 421 overlaps with the touch sensing circuit 403 and operates as the ground).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Lida and Glad with the teachings as disclosed by Kim5353, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference from the sensing circuit Kim5353-(Para. [0102]).
Claim 26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad and further in view of Das et al. US Patent No. 10,921,159 B1 (hereinafter Das).
Regarding claim 26, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 25, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad fails to further disclose wherein the measurement circuitry is configured to determine a direction from which a force is applied based on which of the coil shield and the second coil shield experiences a change in phase.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Das teaches wherein the measurement circuitry is configured to determine a direction from which a force is applied based on which of the coil shield and the second coil shield experiences a change in phase (Fig. 6a-6d and Col. 12 lines 24-32).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad with the teachings as disclosed by Das, in order to efficiently determine the direction/location of the displacement Das-(Col. 12 lines 24-32).
Claim 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad and further in view of Glad et al. US PG-Pub 20240419277 A1 (hereinafter Glad277).
Regarding claim 31, Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches The system of Claim 27, although Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad teaches having the plurality of concentric rings.
Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad fails to disclose electrically coupling the plurality of concentric rings to a sensor
However, in the same field of touch sensing with shielding, Glad277 teaches at least one first ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically coupled to a first terminal of the sensor; and at least one second ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically coupled to a second terminal of the sensor (See Fig. 2 and Fig. 10; capacitive sensing module includes capacitance controller).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mari as modified by Kim, Lida and Glad with the teachings as disclosed by Glad277, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference from the sensing circuit.
Claim 44 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lida in view of Chan and further in view of Tang et al. US PG-Pub 20210278920 A1 (hereinafter Tang).
Regarding claim 44, Lida as modified by Chan teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 42, Lida teaches shielding layer is formed of mesh (Para. [0284]), Lida as modified by Chan fails to further disclose wherein the mesh is electrically floating.
However, in the same field of touch sensor with shielding, Tang teaches shielding layer is formed of metal mesh (Para. [0053]; the shielding layer may be a patterned metal layer, for example, a metal mesh) and wherein the mesh is electrically floating (Para. [0054]; the shielding layer 130 may provide effective shielding when it is electrically connected to a reference voltage (grounding), or electrically floating).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Tang, in order to shield/block noise from the sensor Tang-(Para. [0054]).
Claims 45-47 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lida in view of Chan and further in view of Kato US PG-Pub 20190191599 A1 (hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 45, Lida as modified by Chan teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 39, Lida as modified by Chan fails to further disclose wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a plurality of islands of shielding material with the at least one void comprising spacing between adjacent islands of the plurality of islands.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Kato teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a plurality of islands of shielding material with the at least one void comprising spacing between adjacent islands of the plurality of islands (Fig. 1 and Para. [0092]; the electromagnetic wave shielding material 1 has a configuration in which the plurality of the electrically-closed resonance loops 3 are arranged like floating islands).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Kato, in order to suppress the reflection of the electromagnetic waves without grounding Kato-(Para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 46, Lida as modified by Chan and Kato teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 45, Kato further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of islands is electrically grounded (Para. [0092] suggests shielding maybe completely grounded).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Kato, in order to occurrence of interference/noise Kato-(Para. [0091]).
Regarding claim 47, Lida as modified by Chan and Kato teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 45, Kato further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of islands is electrically floating (Para. [0092]; suggests maybe arrange without ground thereby floating).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Kato, in order to suppress the reflection of the electromagnetic waves without grounding Kato-(Para. [0092]).
Claim 48 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lida as modified by Chan and Kato and further in view of Kim US PG- Pub 20190114011 A1 (hereinafter Kim4011).
Regarding claim 48, Lida as modified by Chan and Kato teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 45, Lida as modified by Chan and Kato fails to further disclose wherein: at least one first island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a first terminal of the sensor; and at least one second island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a second terminal of the sensor.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Kim4011 teaches wherein: at least one first island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a first terminal of the sensor; and at least one second island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a second terminal of the sensor (Fig. 6, 8, 11 and [0104]; In addition, since the shield layer 410 disposed below the first conductive lines CFL1 has the island shape on a plane, impact resistance of the touch sensor 200 and a display device including the same can be reinforced).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan and Kato with the teachings as disclosed by Kim4011, in order to shield/protect noise from the touch sensor.
Claims 49-50, 52-54, 56, 58-59 and 61 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lida as modified by Chan and further in view of Glad et al. US PG-Pub 20240402854 A1 (hereinafter Glad).
Regarding claim 49, Lida as modified by Chan teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 39, Lida as modified by Chan fails to further disclose wherein the sensor is an inductive coil and wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a coil shield with the at least one void comprising one or more spaces formed in the coil shield.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Glad teaches wherein the sensor is an inductive coil (Fig. 5a, 5b; inductance coils 510) and wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a coil shield with the at least one void comprising one or more spaces formed in the coil shield (Fig.5b and Para. [0093]; shield layer 504 comprise coil shield 512 with opening and gap 552).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to prevent a continuous flow of electrical current to flow around the inductance coil. Additionally, the presence of the coil shield may absorb thermal energy. wherein absorbing thermal energy improving the durability and longevity of a capacitance module Glad-(Para. [0113] and [0116]).
Regarding claim 50, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 49, Glad teaches wherein the sensor is an inductive coil (Fig.’s 2 and 4; inductive coil 202) and the coil shield substantially overlaps the coil shield (Fig. 5b; 510 and 512 overlap; Fig. 6b; 606, 616).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
Regarding claim 52, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 49, Glad further teaches wherein the coil shield is electrically floating (Para. [0118]; the coil shields may be electrically floating).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
Regarding claim 53, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 49, Glad further teaches wherein terminals of the coil shield are electrically shorted together (Para. [0118]; The coil shields may be electrically connected to the other coil shields on different layers and in the same corner).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
Regarding claim 54, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 53, Glad further teaches wherein the terminals of the coil shield are electrically shorted to a terminal of the inductive coil (Para. [0116]-[0119]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 56, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 49, Glad further teaches further comprising a second coil shield arranged such that the inductive coil is between the coil shield and the second coil shield (See Fig. 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference Glad-(Para. [0119]).
Regarding claim 58, Lida as modified by Chan teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 39, Lida as modified by Chan fails to further disclose wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a plurality of concentric rings with the at least one void comprising spaces between adjacent rings of the plurality of concentric rings.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Glad teaches wherein the electromagnetic shield comprises a plurality of concentric rings with the at least one void comprising spaces between adjacent rings of the plurality of concentric rings (Fig. 15 and Para. [0145]; the coil shield 1504 has a circular shape disposed in multiple segments and multiple barriers and the coil shield includes a pair of segmented concentric rings with openings and gaps).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to reduce generated heat and magnetic fields Glad-(Para. [0140]).
Regarding claim 59, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 58, Glad further teaches wherein the sensor is an inductive coil and the plurality of concentric rings substantially overlap the coil shield (see Fig. 15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to reduce generated heat and magnetic fields Glad-(Para. [0140]).
Regarding claim 61, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 58, Glad further teaches wherein at least one ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically floating (Fig. 15 and Para. [0145]; the coil shield 1504 has a circular shape disposed in multiple segments and multiple barriers and the coil shield includes a pair of segmented concentric rings and Para. [0118]; the coil shields may be electrically floating).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan with the teachings as disclosed by Glad, in order to shield/block noise.
Claim 51 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lida as modified Chan and Glad and further in view of Kim et al. US PG-Pub 20220255353 A1 (hereinafter Kim5353).
Regarding claim 51, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 49, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad fails to further disclose wherein the coil shield is electrically grounded.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Kim5353 teaches wherein the coil shield is electrically grounded (Para. [0102]; the coil 421 overlaps with the touch sensing circuit 403 and operates as the ground).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan and Glad with the teachings as disclosed by Kim5353, in order to minimize and/or reduce the interference from the sensing circuit Kim5353-(Para. [0102]).
Claim 57 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lida as modified by Chan and Glad and further in view of Das et al. US Patent No. 10,921,159 B1 (hereinafter Das).
Regarding claim 57, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 56, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad fails to further wherein the measurement circuitry is configured to determine a direction from which a force is applied based on which of the coil shield and the second coil shield experiences a change in phase.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Das teaches wherein the measurement circuitry is configured to determine a direction from which a force is applied based on which of the coil shield and the second coil shield experiences a change in phase (Fig. 6a-6d and Col. 12 lines 24-32).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan and Glad with the teachings as disclosed by Das, in order to efficiently determine the direction/location of the displacement Das-(Col. 12 lines 24-32).
Claim 60 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lida as modified by Chan and Glad and further in view of Hwang et al. US PG-Pub 20180166507 A1 (hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding claim 60, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 58, Glad further teaches as shown in Fig. 15 and Para. [0145]; the coil shield 1504 has a circular shape disposed in multiple segments and multiple barriers and the coil shield includes a pair of segmented concentric rings with openings and gaps,
Lida as modified by Chan and Glad fails to disclose wherein at least one ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically grounded.
However, in the same field of touch sensing with electromagnetic shielding, Hwang teaches wherein at least one ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically grounded (Para. [0127]; the shielding layer 340 is electrically floating or electrically grounded. Para. [0147]; The shielding layer 340 comprises plurality of closed loop patterns 343a to 343d wherein the plurality of closed loop patterns 343a to 343d can have concentric rectangular shapes).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan and Glad with the teachings as disclosed by Hwang, in order to prevent deterioration caused by display noise and touch noise occurring in the device Hwang-(Para. [0163]).
Claim 62 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lida as modified by Chan and Glad and further in view of Kim US PG- Pub 20190114011 A1 (hereinafter Kim4011).
Regarding claim 62, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad teaches The electromagnetic shield of Claim 58, Lida as modified by Chan and Glad fails to further wherein: at least one first ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically coupled to a first terminal of the sensor; and at least one second ring of the plurality of concentric rings is electrically coupled to a second terminal of the sensor.
However, in the same field of electromagnetic shielding, Kim4011 teaches wherein: at least one first island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a first terminal of the sensor; and at least one second island of the plurality of islands is electrically coupled to a second terminal of the sensor (Fig. 6, 8, 11 and [0104]; In addition, since the shield layer 410 disposed below the first conductive lines CFL1 has the island shape on a plane, impact resistance of the touch sensor 200 and a display device including the same can be reinforced).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lida as modified by Chan and Glad with the teachings as disclosed by Kim4011, in order to shield touch sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 55 are 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 claims 24 and 55, none of the references cited either alone or in any obvious combination teaches and/or suggests “the inductive coil is resonated at a first frequency; and the coil shield is resonated at a second frequency; such that the measurement circuitry detects a force applied to the mechanical member in response to a change in phase in both the inductive coil and the coil shield”.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMY ONYEKABA whose telephone number is (571)270-7633. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5.
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, NITIN K PATEL can be reached on 5712727677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY ONYEKABA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights