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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/05/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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-AIA ), 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With reference to claims 1 and 10, the claims recite “wherein the detector engine is configured to interpret tapping on the sensing area number six both as forming the prefix pattern and as a part of said identified digit symbol and as an order validating the entry of said identified digit symbol.” The claims recite that the detector engine interprets taps on the “sixth” sensing area for (1) forming the prefix pattern, (2) part of the identified digit symbol, and (3) validating entry. Therefore the usage of “both” fails to define which of the three functions of the detector engine are interpreted by the detector engine, or if all three functions are required. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-9 and 11-15 are rejected as being dependent on rejected base claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0154003), Wikipedia-French_Braille (hereinafter Wikipedia), and Costa (US Patent Publication No. 2024/00615517)
With reference to claims 1 and 10, Kim discloses a device (110) and method (see Fig. 6) for capturing a numerical code (see paragraphs 30-32; Figs. 1, 5), said device (110) comprising a touch sensor (510) wherein the touch sensor is configured to handle six separate sensing areas (111-116) numbered according to the Braille matrix (see paragraphs 29-31; Figs. 1-4); wherein the device (110) comprises a detector engine (520) configured to detect a plurality of sequential taps on said sensing areas, to identify which symbol of the Antoine notation (in teaching Braille character recognition) corresponds to said plurality of taps (see paragraphs 59; Figs. 5-6), and to capture a digit corresponding to said identified symbol (S660-S670) (see paragraph 65-67; Fig. 6).
While teaching input to six touch areas as explained above, Kim fails to teach using Antoine notation pattern combinations including a prefix and a vend of entry of the sixth touch area as recited.
Wikipedia article on French braille discloses detecting a plurality of sequential taps on sensing areas, to identify which digit symbol of the Antoine notation corresponds to said plurality of taps, wherein the Antoine notation is a specific evolution of the Braille format for numerical input in which each digit is coded as a specific pattern of a combination of 2 to 5 dots, and wherein according to the Antoine convention a pattern corresponding to a digit is preceded by a prefix pattern in which only sensing area number six is activated,
PNG
media_image1.png
80
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and to capture a digit corresponding to said identified digit symbol;
PNG
media_image2.png
233
991
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the detector engine is configured to interpret tapping on the sensing area number six both as forming the prefix pattern and as a part of said identified digit symbol and as an order validating the entry of said identified digit symbol.
PNG
media_image3.png
135
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of Antoine notation similar to that which is taught by Wikipedia to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Kim to carryout entry of symbols according to the Antoine notation.
Further while Kim and Wikipedia disclose the device for capturing Antoine notation, wherein Wikipedia further discloses the usage of (end) symbol, there fails to be specific disclosure that the entry symbol is the number six sensing area as recited.
Costa discloses a device for capturing input of a touch sensor configured to handle six sensing areas (see paragraphs 26, 48), wherein the detector engine (112, 114) is configured to interpret tapping on the sensing area number six both as a part of said identified symbol and as an order validating the entry of said identified symbol (in teaching mapping or re-mapping special keys as desired; see paragraph 31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to allow the usage of an entry validation key similar to that which is taught by Costa to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Kim and Wikipedia to indicate the complete of the entered character thereby providing accurate input for the user.
With reference to claim 2, Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa disclose the device according to claim 1, wherein Kim further discloses that the detector engine (520) is configured to consider that an even number of taps on a target sensing area among the sensing areas number one to five to be equivalent to no tap on said target sensing area (in teaching a multi-tap for distinguishing the completion of a word or sentence; see paragraph 64; Fig. 6).
With reference to claim 3, Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa disclose the device according to claim 1, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the numerical code consists of a sequence of digits and wherein the detector engine (520) is configured to identify a beginning (S620) and an end of the sequence (S650) of digits (see paragraphs 62-64; Fig. 6).
With reference to claims 4 and 11, Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa disclose the device according to claim 3 or 10, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the detector engine (520) is configured to interpret the very first tap of the sensing area number six (S620) as the beginning of the sequence or to interpret a specific gesture applied to the touch sensor as the beginning of the sequence (see paragraph 63; Fig. 6).
With reference to claims 6 and 13, Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa disclose the device according to claim 3 or 10, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the detector engine (520) is configured to interpret tap on the sensing area number six directly subsequent to a entered digit as the end of the sequence or to detect a specific gesture applied to the touch sensor as the end of the sequence (see paragraphs 31, 64; Fig. 6).
With reference to claims 7 and 14, Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa disclose the device according to claim 3 or 10, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the detector engine (520) is configured to interpret a tap on the sensing area number six greater than a preset time as the end of the sequence or to interpret a double tap on the sensing area number six as the end of the sequence (see paragraph 64; Fig. 6).
With reference to claim 9, Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa disclose the device according to claim 1, wherein Kim further discloses wherein the touch sensor faces a user who enters the numerical code (see Figs. 4).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa as applied to claim 3 or 10 above, and further in view of Luu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0111375; hereinafter Luu)
With reference to claims 5 and 12, Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa disclose the device according to claim 3 or 10, however fail to disclose a waiting phase as recited.
Luu discloses a device (100) including a keypad for inputting Braille and detector engine (117), wherein the detector engine (117) is configured to interpret a start of a waiting phase for detecting touched sensing areas as the beginning of the sequence (in teaching pause between Braille sequences; see paragraphs 41-42; Fig. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to allow for a pause at the beginning of a sequence similar to that which is taught by Luu to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa to thereby indicate progression of character input to the user (see Luu; paragraph 42).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa as applied to claim 3 or 10 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0196942; hereinafter Sato).
With reference to claims 8 and 15, Kim and Costa disclose the device according to claim 3 or 10, however fail to disclose counting a number of digits as recited.
Sato discloses a input apparatus (1) (see paragraph 19-20; Fig. 3) wherein the detector engine (13) is configured to count a number of entered digits and to consider that the end of sequence is reached as soon as the number of entered digits reaches a predetermined value (see paragraphs 50-51; Fig. 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow a detector engine configured to count a numbered of entered digits similar to that which is taught by Sato to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Kim, Wikipedia, and Costa to thereby providing indication of the end of character input (see paragraph 50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NACCACHE et al. (US2013/0321302) discloses a touch-sensitive device for logging data in Braille configured of six touch sensitive areas for detecting pressure to recognize the braille character (see paragraphs 59-106; Figs. 1-3).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/ADE/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights