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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/264,274, filed on 08/04/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0043284 to Park et al. (Park) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0089360 to Sen et al. (Sen).
As to claim 1, Park discloses an electronic device comprising:
a panel including a plurality of first electrodes extending in the Y-axis and a plurality of second electrodes extending in the X-axis (Fig. 3; Para. 0050-0054, panel part, P, with the sensing electrode strings 210 and the driving electrode strings 230); and
a determination part that determines a position coordinate of a stylus based on a signal received from a stylus through the pane (Fig. 3; Para. 0068, touch sensing unit, 700),
wherein one ends of the second electrodes disposed above a center of the panel among the plurality of second electrodes are electrically connected to the determination part through wiring (Fig. 3), and the other ends of the second electrodes disposed below the center of the panel are electrically connected to the determination part through wiring (Fig. 3),
wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes are configured to induce a current signal (Para. 0068, touch signal sensing unit 700, the touch signal sensing unit 700 may sense the change in an induced current), and
wherein the determination part is configured to determine the position coordinate based on the current signal (Para. 0015, 0076, 0105, electromagnetic touch panel 40 determines whether there is a touch and the coordinates of a touched region).
Park does not expressly disclose a current signal that rotates clockwise or counterclockwise around a tip of the stylus by an electromagnetic field from the stylus.
Sen teaches a current signal that rotates clockwise or counterclockwise around a tip of the stylus by an electromagnetic field from the stylus (Fig. 5B; Para. 0045, coils 506A, 506B and 506D be driven with counter-clockwise currents and generate magnetic fields (indicated by arrows) oriented upward to the surface of host device 502, and coils 506C, 506E and 506F can be driven with clockwise currents and generate magnetic fields (indicated by arrows) oriented downward toward the surface of host device 502. The magnetic fields generated by coils 506A-506F can interact with magnet 510 in stylus 508 to cause push or pull forces.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronic device of Park to include the induced current rotation of Sen because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the electronic device of Park as modified by the induced current rotation of Sen can yield a predictable result of allowing for a device that can translate a haptic feedback to a stylus for a more immersive interactive device. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the electronic device of Park the ability to use the induced current rotation of Sen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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 Lisa S Landis whose telephone number is (571)270-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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 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.
/LISA S LANDIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights