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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12223149. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the current application are made broader than claims of US Patent 12223149 based on the Applicant removing identical limitations and creating new dependent claims.
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.
Claim 1-4, 6, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 2015/0091859) in view of Jung (US 2017/0031465).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenberg teaches a pen for interacting with touch screen, the pen comprises: an AC coupling circuit operable to: receive a sense signal from the touch screen [0567]; and
transmit a transmit signal to the touch screen ([0571],. Although Rosenberg teaches the limitations as discussed above he fails to explicitly teach a sense-regulation circuit operable to: generate a comparison signal based on the sense signal and representation of transmit data; an convert the representation of the transmit data into transmit signal.
However in the same field of creating a method of communication between two device Jung teaches a sense-regulation circuit operable to: generate a comparison signal based on the sense signal and representation of transmit data (Fig. 11 comparator 235 [0083]); an convert the representation of the transmit data into transmit signal ([0104-105][0110-0111] teach how the adjusted delay/offset is processed and output).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sensing system as taught by Rosenberg with the sensing method as taught by Jung. This combination would provide in improved touch performance by improving the synchronization process of the sensing system as taught by Jung [0013].
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches a processing circuit operable to: receive data (pressure data) and generate representation of the transmit data based on the data ([0090-0091]signal processor 250 receives digital representation of data).
Regarding claim 3, Jung teaches data source circuit that comprises: a sensing element operable to: sense a condition of the pen; and generate a condition signal based on the sensing the condition; and a data sense circuit operable to generate the data based on the condition signal and a reference signal ([0089] Fig. 11 pressure sensing element ).
Regarding claim 4, Jung teaches wherein the condition comprises one or more of: a pressure; a tilt; a color selection; a mode selection; another operational condition of the pen; and an environmental condition ([0089] pressure).
Regarding claim 6, Jung teaches wherein the processing circuit comprises: a processing module operable to generate digital outbound data based on the data; and a digital to analog converter operable to generate the representation of the transmit data based on the digital outbound data (0089-0091])
Regarding claim 8, Rosenberg teaches wherein the AC coupling circuit comprises: a first AC coupling circuit for receiving the sense signal from the touch screen; and a second AC coupling circuit for transmitting the transmit signal to the touch screen ([0574] Fig. 98).
Regarding claim 11, Rosenberg teaches wherein the touch screen is capable of interpreting the transmit signal as an input to the touch screen([0573-0574] [069] and the method as described with respect to Fig. 104).
Regarding claim 12, Jung teaches wherein the sense-regulation circuit is further operable to: receive the sense signal from the AC coupling circuit; and receive the representation of the transmit data ([0090] reception buffer 231 receives touchscreen signal from switching part 220. Transmission of pressure data [0089-0091] signal processor 250 receives digital representation of data.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 2015/0091859) in view of Jung (US 2017/0031465) and Rebeschi (US 2015/0193025).
Regarding claim 10, Rosenberg in view of Jung teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above and Jung further teaches a conductive pen tip (Fig. 8 element 210) but the combination does not explicitly teach a conductive pen shell and cone.
However in the field of manufacturing a stylus device for interaction with a touch sensing device, Rebeschi teaches a stylus with a conductive tip; and a conductive pen shell and cone ([0057] teaches conductive emitter portion 520 may include all or a portion of the pen tip, transition region (cone) or a portion of the main body (shell).).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sensing system as taught by Rosenberg with the sensing method as taught by Jung and the stylus as taught by Rebeschi. This combination would provide in improved touch performance by improving sensing of the stylus from multiple angles of contact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 9 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE L MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, 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.
/ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621