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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imai et al., US 2021/0397299 A1, hereinafter “Imai ‘299”.
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).
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).
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.
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai ‘299, in view of Endo et al., US 2023/0041961 A1, hereinafter “Endo”.
Regarding claim 2, Imai ‘299 does 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 in view of 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 does 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 in view of 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, in view of Imai et al., US 2017/0075482 A1, hereinafter “Imai ‘482”.
Regarding claim 6, Imai ‘299 does 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 in view of 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 does 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 in view of 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 activated 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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai ‘299, in view of Oral et al., US 2016/0266717 A1, hereinafter “Oral”.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Imai ‘299 does 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 in view of 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.
Conclusion
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