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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (sub-method of Fig. 5) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending, but claims 3-4 and 14-15 are withdrawn from examination as directed to non-elected subject matter and claims 1-2, 5-13 and 16-20 are examined as follows.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Scanning control method with selection of driving channels according to touch signals”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 20 is directed toward a computer-readable storage medium; and while the disclosure provides examples including non-transient computer readable storage media (par. 158), the disclosure fails to provide a closed definition excluding non-transitory embodiments. Consequently, the office gave the broadest reasonable interpretation to include embodiments such as a carrier wave, which is not a tangible article and therefore it is non-statutory. Please note that the memo "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Medium" (dated 1/27/2010), which can be found on the USPTO website under patents/law/notices, suggests that a claim drawn to a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments can be optionally amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
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 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 1-2, 9, 12-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. in US 2012/0154324 (hereinafter Wright).
Regarding claim 1, Wright disclose a scanning control method (Wright’s par. 2) for a touch display screen (Wright’s par. 4, 19), comprising:
determining a first driving channel (Wright’s Figs. 6: row/columns for predicted contact location 610) where a touch signal is detected (Wright’s par. 52: predicted contact location is the calculated location from a previous scan) and N driving channels (Wright’s Figs. 6 and par. 59: row/columns for search window 611) adjacent to the first driving channel (Wright’s Figs. 6: rows/columns for 610) as first to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 59: one there is a predicted location 610 then capacitance scan in search window 611), wherein the first driving channel is any one or more driving channels among a plurality of driving channels (Wright’s Fig. 6B: see rows and columns), and N is a positive integer (Wright’s Fig. 6: N is the number of columns 613 or rows 612);
selecting an unselected driving channel combination (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: rows/columns of extended search window 621) as second to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 63: scanning additional sensor elements), wherein the driving channel combination comprises at least one adjacent driving channel except the first to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: rows/columns 622/623), and driving channels comprised by different driving channel combinations are not all the same (Wright’s Fig. 6A: search window 611, vs. extended search window 621 vs. outside of windows);
providing a touch driving signal to the first to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 59-60: self or mutual capacitance, which requires a driving signal to window 611) and the second to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 59-60, 63: self or mutual capacitance, which requires a driving signal to window 621, or remaining area scan per par. 70) and obtaining a touch signal (Wright’s par. 61-63: capacitance measurements, or par. 70: detect additional presence);
if a target driving channel where the touch signal is detected is inconsistent with the first driving channel (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: contact location 620 [target driving channel] is partially or completely outside 611 [first driving channel]), updating the target driving channel as the first driving channel (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: extended search window 621 that includes rows/columns of location 620).
Wright fails to explicitly disclose if the target driving channel where the touch signal is detected is consistent with the first driving channel, continuing to select an unselected driving channel combination as the second to-be-scanned driving channels until there are no unselected driving channel combinations.
However, Wright does disclose scanning the remaining area after the local scan (Wright’s par. 70) and dividing into sections to detect a new contact (Wright’s par. 72, 75). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Wright’s method to:
if the target driving channel where the touch signal is detected is consistent with the first driving channel (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-62: contact location 610 [target driving channel] is wholly within 611 [first driving channel]). continuing to select an unselected driving channel combination as the second to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 70: scan of the remaining area after the local scan, which upon combination is performed by sensing sections [combinations] per par. 72, 75) until there are no unselected driving channel combinations (Wright’s par. 70: scan of the remaining area);
in order to obtain the benefit of scanning the remaining area by known methods (Wright’s par. 70, 72, 75).
Regarding claim 2, Wright further discloses wherein the selecting an unselected driving channel combination (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: rows/columns of extended search window 621) as second to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 63: scanning additional sensor elements) comprises:
sequentially selecting an unselected driving channel combination (Wright’s par. 31, 43, 77: TX or TX sets driven in sequence) as the second to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 63: scanning additional sensor elements) in order of arrangement of the driving channels (Wright’s Fig. 6C and par. 31, 77: TX or TX-sets driven in sequency from top to bottom, which upon combination applies to the extended search window 621 of Fig. 6A).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Wright’s extended search window (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: 621) is driven sequentially in order of arrangement of the driving channels, in order to obtain the predictable result of sequential driving (Wright’s par. 31) in an already disclosed order (Wright’s Fig. 6C and par. 77).
Regarding claim 9, Wright disclose wherein after providing a touch driving signal to the first to-be-scanned driving channels and the second to-be-scanned driving channels and obtaining a touch signal (Wright’s par. 61-63: capacitance measurements, or par. 70: detect additional presence), the scanning control method for the touch display screen further comprises:
sending first sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611) and second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: capacitance value from window 621 or par. 70: detection from scan of remaining area) to an upper computer controller (Wright’s Fig. 2 and par. 28, 38: measurements processed by converter 218, converter 218 may be part of logic 102 which is part of 110 in Fig. 1), so that the upper computer controller calculates a position of a touch point (Wright’s par. 38: touch coordinates) on the touch display screen (Wright’s par. 4) according to the first sensing data and the second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611 and the remaining area),
wherein the first sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611) comprises sensing data of a plurality of receiving channels (Wright’s Figs. 6A, 6C: receive channels are Rx in mutual or Tx in Self per par. 43-44) corresponding to the first to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s Figs. 6A. 6C: rows/columns of window 611), and
the second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: capacitance value from window 621 or par. 70: detection from scan of remaining area) comprises sensing data of a plurality of receiving channels (Wright’s Figs. 6A, 6C: receive channels are Rx in mutual or Tx in Self per par. 43-44) corresponding to the second to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s Figs. 6A. 6C: rows/columns outside window 611).
Regarding claim 12, Wright disclose a scanning control system (Wright’s Figs. 1-2 and par. 2) for a touch display screen (Wright’s par. 4, 19), comprising:
a driving unit (Wright’s Fig. 2 and par. 28-31: see 211-216 which produce and supply signals to Tx); and
a touch motherboard controller (Wright’s Figs. 1-2 and par. 28: see 218, which can be part of 102 and thus part of 110), wherein the touch motherboard controller is electrically connected to a plurality of driving channels through the driving unit (Wright’s Fig. 2), and the touch motherboard controller is configured to perform the scanning control method for the touch display screen (Wright’s par. 22-25) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Wright further disclose wherein the touch motherboard controller (Wrights’ Figs. 1-2: see 102/110) is configured to sequentially select an unselected driving channel combination (Wright’s par. 31, 43, 77: TX or TX sets driven in sequence) as the second to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 63: scanning additional sensor elements) in order of arrangement of the driving channels (Wright’s Fig. 6C and par. 31, 77: TX or TX-sets driven in sequency from top to bottom, which upon combination applies to the extended search window 621 of Fig. 6A).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Wright’s extended search window (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: 621) is driven sequentially in order of arrangement of the driving channels, in order to obtain the predictable result of sequential driving (Wright’s par. 31) in an already disclosed order (Wright’s Fig. 6C and par. 77).
Regarding claim 17, Wright disclose wherein the touch motherboard controller (Wrights’ Fig. 1 and par. 23: see 110) is electrically connected to an upper computer controller (Wright’s Fig. 1 and par. 123: see 150), and the touch motherboard controller (Wrights’ Fig. 1: see 110) is further configured to:
send first sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611) and second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: capacitance value from window 621 or par. 70: detection from scan of remaining area) to the upper computer controller (Wright’s Fig. 1 and par. 23: raw data from 110 to host 150), the first sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611) comprising sensing data of a plurality of receiving channels (Wright’s Figs. 6A, 6C: receive channels are Rx in mutual or Tx in Self per par. 43-44) corresponding to a first to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s Figs. 6A. 6C: rows/columns of window 611), and the second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: capacitance value from window 621 or par. 70: detection from scan of remaining area) comprising sensing data of a plurality of receiving channels (Wright’s Figs. 6A, 6C: receive channels are Rx in mutual or Tx in Self per par. 43-44) corresponding to a second to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s Figs. 6A. 6C: rows/columns outside window 611); and
the upper computer controller (Wright’s Fig. 1 and par. 123: see 150) is configured to calculate a position of a touch point Wright’s par. 38: touch coordinates, which calculation step is performed at 150 per par. 23) on the touch display screen (Wright’s par. 4) according to the first sensing data and the second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611 and the remaining area).
Regarding claim 18, Wright disclose wherein the touch display screen further comprises a plurality of receiving channels (Wright’s Figs. 2-3, 6C and par. 27: receive channels Rx), which intersect with and are insulated from the plurality of driving channels (Wright’s Figs. 2-3, 6C and par. 29); and
the scanning control system for the touch display screen further comprises a signal collection unit (Wright’s Fig. 2 and par. 33: see 213), the plurality of receiving channels are electrically connected to the touch motherboard controller through the signal collection unit (Wright’s Fig. 2: see from Rx to 213 to 218/102), and the signal collection unit is configured to collect sensing data of the plurality of receiving channels (Wright’s Fig. 2 and par. 33: sensed by using multiplexer 213).
Regarding claim 19, Wright disclose a touch display device (Wright’s par. 4, 19), comprising:
a processor (Wright’s par. 94), a memory (Wright’s par. 94), and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor (Wright’s par. 94), wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor , causes the steps of the scanning control method for the touch display screen (Wright’s par. 92-96) according to claim 1 to be implemented.
Regarding claim 20, Wright disclose a computer-readable storage medium (Wright’s par. 94-95), storing a computer program (Wright’s par. 94) that, when executed by a processor (Wright’s par. 94), causes the steps of the scanning control method for the touch display screen (Wright’s par. 92-96) according to claim 1 to be implemented.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Huang et al. in US 2013/0229382 (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 7, Wright discloses wherein before determining a first driving channel where a touch signal is detected and N driving channels adjacent to the first driving channel as first to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s Fig. 6 and par. 52, 59: predicted contact location 610 and row/columns for search window 611), the scanning control method for the touch display screen further comprises:
obtaining sensing data corresponding to each driving channel (Wright’s Fig. 2 and par. 17, 31-33, 43: driven and measured electrodes for self or mutual sensing);
comparing the sensing data corresponding to each driving channel (Wright’s Fig. 2 and par. 37-38: decreased capacitance is converted to a digital code) with preset benchmark data (Wright’s par. 38: codes of sensors in an un-touched state.
Wright fails to explicitly disclose determining the sensing data corresponding to the driving channel with an absolute difference from the benchmark data greater than a preset threshold as valid sensing data, and designating the valid sensing data as a touch signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor of touch detection in capacitive touch systems, Huang discloses determining a possible touch by comparing an absolute difference of sensing data minus base data with a threshold (Huang’s Fig. 6 and par. 54, 59-60: sensing data corresponding to the driving channel is PSCIRD [raw data from step D in Fig. 4], benchmark data is PSCBIRD [base from step C in Fig. 4], and threshold is Th3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Wright’s comparison of codes to determine touch coordinates (Wright’s par. 38) includes the absolute difference of Huang’s Fig. 6, in order to obtain the predictable result of a known method of comparing the sensing data with an untouched state (Wright’s par. 36)(Huang’s Figs. 4, 6).
By doing such combination, Wright in view of Huang disclose:
determining the sensing data corresponding to the driving channel with an absolute difference from the benchmark data greater than a preset threshold (Huang’s Figs. 4, 6 and par. 54, 59-60: sensing data corresponding to the driving channel is PSCIRD [raw data from step D], benchmark data is PSCBIRD PSCIRD [base from step C], and threshold is Th3, this is equivalent to the step of comparing codes of Wright’s par. 38) as valid sensing data (Huang’s par. 59: user possibly touches); and
designating the valid sensing data (Huang’s par. 59: user possibly touches) as a touch signal (Wright’s par. 38: touch coordinates for the calculated location of the previous scan of par. 52).
Regarding claim 8, Wright in view of Huang further disclose wherein during the step of providing a touch driving signal to the first to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 59-60: self or mutual capacitance, which requires a driving signal to window 501 of Fig. 5) and the second to-be-scanned driving channels (Wright’s par. 70: remaining area scan) and obtaining a touch signal (Wright’s par. 61-63: capacitance measurements, or par. 70: detect additional presence), the first to-be-scanned driving channel and the second to-be-scanned driving channel are determined simultaneously (Wright’s Fig. 5: the window 501 to have a local scan is obviously determined simultaneously with the remaining areas that will not have the local scan [outside of window 501]).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that when the row/columns corresponding to the search window are determined (when window 501/611 of Wright’s Figs. 5-6 is determined), the remaining row/columns outside the window are also determined (Wright’s Figs. 5-6: outside window 501/611), in order to obtain the predictable result of performing a scan of the remaining area (Wright’s par. 70)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Kelso et al. in US 2015/0022463 (hereinafter Kelso).
Wright fails to disclose a bulk transfer mode.
However, in the related field of endeavor of input surface data transferring, Kelso discloses releasing input data as a batch group (Kelso’s par. 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Wright’s step of:
wherein the sending first sensing data and second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611 and the remaining area) to an upper computer controller (Wright’s Figs. 1-2: see 110/150) comprises sending the first sensing data and the second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611 and the remaining area, equivalent to the input surface data of Kelso’s par. 17) to the upper computer controller (Wright’s Figs. 1-2: see 110/150 equivalent to OS in Kelso’s par. 17) in a bulk transfer mode (Kelso’s par. 17: data buffered and released as a batch to OS);
in order to obtain the benefit of gaining efficiency in terms of interrupt handling in comparison to delivering data one at a time (Kelso’s par. 16-17).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Morrison et al. in US 2022/0027047.
Wright fails to disclose simultaneously compressing the first sensing data and the second sensing data in a preset format.
However, in the same field of endeavor of touch screen sensing and signal processing, Morrison discloses simultaneously compressing sensing data from all or a portion of a capacitive grid (Morrison’s Figs. 12, 16 and par. 149, 166-168: all or only part of capacitive grid data is needed, and subsequent reduction [compression]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, that Wright’s method includes simultaneously compressing (Morrison’s Fig. 16 and par. 166-168: all or a portion of the capacitance grid data is needed, and thus compressed [simultaneously as shown in the same step in the reduction process]) the first sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611 which is equivalent to a specific area of Morrison’s par. 167) and second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: capacitance value from window 621 equivalent to another specific area of Morrison’s par. 167 or Wright’s par. 70: detection from scan of remaining area equivalent to all of cap grid needed of Morrison’s par. 168), in order to obtain the benefit of making communication of data more efficient by compression (Morrison’s par. 5). By doing such combination, Wright in view of Morrison disclose:
wherein before the sending first sensing data and second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611 and the remaining area) to an upper computer controller (Wright’s Figs. 1-2: see 110/150), the scanning control method for the touch display screen further comprises:
obtaining first sensing data and second sensing data (Wright’s par. 61-63: capacitance measurements, or par. 70: detect additional presence), and
simultaneously compressing (Morrison’s Fig. 16: data reduction [compression] at steps 238, 246, and 244) the first sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 61-63: capacitance values from window 611 which is equivalent to a specific area of Morrison’s par. 167) and the second sensing data (Wright’s Fig. 6A and par. 63: capacitance value from window 621 equivalent to another specific area of Morrison’s par. 167 or Wright’s par. 70: detection from scan of remaining area equivalent to all of cap grid needed of Morrison’s par. 168) in a preset format (Morrison’s Fig. 16: lossy or lossless data reduction at desired rate).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 16 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the prior art fails to disclose ALL limitations of claim 1 [for claim 5] and of claims 1+12 [for claim 16], in addition to “dividing the driving channels except the first to-be-scanned driving channels into a plurality of driving channel combinations in ascending order of distances from the first to-be-scanned driving channels; and sequentially selecting an unselected driving channel combination as the second to-be-scanned driving channels in order of arrangement of the driving channel combinations.
Dependent claim 6 is indicated as allowable for at least the same reason as claim 5.
The closest prior art to Wright discloses diving the driving channels and sequential selection in order of arrangement (Wright’s Fig. 6C and par. 77), but fails to disclose dividing the driving channels except the first to-be-scanned driving channel into a plurality of driving channel combinations in ascending order of distances from the first to-be-scanned driving channels, as necessary for claims 5 and 16.
Singh et al. in US 2014/0028563 disclose expanding target areas [where touch is accepted] by moving boundaries outwardly based on a distance to a detected touch (par. 27), but fails to disclose dividing the driving channels except the first to-be-scanned driving channel into a plurality of driving channel combinations in ascending order of distances from the first to-be-scanned driving channels, as necessary for claims 5 and 16.
Nayyar et al. in US 2016/0259467 discloses that orders of scanning can be altered and a more fine scanning for a detected touch region (Nayyar’s Figs. 4B-4C and par. 47-48), but fails to disclose dividing the driving channels except the first to-be-scanned driving channel into a plurality of driving channel combinations in ascending order of distances from the first to-be-scanned driving channels, as necessary for claims 5 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621