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 .
The Office acknowledges the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 04 February 2026, in which:
Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Claims 1-4 are amended.
Claims 5-10 are canceled.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant argues that the Applicant’s invention is event-triggered and remains inactive until a click is identified. However, Gajiwala discloses this exact sequence. Rejection of the palm is only performed in response to step 174 upon indication of a click input (Gajiwala: Para. [0046]). Only then does the system proceed to steps 180 and 182 to report the click and discard the palm. Thus, the rejection is functionally and temporarily triggered by the click event, reading directly on the amended limitations.
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 of this title, 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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gajiwala et al. (US 2025/0244849, hereinafter “Gajiwala”) in view of Chang et al. (US 2020/0026407, hereinafter “Chang”).
With respect to Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Gajiwala teaches a method for generating touchpad information, comprising:
receiving a touch input from a touchpad having a sensing region (Gajiwala: Para. [0033], a palm rest 40 having a touch detection surface to accept user touches as inputs),
wherein the sensing region includes one or more predefined region of exclusion (Gajiwala: Para. [0006] a palm rest area adjacent to a keyboard where “expected touches that are not intended as inputs, such as a palm resting on the touchpad” are analyzed for rejection),
wherein the touch-input selectively includes one or more sensed input correspond to a finger object and a non-finger object (Gajiwala: Abstract, logic that “compares touch areas with associated pressures to differentiate intentional inputs from unintentional inputs, such as a palm resting on the palm rest”),
wherein the sensed input corresponding to the finger object selectively indicates a click event (Gajiwala: Para. [0010], [0046], identifying a “heavy thumb touch intended at a click” and determines if the level of force applied at the touch detection surface “indicates a click input”);
identifying, by a controller connected to the touch pad, a click event from the touch input (Gajiwala: Para. [0033], a “processing resource within palm rest 40” that determines if the detected level of force indicates a click input);
when a click event is identified, the controller determining a simultaneous presence of a finger object in the sensing region and a non-finger object in the predefined region of exclusion (Gajiwala: Para. [0044], identifies the scenario where the user “lightly places a palm on the touch detection surface” while performing a thumb click); and
when the controller determines a simultaneous presence of a finger object in the sensing region and a non-finger object in the predetermined region of exclusion, the controller blocking the sensed input corresponding to the non-finger object to an operating system, thereby enabling the operating system issuance of a click action corresponding to the click event (Gajiwala: Para. [0033], [0046], when the click is identified in Step 174, the “nonintentional touches are discarded or rejected as inputs.” Specifically, the controller reports to the operating system that the “click operations are disabled [for the palm]” while the finger input is reported to the host).
Gajiwala fails to expressly disclose that this blocking or discarding is achieved by transmitting a simulated leave signal to mask the palm.
However Chang discloses transmitting a simulated “leaves” signal to the operating system to clear an object status, even if the object remains in physical contact, to improve the operating experience (Chang: Para. [0012], [0020] – [0021], Fig. 1, step 16).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the discarding or rejected as inputs logic of Gajiwala, to incorporate the specific technical “simulated leave” mechanism, as taught by Chang, in order to trick the OS into releasing its buffer for the palm, thereby ensuring that the “click action” identified by Gajiwala is successfully issued by the OS without interference (Chang: Para. [0021]). Gajiwala further teaches concurrent reporting, as Steps 180 (report input) and 182 (disable palm) occur as part of the same logic branch upon identification of a click input).
With respect to Claim 2 (Currently Amended), the combination of Gajiwala as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the click event includes one of a single-tap event, a physical-click event, a tap-to-click event, and a corner-tap event (Gajiwala teaches the click event includes physical button activity or tap gestures. The specific list of “single-tap, physical-click, tap-to-click, and corner-tap” is notorious in the art and taught by Westerman (of record)).
With respect to Claim 4 (Currently Amended), the combination of Gajiwala as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, in response to determining that the non-finger object is detected but not in the one or more predefined regions of exclusion (Gajiwala: Para. [0044], inputs are accepted and processed based on “expected locations.” If a touch is in a location associated with a finger rather than a palm, it is reported as an input rather than being rejected), or the touch input does not correspond to the non-finger object (Gajiwala: Para. [0045] – [0046], Fig. 9B, step 176, the controller determines if a touch is a palm or an intended input. Gajiwala further states, “a low value of bit 0 is assigned when the touch area on its own indicates a finger touch and the process continues to step 178 to… report to the operating system.”) the controller is configured to report a second touch information and a third touch information to the operating system, wherein the third touch information indicates that the non-finger object contacts the sensing region (Gajiwala: Para. [0044], if the rejection criteria are not met, the system continues monitoring and reporting the contact of objects not classified for rejection (intended touches) as part of normal multi-touch input. The device allows users to scroll or perform inputs “without lifting their finger,” confirming that the system reports continuous contact to the OS for non-palm objects.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gajiwala in view of Chang, as applied above to claims 1, 2, and 4, and further in view of Chen (US 2025/0085794).
With respect to Claim 3 (Currently Amended), the combination of Gajiwala as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 1.
While Gajiwala teaches a general palm rest, Gajiwala fails to expressly disclose specific sub-regions for “corner palm” grip types.
However, Chen discloses identifying specific sub-regions for “corner palm” grip types (Chen: Para. [0090]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define the exclusion regions, as taught by Gajiwala, to include specific lower left and right corners, as taught by Chen, to target areas where palms are statistically most likely to rest (Chen: Para. [0062], [0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625