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 .
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
As for claim 11¸ the phrase "other substances" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "other substances"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1, 10-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando [US 20190380621 A1] in view of Cho et al [US 20150234498 A1].
As for claim 1, Ando discloses an object recognizing device (see Abstract) comprising:
an electrode array (Fig 1 – Fig 2B.) including a plurality of sense electrodes (11; paragraphs 0052-0053);
a sensing circuit configured to generate a pulse train representing spatial information and material information on an object positioned over the electrode array based on mutual capacitances formed between the plurality of electrodes (paragraphs 0054-0057); and
a neuron network processor configured to recognize the object positioned over the electrode array based on the pulse train (paragraphs 0059-0064).
Ando does not explicitly disclose that the electrode array comprises a plurality of drive electrodes. In an analogous art for object recognition, Cho discloses that it was known in the art to employ a plurality of drive electrodes and sense electrodes for recognizing the presence of an object (paragraphs 0017-0019). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Ando to include the teachings of Cho in order to yield an object recognizing device based on a change in capacitance. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for sensing, using electrodes that were within his/her technical grasps at the time of filing the instant application.
Claims 10-14 and 17, as best understood, are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claims 19-20 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 15, 16, and 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses object recognition systems and/or devices that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights