Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are pending. Bolded claim language below regards newly amended subject matter with a corresponding new rejection citation. Newly amended subject matter that is not bolded does not comprise a new rejection citation (utilizes previous interpretation that is unchanged in view of the new language) or is a newly added claim.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seger, Jr. et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0202299), herein after referred to as Seger, Jr., in view of Sato et al. (US patent Application Publication 2023/0280859), herein after referred to as Sato, Ando et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0285174), herein after referred to as Ando.
Regarding independent claim 1, Seger, Jr. discloses an operating panel (Figure 47C described in paragraph [0086] to regard a human interacting with a 2D area. Paragraph [0538] describes the example of figure 47C is a touchless indication utilized to engage with a button. Figure 46A and paragraph [0527] describes a touchpad 4615 that can implement a single or multiple buttons.) comprising:
a panel member (Figure 46A touchpad 4615.);
a switch unit (4422+4424) provided on the panel member (4615) and configured to be pressed by a user (Paragraph [0527] describes the rows 4422 and columns 4424 intersect to detect touch and touchless interactions by users touching and/or hovering over the touchpad. A touchless example is depicted in figure 47C as described in paragraph [0538].);
a sensor unit (117) configured to detect a capacitance that changes according to a positional relationship between a finger of the user and the switch unit (Paragraph [0527] describes the touchpad 4615 of figure 46A is implemented via corresponding DSCs 117 described in conjunction with figures 44A-45, regarding paragraph [0484] describing a mixed used of self and mutual capacitance measured via DSC 117 to determine a touch or hovered state of a particular row 4422 and column 4424/row 4422 intersection respectively. Figure 47E depicts the capacitance variation data.); and
a control unit (processing modules) configured to receive the capacitance detected by the sensor unit (117) (Figure 44F depicts processing modules described in paragraph [0512] wherein the output of DSC (shown as 540 in figure 46A, is output to processing modules for performing functionality based on detected interactions with button touch areas.), wherein
the control unit (processing modules)
determines a contact starting point at which the finger of the user comes into contact with the switch unit based on an inflection point appearing in a change waveform of the received capacitance (Figure 47E depicts the capacitance variation data with a depicted example of a determined hover input for passing the touchless threshold 342-2 but not passing the touch threshold 344-2 as described in [0543]. Paragraph [0544] describes a touch can be detected if a finger is physically touching the surface based on the location of the positive peak in the capacitance variation data exceeding the touch threshold 344-2. Figure 47E depicts a hover starting point and ending point via hover region 605.1 described in paragraph [0539] wherein the capacitance variation data starts to pass and starts to fall below (cross points) the touchless threshold 342-2. Said paragraph [0539] further describes this detection to apply to actual touch of the screen in regards to the touch threshold 344-2. Therefore, in summary the beginning of 605.1 is considered a start point of a touchless input but would be considered a start point of a finger coming into contact with the switch unit if it passed the touch threshold 344-2 as would be reflected in the capacitance variation data (depicted as a waveform).), and
[ ].
Seger, Jr. does not specifically disclose to determine, when the capacitance further increases from the contact starting point and exceeds a predetermined value, an operation state in which the switch unit is being operated.
Sato discloses to determines, when the capacitance further increases from the contact starting point and exceeds a predetermined value, an operation state in which the switch unit is being operated (Figure 4D and paragraph [0076] describes when the fingertip FT reaches a position of contact on the operation surface the capacitance will equal to (contact starting point) a threshold TH4 (predetermined value). When the contact area between the finger and operation surface increases thereafter past TH4, the capacitance at the intersection point becomes higher than the contact capacitance threshold TH4. Paragraph [0078] describes when the capacitance is greater than the contact capacitance threshold TH4 continues for a time threshold of t4 or longer the selected button 111 (switch unit) is confirmed (operation state)), wherein the predetermined value is set by multiplying the capacitance obtained at the contact starting point by a predetermined coefficient (Paragraph [0076] and [0078] describes being greater than TH4 (describing a predetermine coefficient multiple) to confirm the button input.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Seger, Jr. with the known technique of determining when the capacitance further increases from the contact starting point and exceeds a predetermined value, an operation state in which the switch unit is being operated, wherein the predetermined value is set by multiplying the capacitance obtained at the contact starting point by a predetermined coefficient yielding the predictable results of confirming the user’s input as an intended input as disclosed by Sato (paragraph [0083]).
Neither Seger, Jr. or Sato specifically disclose the predetermined coefficient being 1.4 or more.
Ando discloses a predetermined coefficient being 1.4 or more (Figure 14 and [0209] and [0216] describes an upper threshold signal intensity of capacitance for a contact/touch on the electrode is between 40 to 60 (implied 55) as shown in figure 14. The threshold signal intensity of capacitance to be considered pressure applied by the finger is between 140-160 (implied above 150). Even utilizing the upper value of 60 to the lower value of 140 creates (140/60) a predetermined coefficient 2.3. Utilizing the implied values creates (150/55) a predetermined coefficient of 2.8. Both values being above 1.4 as claimed.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Seger, Jr-Sato’s predetermined coefficient with the known technique of being 1.4 or more yielding the predictable results of determining a difference in capacitance between a contact on the electrode and a contact on the electrode with an applied finger pressure as disclosed by Ando (Figure 14 and [0216]).
Regarding claim 5, Sato discloses the operating panel according to claim 1,wherein the control unit calculates a contact area between the finger of the user and the switch unit based on the received capacitance, and determines that the capacitance exceeds the predetermined value when the contact area exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Figure 4D and paragraph [0076] describes increased capacitance due to increased contact area of the finger after the finger as made contact with the surface. The capacitance increases past the threshold of TH4.).
Regarding claim 6, Sato discloses the operating panel according to claim 5, wherein the predetermined threshold value is set by multiplying the contact area obtained at the contact starting point by a predetermined coefficient (Paragraph [0076] and [0078] describes being greater than TH4 (describing a predetermine coefficient multiple) to confirm the button input.).
5. Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seger, Jr.-Sato-Ando in view of Ling et al. (US patent Application Publication 2017/0277293), herein after referred to as Ling.
Regarding claim 2, Seger, Jr. and Sato disclose the operating panel according to claim 1,
Neither Seger, Jr. or Sato disclose wherein the control unit determines that the inflection point appears when a value obtained by first-order differentiation of an amount of change in the received capacitance with respect to a time starts to decrease.
Ling discloses wherein the control unit (Figure 1 110) determines that the inflection point (Figure 6 620) appears when a value obtained by first-order differentiation (Figure 6 reference Laplacian 604 of delta curve 602 described in paragraph [0061] to be a second order derivative. Paragraph [0062] describes a first order derivative may be used as an alternative for edge pixels or lower amount of images. Paragraph [0040] describes pixels to regard the capacitive sensor matrix electrode depicted in figure 2.) of an amount of change in the receive capacitance with respect to a time starts to decrease (Figure 6 and paragraph [0070] describes the touch region 610 to correspond to inflection points/Laplacian peaks 620 when the amplitude corresponding to capacitance starts to decrease to a negative peak and a determined touch exceeds a preset negative threshold.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Seger, Jr.-Sato with the known technique of wherein the control unit determines that the inflection point appears when a value obtained by first-order differentiation of an amount of change in the received capacitance with respect to a time starts to decrease yielding the predictable results of improving threshold detecting of touch inputs as disclosed by Ling (Figures 4A-4B and paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Seger, Jr. and Sato disclose the operating panel according to claim 1,
Neither Seger, Jr. or Sato disclose wherein the control unit determines that the inflection point appears when a value obtained by first-order differentiation of an amount of change in the received capacitance with respect to a time is a positive value and a value obtained by second-order differentiation of the amount of change with respect to the time is 0 or less.
Ling wherein the control unit (Figure 1 110) determines that the inflection point (Figure 6 620) appears when a value obtained by first-order differentiation (Figure 6 reference Laplacian 604 of delta curve 602 described in paragraph [0061] to be a second order derivative. Paragraph [0062] describes a first order derivative may be used as an alternative for edge pixels or lower amount of images. Paragraph [0040] describes pixels to regard the capacitive sensor matrix electrode depicted in figure 2.) of an amount of change in the received capacitance with respect to a time is a positive value (Figure 6 and paragraph [0070] wherein inflection point/Laplacian peaks 620 correspond to positive peaks surrounding the negative peak with respect to time.) and a value obtained by second-order differentiation of the amount of change with respect to the time is 0 or less (Figure 6 depicts the example of a second order differentiation Laplacian wherein the negative peak exceeds a preset negative threshold (less than 0).).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Seger, Jr.-Sato with the known technique of wherein the control unit determines that the inflection point appears when a value obtained by first-order differentiation of an amount of change in the received capacitance with respect to a time is a positive value and a value obtained by second-order differentiation of the amount of change with respect to the time is 0 or less yielding the predictable results of improving threshold detecting of touch inputs as disclosed by Ling (Figures 4A-4B and paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered but they relate to newly amended subject matter. Newly cited art Ando is utilized in combination with previously cited art to disclose the newly amended subject matter. Please refer to the above office action as rebuttal.
This action is non-final.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3142. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights