DETAILED ACTION
1. This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 19/016,097 originally filed on 01/10/2025. The amendment presented on 11/28/2025 which claims 1, 3 - 8 and 11 are currently amended, claims 9 and 12 are currently canceled and claims 13 - 28 are currently added is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1 - 8, 10 - 11 and 13 - 28 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
3. This is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 28 November
2025, wherein: claims 1 - 8, 10 - 11 and 13 - 28 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3 - 8 and 11 have been amended. Claims 9 and 12 have been canceled. Claims 13 - 28 have been added.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed on November 28, 2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1 - 8, 10 - 11 and 13 - 28 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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-AlA), 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 6 - 7, 13, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language.
Claims 13, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. For example, claims 13, 21 and 23 states “(Al) software” however, the examiner cannot ascertain what is meant by this limitation. The above limitation, result in failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 7 improperly depend from canceled claim 12.
Claim 6, recites “The method according to claim 12 which includes the step of adjusting the decision-making levels in accordance with noise levels or user feedback using adaptive software to improve quality of selections over time.” there is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, recites “The method according to claim 12 which includes the steps of providing mechanical key buttons which respectively correspond with selection segments on the force touch screen and wherein, when a selected mechanical key button is pressed the mechanical key button acts on the corresponding selection segment of a force touch layer of the force touch screen.” there is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim.
Further depending claims not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims are rejected for similar reasoning above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1, 5, 8, 14 - 18, 20 - 21 and 24 - 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shutzberg “US 2019/0102031”.
Re-claim 1, Shutzberg teaches a method of implementing a touch selection on a force touch screen (fig. 2B; 110) which is supported by a plurality of force sensors (fig. 2B; 210A-F) on a structure, the force sensors (fig. 2B; 210A-F) respectively positioned near the corners on the outer perimeter of the force touch screen, (par. [0053] The electronic device 110 includes six force sensors 210A-F disposed proximate to the boundary or edges of the input surface 112.) the force touch screen further having a plurality of selection segments, (par. [0036] an icon that can be pressed (i.e., a force input is applied) is equivalent to selection segment) the number of selection segments being greater than the number of force sensors, (par. [0047] A user may provide an input to the smart watch 100 by applying a force to the display and/or input surface 102 at a specific location on the input surface 102, such as at the location of a displayed icon. A user may apply an force by a finger, a stylus, or another means. The embodiments used in the smart watch 100 may function to determine the location of the applied force, and distinguish user applied forces from other sensed forces) the method comprising the steps of calculating a position of a touch on the force touch screen in an area within said outer perimeter of the force touch screen from measurements of forces which are produced by the force sensors (fig. 2B; 110) and which are caused by the touch, and determining a segment selection based on the calculated touch position. (pars. [0036] Some electronic devices may use two distinct types of sensors in conjunction to detect a user input on an input surface. A user may enter an operational command to the device by applying a force input (herein also, an “input force,” “applied force,” or just an “input”) at a particular location on the input surface. For example, the input surface may also function as a display surface that presents an icon that can be pressed (i.e., a force input is applied) by the user to initiate an application or program on the electronic device. The input surface may include a cover glass and an array of input/output electronics and sensors positioned below the cover glass. [0038] The embodiments described herein are directed to electronic devices, and methods of their operation, that have input surfaces on which a user enters an operational command on the input surface. For example, the input surface may also function as a display surface that presents an icon that can be pressed by the user to initiate an application or program on the electronic device. The input surface may include a cover glass and an array of input/output electronics and sensors positioned below the cover glass. The sensors can be force sensors, and may be used in conjunction with touch sensors and pars. [0037] and [0043])
Re-claim 5, Shutzberg teaches which includes the step of using a time period requirement for user input and capacitive sensing in the force touch screen to reject force measurements resulting from bumps or jolts to the force touch screen. (fig. 4 and par. [0079])
Re-claim 8, Shutzberg teaches a force touch screen (fig. 2B; 110) comprising a number of force sensing (fig. 2B; 210A-F) structures that are respectively positioned near corners on an outer perimeter of said force touch screen to allow the determination of a user press position in an area of the screen within the perimeter by using data derived from the force sensing structures in response to a user press on the screen, wherein the force touch screen comprises a number of selection segments (par. [0036] an icon that can be pressed (i.e., a force input is applied) is equivalent to selection segment) within said perimeter, said number of selection segments being greater than the number of force sensing structures, (par. [0047] A user may provide an input to the smart watch 100 by applying a force to the display and/or input surface 102 at a specific location on the input surface 102, such as at the location of a displayed icon. A user may apply an force by a finger, a stylus, or another means. The embodiments used in the smart watch 100 may function to determine the location of the applied force, and distinguish user applied forces from other sensed forces) and wherein the force touch screen is configured to determine a segment selection based on the determined user press position. (fig. 2A and pars. [0039] The force may be applied by a press from a finger or stylus, or other localized source, on the input surface. The force may be detected by one or more force sensors positioned to detect a user applied force on the input surface. In some embodiments the force sensors are positioned on the underside of the input surface or cover glass. In some embodiments the force sensors are positioned along or proximate to edges of the input surface. In the devices and embodiments described, the sensors may be piezoelectric, piezoresistive, capacitive, or another type of sensor and pars. [0038] and [0043])
Re-claim 14, Shutzberg teaches further including the steps of differentiating between a pre-selection and a final selection of a specific selection segment by comparing a pressure measured by said force sensing structures to a minimum pressure level, and indicating to a user whether a pre-selection or a final selection is made. (fig. 7 and par. [0094])
Re-claim 15, Shutzberg teaches further including the step of improving selection accuracy of selection segments by positioning virtual dead zone areas between said selection segments on said force touch screen. (fig. 11A and par. [0118])
Re-claim 16, Shutzberg teaches further including the step of providing a "bad selection" indication to a user if a virtual dead zone area is selected by the user. (fig. 11B and par. [0119])
Re-claim 17, Shutzberg teaches wherein said indication to the user is made by changing the appearance of the force touch screen. (pars. [0108] – [0109])
Re-claim 18, Shutzberg teaches wherein the force touch screen is supported only by said plurality of force sensors (fig. 2B; 210A-F) near the corners of said force touch screen. (par. [0053] The electronic device 110 includes six force sensors 210A-F disposed proximate to the boundary or edges of the input surface 112.)
Re-claims 20 and 24 - 28, are rejected as applied to claims 5 and 14 - 18 above because the scope and contents of the recited limitations are substantially the same.
Re-claim 21, Shutzberg teaches which is configured to adjust the decision-making levels in accordance with noise levels or user feedback using AI software to improve quality of selections over time. (par. [0061] At stage 322, the electronic device measures one or more forces impinging on the input surface by using the force sensors. The force sensors may themselves include electronic components that apply signal conditioning, such as noise filtering, to produce the signals representing the force sensor values. The force sensor values are then sent to, or received by, the processor. And [0074])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 2 - 3, 4, 10 - 11, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanz- Shutzberg “US 2019/0102031” in view of Jung “US 2020/0400513”.
Re-claim 2, Shutzberg does not explicitly teach wherein the force sensors are inductive force sensors.
However, Jung teaches wherein the force sensors are inductive force sensors. (par. [0015] An object of the present invention is to provide an inductive touch force sensor and method of operating the same that may use only the inductive touch sensor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further the invention of the combination with the teaching of Jung so that power consumption required for the detection of a touch location and a touch force and power consumption may be considerably reduced in the case of a multi-channel inductive touch force sensor. (par. [0015])
Re-claim 3, Shutzberg does not explicitly teach which includes the step of using consecutive calculated touch positions to identify swipe gestures.
However, Jung teaches which includes the step of using consecutive calculated touch positions to identify swipe gestures. (par. [0096] i.e., a user gesture such as tapping, sliding/scrolling/swiping, or zooming in/zooming out, by using an inductive sensing technique.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further the invention of the combination with the teaching of Jung so as to a gesture based on a user's intention may be easily recognized by tracking a spatial change in touch force on the X-Y plane in a time domain. (par. [0120])
Re-claim 4, Shutzberg in view of Jung teaches all the limitations of claim 2, Jung teaches which includes the step of using the said plurality of inductive force sensors and the said structure for haptic feedback generation, and wherein the touch screen does not use capacitive or resistive sensing technology to calculate said touch position. (par. [0190])
Re-claims 10 - 11 and 19, are rejected as applied to claims 2 - 4 above because the scope and contents of the recited limitations are substantially the same.
Re-claim 22, Shutzberg does not explicitly teach which includes mechanical key buttons which are respectively positioned to correspond with the selection segments on the force touch screen and wherein, when a selected mechanical key button is pressed, the mechanical key button acts on the corresponding selection segment of a force touch layer of the force touch screen.
However, Jung teaches which includes mechanical key buttons which are respectively positioned to correspond with the selection segments on the force touch screen and wherein, when a selected mechanical key button is pressed, the mechanical key button acts on the corresponding selection segment of a force touch layer of the force touch screen. (pars. [0076] and [0078])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further the invention of the combination with the teaching of Jung so as to a gesture based on a user's intention may be easily recognized by tracking a spatial change in touch force on the X-Y plane in a time domain. (par. [0120])
12. Claims 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutzberg “US 2019/0102031” in view of Koohestanian “US 2020/0351326”.
Re-claim 13, Shutzberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach further including the steps of detecting constant offsets in user inputs over time, and compensating for said constant offsets in user inputs by using Al software.
However, Koohestanian teaches which includes the step of using adaptive (AI) software to improve quality of selections over time. (par. [0020] The selection input is enabled on the data processing device on which the software applications suitable for processing the content to be processed are displayed. Instead of displaying the suitable software applications and allowing the selection of the suitable software application to be performed by the user, it is also possible to perform the selection in an automated manner with AI (Artificial Intelligence) software so that the entire method according to an aspect of the disclosure can be carried out without a single interaction with the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further the invention of the combination with the teaching of Koohestanian so displaying the suitable software applications and allowing the selection of the suitable software application to be performed by the user. (par. [0020])
Re-claim 23, is rejected as applied to claim 13 above because the scope and contents of the recited limitations are substantially the same.
Conclusion
13. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sosina Abebe whose telephone number is (571) 270-7929. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday from 9:00-5:30 If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. 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).
/S.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626 4/8/26B