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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Some information disclosure statements lack a size fee assertion.
Some information disclosure statements fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Some copies appear to include fewer than all figures.
Some information disclosure statements fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement.
Some information disclosure statements fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
All information disclosure statements have been placed in the application file, but except where initialed by the Examiner, the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/05/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings filed 11/08/2024 are objected to because:
Fewer than all drawings are “grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h). See especially Fig. 7.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 632.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 11/05/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “the dial pattern comprises … an outer ring pattern region; … and the outer ring pattern region is opaque” in lines 4-9. This contradicts “a dial pattern at a position corresponding to the translucent region” in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 8 recites “the preset touch position falls within the dial pattern.” This contradicts claim 1, which recites “a dial pattern at a position corresponding to the translucent region, … and the outer ring pattern region is opaque.” Applicant’s touch position is clearly the opaque outer ring, rather than some translucent region corresponding to the dial pattern.
Other pending claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
For examination purposes, though a portion of the dial pattern must correspond to the translucent region, the dial pattern need not be entirely confined to the translucent region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-13, to the extent understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al (US 20120315954 A1) in view of Ng et al (US 20070152977 A1) and Davies et al (US Pat. No. 9692946 B2).
As recited in independent claim 1, to the extent understood, Ahn et al show a touch control module (see Figs. 5B-5C, for example), comprising: a touch pad 308, comprising a front side (facing the viewer in Figs. 5B-5C) and a back side (facing away from the viewer in Figs. 5B-5C) opposite to each other, wherein the front side (facing the viewer in Figs. 5B-5C) comprises a touch surface (surface facing the user), the touch surface (surface facing the user) comprises a translucent region (see thumbnail image 316, for example, which would not be visible if touch screen 308 lacked translucence), the touch surface comprises a dial pattern (including thumbnail image 316 and wheel icon 318) at a position corresponding to the translucent region (insofar as thumbnail image 316 necessarily exists in the translucent region), and the dial pattern (including thumbnail image 316 and wheel icon 318) comprises an inner circle pattern region (see circle within which thumbnail image 316 appears) and an outer ring pattern region (see wheel icon 318); wherein the translucent region (insofar as thumbnail image 316 would not be visible in the absence of translucence) is located in the inner circle pattern region (see circle where thumbnail image 316 appears).
As recited in independent claim 1, Ahn et al are silent regarding at least one light-emitting element, arranged at the back side, and corresponding to the translucent region.
As recited in independent claim 1, Ng et al show at least one light-emitting element 270 arranged at a back side (lower side in Fig. 8A, side facing away from the viewer in Fig. 8B), and corresponding to a translucent region (see translucent button cap 272).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a light-emitting element behind a translucent region was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include a light-emitting element behind the translucent region of Ahn et al as taught by Ng et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to illuminate a center button with one or more LEDs as taught by Ng et al (“mechanical button 268 may be illuminated with one or more center LEDs 270” [0117]).
As recited in independent claim 1, Ahn et al are further silent regarding whether the outer ring pattern region is opaque.
Regarding independent claim 1: Ng et al teach that only a touched portion of an outer ring pattern is illuminated (“referring to FIG. 13A, if the user places their finger over a single angular segment of the distribution panel that particular angular segment is illuminated. … only one of the segments is illuminated.” [0135]). See also comet appearance trailing the user’s moving finger in Fig. 17D. See also Fig. 16A, wherein no illumination is illustrated because “no objects are detected” [0144]. Ng et al further teach the use of touchpad segments as a playback clock for a song, wherein “When the song is over, the touch pad is no longer illuminated” [0163].
Furthermore, Davies et al disclose “LCD layer 108 has a higher resolution than the backlight layer 106. The control signals 114 control the LCD layer 108 to selectively block, in high resolution, portions of the low resolution image 116. As a result, the output HDR image 112 is also at high resolution. As a result, the output HDR image 112 corresponds to the input video data 110 (as modified by the transfer function). As further detailed with reference to FIG. 2, the control circuit 104 uses the transfer function when controlling the backlight layer 106 and the LCD layer 108, in order to generate the HDR image 112 that more closely resembles the output of a CRT device. This operation may be referred to as a CRT emulation mode.” (See col. 3, line 59-col. 4, line 4.) Davies et al’s LCD layer 108 functions to control the opacity of a display, so as to prevent the appearance of illumination with high resolution when a display panel is illuminated by low resolution backlights.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that an opaque ring was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use an LCD layer as suggested by Davies et al to make Ahn et al’s outer ring pattern opaque. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to prevent illumination of Ahn et al’s outer ring when untouched (as shown by Ahn et al’s Fig. 5C) in order to alert the user to the current (untouched) state of the touch pad, and therefore the type of inputs (the user is at liberty to resume dialing the outer ring to rotate an image, for example) that can be made as taught by Ng et al (“the input surface is illuminated based on the state of the touch pad. As a result, the user is alerted to the current state of the touch pad, and therefore the type of inputs that can be made” [0148]) so as “to encourage the user to place their finger in a particular area of the touch pad” as taught by Ng et al [0115].
As recited in claim 7, Ahn et al show a control element 180, the control element 180 is electrically coupled to the touch pad 308 and at least one light-emitting element (insofar as “display module 151 may include at least one of a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), a Thin Film Transistor-LCD (TFT-LCD), an Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED)” [0036]), the control element 180 is (necessarily) configured to receive a touch signal through the touch pad 308.
As recited in claim 7, Ahn et al are silent regarding whether when a touch position or a touch track corresponding to the touch signal satisfies a preset touch position or a preset touch track, the control element controls the at least one light-emitting element to emit light according to the touch signal.
As recited in claim 7, Ng et al disclose that when a touch position or a touch track corresponding to the touch signal satisfies a preset touch position (see touched position in Fig. 17D, for example) or a preset touch track (see track in Fig. 17D, for example), the control element controls the at least one light-emitting element (see comet and tail in Fig. 17D, for example) to emit light according to the touch signal (“a signal is produced each time an object is positioned over a sensing point” [0058]).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that illuminated touch positions and touch tracks were predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to illuminate the touched position and track of Ahn et al as suggested by Ng et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to indicate a present position and a previous position of the user’s finger as taught by Ng et al (“The body surrounds the finger with illumination and the tail tapers away from the body to a point. The tail trails the body as the body moves around the input surface. The tail therefore indicates the previous location of the object” [0146]).
As recited in claim 8, to the extent understood, Ang et al show that a preset touch position (see position of user’s finger in Fig. 5B) falls within the dial pattern (see wheel icon 318, which is touched by a user in Fig. 5B).
As recited in claim 9, Ang et al show that the preset touch position (see position of user’s finger in Fig. 5B) falls within the outer ring pattern region (see wheel icon 318).
As recited in claim 10, Ang et al are silent regarding whether a quantity of light-emitting elements is plural, and the plurality of light-emitting elements is lit up in sequence according to the touch track of the touch signal.
As recited in claim 10, Ng et al show that the plurality of light-emitting elements is lit up in sequence according to the touch track of the touch signal (“FIG. 17C illustrates the state where the illuminated area follows the moving finger” [0146]).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that lighting up in sequence according to a touch track was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to light up light-emitting elements as the user of Ahn et al dials the wheel icon of Ahn et al as suggested by Ng et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to arrive at the recited sequence in the course of routine design choice as suggested by Ng et al (“FIG. 17C illustrates the state where the illuminated area follows the moving finger” [0146]) in order to increase user engagement through amusing visual effects rewarding and encouraging the user’s interaction with the touch interface.
As recited in claim 11, Ang et al are silent regarding whether the plurality of light-emitting elements is arranged along a junction between the inner circle pattern region and the outer ring pattern region.
There is no invention in relocating known parts, when the functioning of the apparatus is not changed by the relocation. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Furthermore, as recited in claim 11, Ng et al show that a plurality of light-emitting elements 258 is arranged along a junction between the inner circle pattern region (where translucent button cap 272 appears) and an outer ring pattern region 264.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that the recited location was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrange light-emitting elements along a junction between Ahn et al’s inner circle pattern region and Ahn et al’s outer ring pattern region as suggested by Ng et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to arrive at the recited location in the course of routine design choice in the absence of criticality.
As recited in claim 12, Ahn et al show that the translucent region is located at a center of the inner circle pattern region (see Fig. 5B, wherein thumbnail image 318 appears centered within an inner circle pattern region).
As recited in claim 13, Ahn et al shows that the dial pattern (see thumbnail image 316 and wheel icon 318 taken together) is located at an edge (see bottom edge in Fig. 5B, for example) of the touch pad 308.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al (US 20120315954 A1) in view of Ng et al (US 20070152977 A1) and Davies et al (US Pat. No. 9692946 B2) as applied above, and further in view of Pryor (US 20090273563 A1).
Ahn et al show a touch control module as described above.
As recited in claim 2, Ahn et al are silent regarding whether surface structures of the inner circle pattern region and the outer ring pattern region are different.
As recited in claim 2, Pryor shows that surface structures (heights in Fig. 11b, for example) of the inner circle pattern region (see mesa surrounded by groove 1155) and the outer ring pattern region (see groove 1155) are different (insofar as their heights are different).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that different surface structures were predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to differ the surface structures of Ahn et al’s inner circle pattern and outer ring pattern as taught by Pryor. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to guide the user’s finger around Ahn et al’s outer ring pattern via tactile sensation of an annular groove as taught by Pryor (“FIG. 11b illustrates an annular groove 1155 in screen 1102 which can be traced around with finger tip 1101 in order to guide finger tip to the desired clock wise position indicative of a variable or quantity desired. The finger image, is discerned best when the finger is fully in the groove, as it would be when one was "feeling" for same and guiding ones finger around it, in a fashion similar to a old style telephone dial, or knob” [0312]).
As recited in claim 3, Ahn et al are silent regarding whether a step exists between the inner circle pattern region and the outer ring pattern region.
As recited in claim 3, Pryor shows that a step (see height difference in Fig. 11b) exists between the inner circle pattern region (see mesa surrounded by groove 1155) and the outer ring pattern region (groove 1155).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a step was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include a step between Ahn et al’s inner circle pattern and Ahn et al’s outer ring pattern as suggested by Pryor. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to guide the user’s finger around Ahn et al’s outer ring pattern via tactile sensation of an annular groove as taught by Pryor (“FIG. 11b illustrates an annular groove 1155 in screen 1102 which can be traced around with finger tip 1101 in order to guide finger tip to the desired clock wise position indicative of a variable or quantity desired. The finger image, is discerned best when the finger is fully in the groove, as it would be when one was "feeling" for same and guiding ones finger around it, in a fashion similar to a old style telephone dial, or knob” [0312]).
As recited in claim 14, Ang et al are silent regarding whether the touch surface comprises a ring-shaped concave structure to form the dial pattern.
As recited in claim 14, Pryor shows that the touch surface comprises a ring-shaped concave structure (see groove 1155) to form the dial pattern (“guiding ones finger around it, in a fashion similar to a old style telephone dial” [0312]).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a ring-shaped concave structure was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to make concave the ring-shaped wheel icon of Ang et al as suggested by Pryor. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to guide the user’s finger around Ahn et al’s outer ring pattern via tactile sensation of a ring-shaped concave structure as taught by Pryor (“FIG. 11b illustrates an annular groove 1155 in screen 1102 which can be traced around with finger tip 1101 in order to guide finger tip to the desired clock wise position indicative of a variable or quantity desired. The finger image, is discerned best when the finger is fully in the groove, as it would be when one was "feeling" for same and guiding ones finger around it, in a fashion similar to a old style telephone dial, or knob” [0312]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 and 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In an interview on 01/16/2026, the Examiner asked whether the newly added features are decorative or functional, and if functional, whether any unexpected results are caused by the claimed arrangement of translucent and opaque regions. No evidence of unexpected results has been produced.
Although “Applicant respectfully submits that the translucent region located in the inner circle pattern region and the opaque outer ring pattern region are functional for prompting the user and providing positional awareness”, Ng et al disclose “selected segments may be illuminated to encourage a user to place their finger in a particular area of the touch pad” [0115] which amounts to prompting the user, and “Fig. 17C illustrates the state where the illuminated area follows the moving finger. Fig. 17D illustrates one implementation where the illuminated area includes a body and a tail (e.g., a comet). The body surrounds the finger with illumination and the tail tapers away from the body to a point. The tail trails the body as the body moves around the input surface. The tail therefore indicates the previous location of the object. The tail typically has a lower intensity level than the body. The intensity of the tail may even vary from higher to lower intensity levels as for example over its length or from its core to its edge” [0146] which yields positional awareness. For this reason, the asserted results of Applicant’s opaque outer ring pattern are merely expected results.
Furthermore, opacity control was known in the art. See Davies et al, wherein illumination from a coarse backlight 106 is finely attenuated by LCD 108 which controls opacity in any location where illumination isn’t needed. Ng et al’s condition that “the touch pad is no longer illuminated” would clearly benefit from such opacity control, which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Davies et al.
The claims amount to nothing more than known elements predictably combinable by a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain expected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
03/10/2026