Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/070,795

STYLUS PEN AND TOUCH SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Mar 05, 2025
Examiner
FARAGALLA, MICHAEL A
Art Unit
2624
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
HiDeep, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
845 granted / 991 resolved
+23.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1025
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
66.0%
+26.0% vs TC avg
§102
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 991 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,538. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: As shown in the table attached herein, the limitations of claim 1 are entirely anticipated by the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,538. 19/070,795 (Instant Application) US 12,271,538 1. A stylus pen comprising: a core body; and a resonant circuit including a ferrite core, a coil wound on an outer surface of the ferrite core, and a magnetic body spaced apart from the ferrite core by pressure applied to the core body. 1. A stylus pen comprising: a core body configured to serve as a tip of the stylus pen; a resonant circuit including a ferrite core, a coil wound on an outer surface of the ferrite core, a second capacitor electrically connected to the coil, and a magnetic body spaced apart from the ferrite core by pressure applied to the core body; a switching member configured to switch an electrical connection between a first capacitor and the coil according to the pressure applied to the core body; at least one first contact electrically connected to the first capacitor; and at least one second contact electrically connected to the coil and the second capacitor, wherein the switching member electrically connects the first capacitor and the coil when the core body is not in contact with a touch screen, and blocks the electrical connection between the first capacitor and the coil when the core body contacts the touch screen, and wherein the switching member includes: a movable part coupled to the core body and configured to move according to a movement of the core body; and a fixation part installed to maintain a fixed position inside a housing of the stylus pen; and a contact state of the movable part with the fixation part is changed by the pressure applied to the core body, wherein the core body includes a first end portion coupled to the movable part and a second end portion serving as the tip of the stylus pen, wherein the fixation part is located between the ferrite core and the movable part, and wherein an electrical connection between the at least one first contact and the at least one second contact is switched according to the contact state of the movable part and the fixation part. 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (Publication number: US 2017/0285772) in view of Obata (Publication number: US 2018/0039345). Consider Claim 1, Yamamoto shows a stylus pen (see figure 16), comprising: (a) A core body (see figure 16; paragraph 206); (read as core member 107). (b) A resonant circuit including a ferrite core, a coil wound on an outer surface of the ferrite core; (See figure 16; paragraph 206); ferrite core is read as ferrite core 110, and the coil is read as coil 111). However, Yamamoto does not specifically show a magnetic body spaced apart from the ferrite core by pressure applied to the core body. In the same field of endeavor, Obata shows a magnetic body spaced apart from the ferrite core by pressure applied to the core body (see figures 9A and 9B; paragraphs 184 and 185); (The magnetic body is read as ferrite chip 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Obata into the teaching of Yamamoto in order to sense a variation of inductance (see Obata; paragraphs 4 and 5). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A FARAGALLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1107. 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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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. /MICHAEL A FARAGALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624 11/04/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 05, 2025
Application Filed
Nov 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603035
DISPLAY APPARATUS AND DRIVING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592185
DISPLAY DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586919
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING BEAMFORMING SIGNAL BY USING LIQUID CRYSTAL LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588317
LED DISPLAY DEVICE, METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING AN LED DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586531
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DRIVING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 991 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month