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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Amendments and arguments filed on 04/15/2026 have been fully considered and are not found to place the application in a condition for allowance. The applicant has provided new limitations according to which a new search has been performed. The following Action provides further details regarding the application of newly found art.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al., US 2021/0397299 A1, hereinafter “Imai ‘299”, in view of Chen et al., US 2011/0216031 A1, hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding claim 1, Imai ‘299 teaches a touch detection device used for detecting a touch on a touch panel of a capacitance type (fig. 1, ¶ 42), the touch detection device comprising: a touch detection circuit configured to detect a capacitance of each of a plurality of points on the touch panel (fig. 1, ¶ 42, plurality of points including element 121/122); and a calibration part (fig. 1, element 14, ¶ 47) configured to perform calibration for adjusting a range in which the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point (figs. 3-4, ¶ 53-61), wherein the calibration part acquires, at a predetermined opportunity, capacitances of the plurality of points detected by the touch detection circuit (fig. 3, step1, ¶ 53), and when a change level indicating a level of a change in the capacitance of each point acquired, from a capacitance thereof in a last calibration, is greater than a predetermined level (step1, ¶ 53, detection of capacitance change requires such comparison), and an index value indicating a degree of variation in the capacitances of the points acquired is less than a predetermined value (fig. 3, step4 and step5, ¶ 58-59), the calibration part performs calibration for adjusting the range in which the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point (fig. 3, step6, also see fig. 4 at t1, t2, t6, etc., when such calibration of the range is performed) such that the range includes both a capacitance of the point when the point is not touched (fig. 4, see for example t0-t3 wherein the range is adjusted to include the no-touch capacitance) and a capacitance of the point when the point is touched, based on the capacitance of the point acquired (fig. 4, see t6-t7 during which touch operation is detected based on the adjusted range; ¶ 74-75).
Imai ‘299 does not specifically teach that the touch detection circuit comprising a switch, a constant current circuit, an attenuator, and a digitizer; wherein the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point by adjusting a time for which the switch is switched on, a value of a constant current of the constant current circuit, or an attenuation rate of the attenuator.
Chen, however, teaches that the touch detection circuit (fig. 1A, element 10a, ¶ 15) comprising a switch (fig. 7, see switches SW1-n, ¶ 28), a constant current circuit (fig. 7, IM , ¶ 19), an attenuator (fig. 2, CMP, ¶ 18; the comparator effectively attenuates the level of current output from the current source), and a digitizer (fig. 1A, element 300a, ¶ 20); wherein the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point by adjusting a time for which the switch is switched on, a value of a constant current of the constant current circuit, or an attenuation rate of the attenuator (¶ 23, see regulating or adjusting the value of the constant current. Note that such an adjustment also leads to an adjustment of the switching timing of switch QN1 in fig. 2 and switches SW1-n in fig. 7, in addition to the attenuation rate of the comparator CMP since IM -is an input to the attenuator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai ‘299 in view of Chen. The references teach adjusting the capacitance-detecting range of a touch panel and Chen further teaches the details regarding the circuitry of such a system. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because “updated capacitance-detecting range may thus be maintained in the linear region of the circuit in order to provide accurate capacitance measurement” (see ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 3, Imai ‘299 teaches that the calibration part uses, as the index value, a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the capacitances of the points acquired (fig. 4, ¶ 69; the system determines a “similar increase” between t0-t2. In other words, a difference between a maximum value (for example at t2) and a minimum value (for example at t0) is determined to be similarly changed).
Regarding claim 5, Imai ‘299 teaches that the calibration part uses, as the index value, a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of averages of the capacitances of the points acquired (fig. 4, ¶ 69; the system determines a “similar increase” between t0-t2. In other words, a difference between a maximum value (for example at t2) and a minimum value (for example at t0) is determined to be similarly changed; also see ¶ 48 regarding averages), the averages being averages calculated in a plurality of regions obtained by dividing the touch panel in at least one direction, respectively (¶ 48: “change the reference electrostatic capacitance with a statistical value obtained from a plurality of electrostatic capacitances (including the latest electrostatic capacitance) detected [from] a certain detection area for a prescribed time period. Examples of the statistical value include an average value, a median value, and a mode value”. Note that the same process is applied to a plurality of regions per fig. 1, elements 111 and 112).
Regarding claim 7, Imai ‘299 teaches that the calibration part corrects the capacitance of each point acquired, such that a designed capacitance variation is at least partially offset, and calculates, as the index value, a value indicating a degree of variation in the capacitances of the points corrected (fig. 3-4, see the offset to Cr1/Cr2 and the degree of variation is updated as the capacitances are measured; note that the operation of fig. 3 is a loop).
Regarding claim 8, Imai ‘299 teaches that the calibration part acquires the capacitances of the plurality of points detected by the touch detection circuit after the calibration is performed (see the looped operation of fig. 3), and when the index value indicating the degree of variation in the capacitances of the points thus acquired is greater than the predetermined value, the calibration part returns the range in which the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point to the range before the calibration is performed (fig. 3, step 7; and fig. 4, t2-t6 wherein the range is returned to the amount previous to the calibration (range is maintained unchanged)).
Regarding claim 11, Imai ‘299 teaches a touch panel device (fig. 1, element 10, ¶ 42), comprising: the touch detection device of claim 1; and the touch panel of the capacitance type (¶ 42-43).
Regarding claim 13, Imai ‘299 teaches a calibration method for calibrating a touch detection device used for detecting a touch on a touch panel of a capacitance type (fig. 1, ¶ 42), the touch detection device including: a touch detection circuit for detecting a capacitance of each of a plurality of points on the touch panel (fig. 1, ¶ 42, plurality of points including element 121/122); and a calibration part (fig. 1, element 14, ¶ 47), the calibration method comprising: the calibration part acquiring, at a predetermined opportunity, capacitances of the plurality of points detected by the touch detection circuit (figs. 3-4, ¶ 53-61); and when a change level indicating a level of a change in the capacitance of each point acquired in the acquiring, from a capacitance thereof in a last calibration is greater than a predetermined level (step1, ¶ 53, detection of capacitance change requires such comparison), and an index value indicating a degree of variation in the capacitances of the points acquired is less than a predetermined value (fig. 3, step4 and step5, ¶ 58-59), the calibration part performing calibration for adjusting a range in which the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point (fig. 3, step6, also see fig. 4 at t1, t2, t6, etc., when such calibration of the range is performed) such that the range includes both a capacitance of the point when the point is not touched (fig. 4, see for example t0-t3 wherein the range is adjusted to include the no-touch capacitance) and a capacitance of the point when the point is touched, based on the capacitance of the point acquired (fig. 4, see t6-t7 during which touch operation is detected based on the adjusted range; ¶ 74-75).
Imai ‘299 does not specifically teach that the touch detection circuit comprising a switch, a constant current circuit, an attenuator, and a digitizer; wherein the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point by adjusting a time for which the switch is switched on, a value of a constant current of the constant current circuit, or an attenuation rate of the attenuator.
Chen, however, teaches that the touch detection circuit (fig. 1A, element 10a, ¶ 15) comprising a switch (fig. 7, see switches SW1-n, ¶ 28), a constant current circuit (fig. 7, IM , ¶ 19), an attenuator (fig. 2, CMP, ¶ 18; the comparator effectively attenuates the level of current output from the current source), and a digitizer (fig. 1A, element 300a, ¶ 20); wherein the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point by adjusting a time for which the switch is switched on, a value of a constant current of the constant current circuit, or an attenuation rate of the attenuator (¶ 23, see regulating or adjusting the value of the constant current. Note that such an adjustment also leads to an adjustment of the switching timing of switch QN1 in fig. 2 and switches SW1-n in fig. 7, in addition to the attenuation rate of the comparator CMP since IM -is an input to the attenuator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai ‘299 in view of Chen. The references teach adjusting the capacitance-detecting range of a touch panel and Chen further teaches the details regarding the circuitry of such a system. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because “updated capacitance-detecting range may thus be maintained in the linear region of the circuit in order to provide accurate capacitance measurement” (see ¶ 29).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai ‘299 and Chen, as applied above, further in view of Endo et al., US 2023/0041961 A1, hereinafter “Endo”.
Regarding claim 2, Imai ‘299 and Chen do not specifically teach that the calibration part uses, as the change level, a sum of amounts of changes in the capacitances of the points acquired, from capacitances in the last calibration.
Endo, however, teaches that the calibration part uses, as the change level, a sum of amounts of changes in the capacitances of the points acquired, from capacitances in the last calibration (¶ 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai ‘299, Chen and Endo. The references teach correcting or adjusting a touch detection process and Endo teaches further details regarding incorporating a sum or cumulative amounts of changes in capacitances. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Endo teaches that such a technique “can suppress the influence of the sudden change even when the AD value (measured value) suddenly changes over time due to noise or the like, and can improve the correction accuracy of the reference value” (see ¶ 96).
Regarding claim 4, Imai ‘299 teaches that the calibration part uses, as the index value, a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the capacitances of the points acquired (fig. 4, ¶ 69; the system determines a “similar increase” between t0-t2. In other words, a difference between a maximum value (for example at t2) and a minimum value (for example at t0) is determined to be similarly changed).
Imai ‘299 and Chen do not teach acquiring of moving averages; each of the moving averages being a moving average calculated for two or more points in one direction on the touch panel, where the one direction is a moving direction.
Endo, however, teaches the incorporation of moving averages; each of the moving averages being a moving average calculated for two or more points in one direction on the touch panel, where the one direction is a moving direction (¶ 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai ‘299, Chen and Endo. Imai ‘299 teaches obtaining the values of capacitances and in ¶ 48 teaches that such values may be obtained according to average values. Endo further teaches incorporation of moving averages for determining such values. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to “improve the correction accuracy of the reference value” as taught by Endo in ¶ 104.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai ‘299 and Chen as applied above, further in view of Imai et al., US 2017/0075482 A1, hereinafter “Imai ‘482”.
Regarding claim 6, Imai ‘299 and Chen do not specifically teach that in the calibration, the calibration part adjusts the range in which the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point to a range centering on the capacitance of the point acquired.
Imai ‘482, however, teaches the calibration part adjusts the range in which the touch detection circuit detects the capacitance of each point to a range centering on the capacitance of the point acquired (fig. 18, ¶ 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai ‘299, Chen and Imai ‘482. The references teach obtaining and setting range values for detected capacitive values and Imai ‘482 further teaches providing a range centered around the detected capacitive values within which the detected values are tolerated. Accordingly one would have been motivated to make such a combination because Imai ‘482 teaches in ¶ 73 that “The specific range E is a tolerable range that indicates the tolerable variation amount of the reference values obtained when the value is initially set in a factory or the like. As illustrated in FIG. 19, if a user performs touching, external noise exists, or a foreign object is on the operation surface 11a when obtaining the reference values, the detection value is excluded from the specific range E.” In other words, one would have been motivated to make such a combination because the inclusion of such a range enhances the accuracy of the reference values similar to those of Imai ‘299.
Regarding claim 9, Imai ‘299 and Chen do not specifically teach that the predetermined opportunity is activation of the touch detection device.
Imai ‘482, however, clearly teaches that the predetermined opportunity is activation of the touch detection device (¶ 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai ‘299, Chen and Imai ‘482. The references teach obtaining and setting range values for detected capacitive values and Imai ‘482 further teaches that such a process is performed at the activation of the device. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Imai ‘482 teaches setting “the reference value to a value conforming to the current parasitic capacitance”, thereby improving the accuracy of the device by taking the parasitic capacitance values when setting the reference value.
Claims 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai ‘299 and Chen as applied above, further in view of Oral et al., US 2016/0266717 A1, hereinafter “Oral”.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Imai ‘299 and Chen do not specifically teach that the touch panel is a touch panel of a self-capacitance type including a plurality of X electrodes and a plurality of Y electrodes, and each of the X electrodes and each of the Y electrodes is the point at which the capacitance is detected by the touch detection circuit.
Oral, however, clearly teaches that the touch panel is a touch panel of a self-capacitance type (¶ 37) including a plurality of X electrodes and a plurality of Y electrodes (see fig. 2, elements 204-A and 204-B, ¶ 34-35), and each of the X electrodes and each of the Y electrodes is the point at which the capacitance is detected by the touch detection circuit (¶ 37-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai ‘299, Chen and Oral. The references teach touch devices and Oral further teaches details regarding the type and arrangement of electrodes of such a touch sensing device. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to properly arrange the touch electrodes for sensing touch operations as required by the references.
Regarding claim 12, Imai ‘299 teaches a touch panel device (fig. 1, element 10, ¶ 42), comprising: the touch detection device of claim 10 (see Imai’299 in view of Chen and Oral as applied to claim 10 above).
Imai ‘299 and Chen do not specifically teach the touch panel of the self-capacitance type.
Oral, however, teaches the self-capacitance type touch panel (¶ 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai ‘299, Chen and Oral. The references teach touch devices and Oral further teaches details regarding the type and arrangement of electrodes of such a touch sensing device. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to properly arrange the touch electrodes for sensing touch operations as required by the references.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai ‘299 and Chen as applied above, further in view of Hotelling et al., US 9,547,394 B2, hereinafter “Hotelling”.
Regarding claim 15, Imai ‘299 and Chen do not specifically teach that before calculating the index value, the calibration part corrects the capacitance of each point acquired, such that a designed capacitance variation due to a structure of the touch panel is at least partially offset, and calculates, as the index value, a value indicating a degree of variation in the capacitances of the points corrected.
Hotelling teaches that before calculating the index value (fig. 5, see ASIC process 305 occurring before calibration 307), the calibration part corrects the capacitance of each point acquired (col. 9, lines 21-22), such that a designed capacitance variation due to a structure of the touch panel is at least partially offset, and calculates, as the index value, a value indicating a degree of variation in the capacitances of the points corrected (see VOFF_REG, col. 8, line 58 to col. 9, line 26 wherein the amount of variation is compensated based on the offset value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Imai ‘299, Chen and Hotelling. The references teach adjusting the range of capacitance detection and Hotelling further teaches details regarding offsetting a capacitance variation. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Hotelling teaches that: “Offset compensation is necessary because the pixel capacitance C.sub.SIG is comprised of a static part and a dynamic part. The static part is a function of sensor construction. The dynamic part is a function of the change of C.sub.SIG when the finger approaches the pixel, and is thus the signal of interest. The purpose of the offset compensator is to eliminate or minimize the static component thereby extending the dynamic range of the system” (see col. 8, lines 50-57).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEPEHR AZARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7903. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11AM-7PM.
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.
/SEPEHR AZARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights