DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch (2016/0239172) in view of SUMI et al (2012/0313861) (herein “SUMI”). In regards to claims 1 and 11, Lynch teaches a touch sensing device, comprising: a sensor configured to receive sensing values from a plurality of touch electrodes arranged in an active area (See; Figures 3A-3C for touchscreen display 301 calculating X and Y coordinates); a coordinate calculator configured to calculate touch coordinates based on the sensing values (See; Figs. 3A-3C and p[0033] for physical position coordinates 310); and a data generator configured to generate virtual touch data in a non-active area outside an edge area when a touch is detected in the edge area of the active area (See; Fig 3C and p[0037] for virtual position coordinates 312 in a non-active area that are different from the physical position coordinates when the user has been determined to hit the edge area and extend beyond). Lynch fails to explicitly teach wherein the data generator is configured to generate the virtual touch data based on touch data of an outermost sensing area adjacent to the non-active area and touch data of a first sensing area closest to the outermost sensing area in a first direction. However, SUMI teaches wherein the data generator is configured to generate the virtual touch data based on touch data of an outermost sensing area adjacent to the non-active area and touch data of a first sensing area closest to the outermost sensing area in a first direction (See; Figs. 5, 6 and p[0039]-p[0040] where compensated data D.sub.C (virtual touch data) is generated based on actual touch data in the outermost sensing area adjacent to the non active area and touch data closest to the outermost sensing area). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lynch with the virtual touch data calculation of SUMI so as to more accurately determine the central point of the touch image.
In regards to claims 2 and 12, Lynch teaches wherein the coordinate calculator calculates the touch coordinates in the edge area using touch data sensed in the edge area and the virtual touch data generated in the non-active area (See; Fig 3C and p[0037]-p[0043]).
In regards to claims 3 and 13, Lynch teaches wherein the data generator generates the virtual touch data using touch data adjacent to the non-active area for each row (See; Fig 3C and p[0037]-p[0043] where the virtual data is generated for each row the user touches as they swipe down the edge). In regards to claims 9 and 19, Lynch teaches wherein the coordinate calculator determines that the edge area has been touched when touch data at the outermost coordinates is greater than or equal to a predetermined value, or when touch data at the outermost coordinates is greater than touch data at adjacent coordinates (See; Figs. 3B and 3C where it is determined that the edge has been reached (in this case) when x=0 (0 would be the predetermined number for reaching the left side X axis, there would be other predetermined numbers associated with the other 3 edges)).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch (2016/0239172) in view of SUMI et al (2012/0313861) (herein “SUMI”) and further in view of SEO et al (2015/0084912) (herein “SEO”). In regards to claims 4 and 14, Lynch teaches the device operable with a pen (See; p[0034]). Lynch fails to explicitly teach further comprising a touch sensitivity measurement part configured to measure average touch sensitivity of a pen contacting the active area, wherein the data generator generates the virtual touch data by adjusting values of touch data sensed in the edge area based on the average touch sensitivity of the pen. However, SEO teaches a touch sensitivity measurement part configured to measure average touch sensitivity of a pen contacting the active area (See; p[0017]-p[0020] for determining an average touch sensitivity), wherein the data generator generates the virtual touch data by adjusting values of touch data sensed in the edge area based on the average touch sensitivity of the pen (See; p[0017]-p[0020] and p[0075]-p[0078] where touch sensitivities of display areas are used to better determine touch sensitivities in the non-display area and edge regions). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lynch to use the touch sensitivity analysis of SEO so as to more accurately determine virtual touch position and sensitivities at and beyond the edge portions.
In regards to claims 5 and 15, SEO teaches wherein the average touch sensitivity varies depending on a type of the pen, and the data generator generates different values of the virtual touch data depending on the type of the pen (The Examiner contends it is inherent that different pens and different fingers enact different sensitivity values on a panel, thus virtual touch data would inherently change in proportion to changing sensitivity levels of different pens / fingers).
In regards to claims 6 and 16, Lynch teaches the touch coordinates calculated in the edge area using the touch data sensed in the edge area and the virtual touch data generated in the non-active area output same coordinate values regardless of the type of the pen (See; Fig 3C and p[0037]-p[0043]). Lynch fails to explicitly teach wherein the touch data sensed in the edge area varies depending on a type of the pen However, SEO teaches wherein the touch data sensed in the edge area varies depending on a type of the pen (See; p[0017]-p[0020] and p[0075]-p[0078] where touch sensitivities of display areas are used to better determine touch sensitivities in the edge regions. Where it is inherent that different pens and different fingers enact different sensitivity values on a panel, thus edge values would change in proportion to changing sensitivity levels). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lynch to use the touch sensitivity analysis of SEO so as to more accurately determine virtual touch position and sensitivities at and beyond the edge portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 10, 17-18 and 20 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627