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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 09/16/2026. Claims 1-18 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
Drawings
The replaced drawings filed on 09/16/2026 are not accepted because the amended figure 3C shows both first and second excitation signals outputted on the same signal line from the element 1011 at the same time, i.e., “first and second excitation signals being same signal at the same time” which is not supported by the original disclosure. In light of the specification at pages 10-11, the reference “first excitation signal” must be changed to -- first excitation signal during the first period --, the reference “second excitation signal” must be changed to -- second excitation signal during the second period --, and the reference “first drive signal and second drive signal” must be changed to -- first drive signal during the first period and the second drive signal during the first period --.
However, since the specification uses two different signals with the same name/term (see page 10 of the specification “… it is noted that a waveform of the first excitation signal output by the frequency amplification circuit 1022 is different from a waveform of the first excitation signal generated by the waveform generator, the first excitation signal output by the frequency amplification circuit 1022 is an ultrasonic band signal, and the first excitation signal generated by the waveform generator 1011 is an acoustic band signal …”), it is suggested the applicant, before amending drawings, in his/her normal review and/or rewriting of the original disclosure, should amend the specification to avoid using the same name/term for two or more different signals/elements/features, drawings consistent with the specification, and claims fully supported by the original disclosure, without adding new matters to the original disclosure.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objection, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the previous Office action dated have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to claims. However, see the below new ground of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claims 6-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claims 6-10, these claims, when read together with claims 1-3, recite limitations, (i) “a first excitation signal” in line 15 of claim 1, (ii) “the first excitation signal” in line 2 of claim 2, (iii) “the first excitation signal” in last line of claim 3, (iv) “a first excitation signal” in line 4-5 of claim 6, and (v) “the first excitation signal” in line 6 of claim 6, Since it is unclear whether the above underlined limitations (iv)-(v) of claim 6 are same or different from the limitations (i)-(iii), it is considered that the above underlined limitations (iv)-(v) are not clearly defined.
In addition to claims 8-9, these claims, when read together with claims 1 and 6, recite limitations, (i) “a first excitation signal” in line 15 of claim 1, (ii) “the first excitation signal” in line 2 of claim 2, (iii) “the first excitation signal” in last line of claim 3, (iv) “a first excitation signal” in line 4-5 of claim 6, (v) “the first excitation signal” in line 6 of claim 6, and (vi) “a first excitation signal” in line 3 of claim 8. Since it is unclear whether the above underlined limitation (vi) is same or different from any or all of the limitations (i)-(v), it is considered that the above underlined limitation (vi) is not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 9, this claim, when read together with independent claim 1, recite limitations, (i) “a first excitation signal” in line 15 of claim 1, (ii) “the first excitation signal” in line 2 of claim 2, (iii) “the first excitation signal” in last line of claim 3, (iv) “a first excitation signal” in line 4-5 of claim 6, (v) “the first excitation signal” in line 6 of claim 6, (vi) “a first excitation signal” in line 3 of claim 8, and (vii) “the first excitation signal” in line 2 of claim 9. Since it is unclear whether the above underlined limitation (vii) is same or different from any or all of the limitations (i)-(vi), it is considered that the above underlined limitation (vi) is not clearly defined.
As per claim 18, this claims, when read together with claims 15-17, recite limitations, (i) “a first excitation signal” in line 15 of claim 1, (ii) “the first excitation signal” in line 2 of claim 16, (iii) “the first excitation signal” in line 6 of claim 17, (iv) “a first excitation signal” in line 6 of claim 18, and (v) “the first excitation signal” in line 8 of claim 18, Since it is unclear whether the above underlined limitations (iv)-(v) of claim 18 are same or different from the limitations (i)-(iii), it is considered that the above underlined limitations (iv)-(v) are not clearly defined.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”).
Further, note that when the independent claim and/or the intervening claim are amended, the claim depending on the independent claim and/or the intervening claim are also amended.
As per claim 1, this claim recites limitations, “the touch panel is further configured to detect touch action of user interaction and output the detected touch action to the controller, wherein the touch action comprises a click, a double click and a swipe” in lines 5-8. The underlined limitations includes features, “the touch panel is further configured to detect a single touch action comprising or combining a click, a double click and a swipe, of user interaction and output the detected combined touch action comprising the lick, the double lick, and the swipe to the controller”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The only place in the original disclosure having the terms, “a click”, “a double click”, and “a swipe” is in the specification at page 15, lines 13-16: “In some exemplary implementations … For example, the touch action may include a click, a double click, a swipe, and the like ...”. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail “a single touch action comprising a combination of a click, a double click, and a swipe” of the above features included in the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted.
Furthermore, a person skilled in the touch sensitive panel/display art would have readily realized a separate/distinct touch action required for performing a click, a double click, or a swipe.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 1, this claim further recites limitations, “the controller is further configured to control the waveform generator to generate an excitation signal corresponding to the touch action according to the touch action of user interaction, and to control the waveform generator to generate a first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click, and to control the waveform generator to generate a second excitation signal when the touch action is the swipe” in lines 9-17, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. First, as discussed above, the only place in the original disclosure having the terms, “a click”, “a double click”, and “a swipe” is in the specification at page 15, lines 13-16: “In some exemplary implementations … For example, the touch action may include a click, a double click, a swipe, and the like ...”. Second, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a first excitation signal associated with the click or the double click and a second excitation signal associated with the swipe, and specifically, the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 2-14, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reasons set forth in claim 1 above.
In addition to claims 2-10, these claims, when read together with independent claim 1, further recite limitations, (i) “the controller is further configured to control the waveform generator to generate a first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click, and to control the waveform generator to generate a second excitation signal when the touch action is the swipe” in lines 9-17 of claim 1 and (ii) “the first excitation signal during a first period or the second excitation signal during a second period” in lines 2-3 of claim 2. These limitations require features, “the first excitation signal during a first period when the touch action is the click or the double click or the second excitation signal during a second period when the touch action is the swipe”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a first excitation signal associated with the click or the double click and a second excitation signal associated with the swipe, and specifically, the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of these claims, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claims 3-10, these claims, when read together with independent claim 1, further recite limitations, (i) “the controller is further configured to control the waveform generator to generate a first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click” in lines 9-15 of claim 1 and (ii) “the amplitude amplification circuit is configured to output a drive signal after amplifying an amplitude of the first excitation signal, and output the drive signal to the piezoelectric driver” in last 3 lines of claim 3. These limitations require features, “the amplitude amplification circuit is configured to output a drive signal after amplifying an amplitude of the first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click, and output the drive signal to the piezoelectric driver”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a first excitation signal associated with the click or the double click and specifically, the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of these claims, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 4, this claim, when read together with independent claim 1, further recites limitations, (i) “the controller is further configured to control the waveform generator to generate a first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click” in lines 9-15 of claim 1 and (ii) “an amplitude of the first drive signal is 2 to 30 times an amplitude of the first excitation signal generated by the waveform generator” in last 3 lines of claim 4. These limitations require a feature, “an amplitude of the first drive signal is 2 to 30 times an amplitude of the first excitation signal generated by the waveform generator when the touch action is the click or the double click”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a first excitation signal associated with the click or the double click and specifically, the above feature of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 5, this claim, when read together with independent claim 1, further recites limitations, (i) “the controller is further configured to control the waveform generator to generate a first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click” in lines 9-15 of claim 1 and (ii) “a frequency of the first excitation signal generated by the waveform generator and a frequency of the first drive signal are between 50 Hz and 500 Hz, and the frequency of the first excitation signal generated by the waveform generator and the frequency of the first drive signal are the same” in last 4 lines of claim 5. These limitations require features, “a frequency of the first excitation signal generated by the waveform generator when the touch action is the click or the double click and a frequency of the first drive signal are between 50 Hz and 500 Hz, and the frequency of the first excitation signal generated by the waveform generator when the touch action is the click or the double click and the frequency of the first drive signal are the same”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a first excitation signal associated with the click or the double click and specifically, the above feature of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claims 6-10, these claims, when read together with independent claim 1, further recite limitations, (i) “the controller is further configured to control the waveform generator to generate a first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click, and to control the waveform generator to generate a second excitation signal when the touch action is the swipe” in lines 9-17 of claim 1 and (ii) “the frequency amplification circuit is configured to output a first excitation signal after amplifying a frequency of the second excitation signal generated by the waveform generator, and output the first excitation signal to the amplitude amplification circuit” in last 4 lines of claim 6. These limitations require features, “the frequency amplification circuit is configured to output a first excitation signal, when the touch action is the click or the double click, after amplifying a frequency of the second excitation signal, when the touch action is the swipe, generated by the waveform generator, and output the first excitation signal, when the touch action is the click or the double click, to the amplitude amplification circuit”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a first excitation signal associated with the click or the double click and a second excitation signal associated with the swipe and specifically, the above feature of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of these claims, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 7, this claim, when read together with independent claim 1, further recites limitations, (i) “the controller is further configured to control the waveform generator to generate a first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click, and to control the waveform generator to generate a second excitation signal when the touch action is the swipe” in lines 9-17 of claim 1 and (ii) “wherein a frequency of the first excitation signal output by the frequency amplification circuit is m times the frequency of the second excitation signal; wherein m is any value from 2 to 10” in claim 7. These limitations require features, “wherein a frequency of the first excitation signal, when the touch action is the click or the double click, output by the frequency amplification circuit is m times the frequency of the second excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click; wherein m is any value from 2 to 10”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a first excitation signal associated with the click or the double click and a second excitation signal associated with the swipe and specifically, the above feature of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claims 8-9, these claims, when read together with independent claim 1, further recite limitations, (i) “the controller is further configured to control the waveform generator to generate a first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click” in lines 9-15 of claim 1 and (ii) “an amplitude of the second drive signal is n times the an amplitude of a first excitation signal output by the frequency amplification circuit, wherein n is any value from 2 to 30” in last 3 lines of claim 8. These limitations require features, “an amplitude of the second drive signal is n times the an amplitude of a first excitation signal, when the touch action is the click or the double click, output by the frequency amplification circuit, wherein n is any value from 2 to 30”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a first excitation signal associated with the click or the double click and specifically, the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of these claims, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 9, this claim, when read together with independent claim 1, further recites limitations, (i) “the controller is further configured to control the waveform generator to generate a first excitation signal when the touch action is the click or the double click” in lines 9-15 of claim 1 and (ii) “wherein frequencies of the first excitation signal is greater than 20 kHz” in claim 9. These limitations require features, “wherein frequencies of the first excitation signal, when the touch action is the click or the double click, is greater than 20 kHz”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a first excitation signal associated with the click or the double click and specifically, the above feature of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded noted. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 15-18, see the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6 for similar limitations.
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 Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. 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.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights