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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,752. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the claims of the present Application.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,771. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the claims of the present Application.
Present Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,153,771
U.S. Patent No. 11,740,752
1. A device comprises:
a touch screen that includes a plurality of sensors;
a touch screen controller that includes a plurality of drive sense circuits, wherein a drive sense circuit of the plurality of drive sense circuits is associated with a sensor of the plurality of sensors, and wherein the drive sense circuit senses an electrical characteristic of the sensor; and
a processing module operably coupled to the plurality of drive sense circuits, wherein the processing module is operable to:
receive a sense signal regarding the electrical characteristic;
determine a coordinate location of the sensor based on the sense signal; and
generate a proximal touch signal that includes the coordinate location of the sensor.
1. A touch controller comprises:
2. The touch controller of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensing circuits are operably coupled to the plurality of sensors, and wherein a sensing circuit of the plurality of sensing circuits coupled to the sensor that is operable to: sense the electrical characteristic of the sensor.
a processing module operably coupled to a plurality of sensing circuits, wherein the processing module is operable to:
receive a sense signal regarding an electrical characteristic of a sensor of a plurality of sensors;
determine the sense signal indicates the electrical characteristic is affected by an identifying signal emitted by a finger;
determine a coordinate location of the sensor; and
generate a proximal touch signal that includes the coordinate location of the sensor
10. A device comprises:
a touch screen that includes a plurality of sensors;
a touch screen controller that includes a plurality of drive sense circuits, wherein a drive sense circuit of the plurality of drive sense circuits is associated with a sensor of the plurality of sensors;
a signal generator operable to generate an identifying signal having an identifying frequency component, wherein, when the device is proximal to a body, the body conducts the identifying signal and, when a finger is proximal to the touch screen, the finger emits the identifying signal;
wherein the drive sense circuit sense the electrical characteristic of the sensor; and
generate a sense signal regarding the electrical characteristic;
a processing module operably coupled to the plurality of sensing circuits, wherein the processing module is operable to:
receive the sense signal regarding the electrical characteristic;
interpret the sensed signal to determine whether the electrical characteristic is affected by the identifying signal emitted by the finger;
when the affect is detected, determine a coordinate location of the sensor; and
generate a proximal touch signal that includes the coordinate location of the sensor.
In regards to claim 2, it is rejected over claim 1 of ‘771 and claims 1 and 10 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 3, it is rejected over claim 11 of ‘771 and claims 7 and 16 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 4, it is rejected over claim 19 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 5, it is rejected over claim 19 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 6, it is rejected over claim 7 of ‘771 and claims 3 and 12 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 7, it is rejected over claim 7 of ‘771 and claims 3 and 12 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 8, it is rejected over claim 7 of ‘771 and claims 3 and 12 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 9, it is rejected over claim 6 of ‘771 and claims 2 and 11 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 10, it is rejected over claim 6 of ‘771 and claims 2 and 11 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 11, it is rejected over claim 8 of ‘771 and claims 4 and 13 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 12, it is rejected over claim 8 of ‘771 and claims 4 and 13 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 13, it is rejected over claim 9 of ‘771 and claims 5 and 14 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 14, it is rejected over claim 9 of ‘771 and claims 5 and 14 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 15, it is rejected over claim 9 of ‘771 and claims 5 and 14 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 16, it is rejected over claim 10 of ‘771 and claims 6 and 15 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 17, it is rejected over claim 10 of ‘771 and claims 6 and 15 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 18, it is rejected over claim 3 of ‘771 and claims 1 and 10 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 19, it is rejected over claim 12 of ‘771 and claims 8 and 17 of ‘752.
In regards to claim 20, it is rejected over claim 13 of ‘771 and claims 9 and 18 of ‘752.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gray et al (US 2022/0057879).
In regards to claim 1, Gray discloses a device comprises:
a touch screen (display 85) that includes a plurality of sensors (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 128-129; intersection of electrodes 85);
a touch screen controller (touch screen processing module 82) that includes a plurality of drive sense circuits (drive-sense circuits DSC 28), wherein a drive sense circuit of the plurality of drive sense circuits is associated with a sensor of the plurality of sensors, and wherein the drive sense circuit senses an electrical characteristic of the sensor (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 114); and
a processing module (processing module 42) operably coupled to the plurality of drive sense circuits, wherein the processing module is operable to:
receive a sense signal regarding the electrical characteristic (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 115, 132-133; the signal is received from the DSC);
determine a coordinate location of the sensor based on the sense signal (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 115, 132-133); and
generate a proximal touch signal that includes the coordinate location of the sensor (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 115, 132-133).
In regards to claim 9, Gray discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises an intersection of a row electrode and a column electrode (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 128-129; intersection of electrodes 85).
In regards to claim 10, Gray discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises a capacitive sensor (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 114, 128-129).
In regards to claim 11, Gray discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the electrical characteristic comprises a self-capacitance (Fig. 10 and paragraphs 167-170).
In regards to claim 12, Gray discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the electrical characteristic comprises a mutual-capacitance (Figs. 11-12 and paragraphs 171-173).
In regards to claim 18, Gray discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the drive sense circuit is further operable to:
generate the sense signal regarding the electrical characteristic (Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 115, 132-133; the signal is received from the DSC).
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.
Claims 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al (US 2022/0057879) in view of Weaver et al (US 2013/0176275).
In regards to claim 13, Gray does not disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the processing module is further operable to, in a low power mode:
enable the drive sense circuit to sense the electrical characteristic of the sensor and to generate a sense signal regarding the electrical characteristic.
Weaver discloses wherein the processing module is further operable to, in a low power mode (idle mode or sleep mode):
enable the drive sense circuit to sense the electrical characteristic of the sensor and to generate a sense signal regarding the electrical characteristic (paragraphs 53-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gray with the teachings of Weaver, low-power mode, because it would reduce power consumption of the device and increase the battery life.
In regards to claim 14, Gray does not disclose the device of claim 13, wherein the processing module is further operable to, in the low power mode:
disable the drive sense circuit from sensing self-capacitance of the sensor.
Weaver discloses wherein the processing module is further operable to, in the low power mode (idle mode or sleep mode):
disable the drive sense circuit from sensing self-capacitance of the sensor (paragraphs 53-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gray with the teachings of Weaver, low-power mode, because it would reduce power consumption of the device and increase the battery life.
In regards to claim 15, Gray does not disclose the device of claim 13, wherein the processing module is further operable to, in the low power mode:
disable the drive sense circuit from sensing mutual-capacitance of the sensor.
Weaver discloses wherein the processing module is further operable to, in the low power mode (idle mode or sleep mode):
disable the drive sense circuit from sensing mutual-capacitance of the sensor (paragraphs 53-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gray with the teachings of Weaver, low-power mode, because it would reduce power consumption of the device and increase the battery life.
In regards to claim 16, Gray does not disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the processing module is further operable to, in a noisy mode:
enable the drive sense circuit to sense the electrical characteristic of the sensor and to generate a sense signal regarding the electrical characteristic.
Weaver discloses wherein the processing module is further operable to, in a noisy mode (spectrum estimation mode):
enable the drive sense circuit to sense the electrical characteristic of the sensor and to generate a sense signal regarding the electrical characteristic (paragraphs 53-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gray with the teachings of Weaver, a noisy mode, because it would reduce the interference in the signals giving a better detection results.
In regards to claim 17, Gray does not disclose the device of claim 16, wherein the processing module is further operable to, in the noisy mode:
enable the drive sense circuit to sense self-capacitance of the sensor; and enable the drive sense circuit to sense mutual-capacitance of the sensor.
Weaver discloses wherein the processing module is further operable to, in the noisy mode (spectrum estimation mode):
enable the drive sense circuit to sense self-capacitance of the sensor; and enable the drive sense circuit to sense mutual-capacitance of the sensor (paragraphs 53-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gray with the teachings of Weaver, a noisy mode, because it would reduce the interference in the signals giving a better detection results.
In regards to claim 19, Gray does not disclose the device of claim 1, wherein processing module is further operable to generate the proximal touch signal by:
using a touch heatmap to determine a center of a proximal touch of a finger.
Weaver discloses wherein processing module is further operable to generate the proximal touch signal by:
using a touch heatmap to determine a center of a proximal touch of a finger (paragraphs 30, 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gray by substituting using the heatmap of Weaver to determine a location of the touch in place if the method used by Gray because the results would have yielded a device capable of detecting the location of a touch.
In regards to claim 20, Weaver discloses wherein processing module is further operable to generate the proximal touch signal by:
using a touch heatmap to determine a center of a proximal touch of a finger (paragraphs 30, 33).
Gray and Weaver do not disclose the device of claim 1, wherein processing module is further operable to generate the proximal touch signal by:
using an averaging function to determine a center of a proximal touch of a finger.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an averaging function to determine a center of a touch because Applicant has not disclosed that using an averaging function to determine a center of a touch provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with using a touch heatmap to determine a center of a touch because they both are able to locate a touch on the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cormier Jr. et al (US 2014/0002406) discloses It should be appreciated that most of the time the touch screen of a cell phone, electronic notepad, or the like is not actually being touched. A capacitive touch screen panel in a low-power mode must recognize the presence of a touch by scanning the touch screen panel frequently, which typically involves "waking up" the touch screen controller system 36, scanning the touch screen panel 13A, and determining if a touch is present. If so, the system goes into a high power mode, and if not, the system goes into a low-power sleep mode, in which the system nevertheless dissipates a significant amount of power. There is no practical way of determining if a touch is occurring except to detect its presence by frequently performing a full touch screen panel scan. The high amount of associated power consumption required for such frequent full panel scanning merely to determine if a touch is present is very undesirable. To summarize, the location of a touch on a capacitive touch screen panel is determined by measuring the mutual capacitance between each row conductor and each column conductor, and the capacitive touch screen sensors must be continually scanned to determine if there is a present touch on touchscreen panel 13A, and for the example of a 10 row by 6 column touch screen panel, this requires measuring 60 mutual capacitances (and in a larger touch screen panel, even more mutual capacitances must be measured) just to determine if a touch is present (paragraph 27). Touch screen controller system 36-1 in FIG. 5 includes everything in Prior Art FIG. 1, and further includes touch presence monitoring circuit 80, which operates during a low-power "touch presence monitoring mode" to detect the presence of a valid touch on touch screen panel 13A. The portions of touch screen controller 36-1 which are substantially the same as the portions shown in Prior Art FIG. 1 operate essentially the same as in prior art touch screen controller 36 of FIG. 1 (paragraph 62).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Pervan whose telephone number is (571)272-0910. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri between 7:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Benjamin Lee can be reached on (571) 272-2963. 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.
/MICHAEL PERVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629 March 6, 2026