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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al (pub # 20140340326) in view of Laslo (U.S. Pat # 10,824,249).
Consider claim 1. Kameyama et al teaches A pen, (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0028, touch pen 1). comprising:
a vibration device including a vibrator; (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0031, he drive unit 2 is hardware for vibrating the touch pen 1).
and a processing unit that is configured to:
supply a first electrical signal to the vibration device to cause a first vibration of the vibrator while a user is writing with the pen, wherein the first vibration is detectable by the user; (Fig. 2 and paragraph 0034, When the calculation unit 4 judged that a pen tip is in contact with a screen (step S102: Yes), and the touch pen 1 is moving near a screen (step S103: Yes), the calculation unit 4 judges whether or not a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is OFF (step S104). The vibration flag is a setting information for determining whether or not to vibrate the touch pen 1. When a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is judged to be OFF (step S104: Yes), a vibration flag is changed to an ON state, and the processing returns to step S101 again while moving to step S105 (step S110). Thereafter, the calculation unit 4 generates a signal of a predetermined vibration pattern (step S105), and transmits the vibration pattern signal to the drive unit 2 for activation (step S106).).
and supply a second electrical signal different from the first electrical signal to the vibration device (Fig. 2 and paragraph 0035, When the touch pen 1 is judged not to be in a drawing mode (step S101: No), when a pen tip is judged not to be in contact with a screen (step S102: No), and when a pen tip is judged not to be moving (step S103: No), the calculation unit 4 judges whether or not a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is in an ON state (step S107). When a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is judged to be in an ON state (step S107: Yes), the calculation unit 4 changes a vibration flag to OFF, and the processing returns to step S101 while moving to step S108 (step S111). Thereafter, the calculation unit 4 generates a stop signal (step S108), and transmits a vibration OFF signal to the drive unit 2 for terminating action of the drive unit 2 (step S109).).
of the vibrator during a pen non-use period during which no pen input is being performed, to suppress movement of the vibrator during the pen non-use period (Fig. 2 and paragraph 0035, When the touch pen 1 is judged not to be in a drawing mode (step S101: No), when a pen tip is judged not to be in contact with a screen (step S102: No), and when a pen tip is judged not to be moving (step S103: No), the calculation unit 4 judges whether or not a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is in an ON state (step S107). When a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is judged to be in an ON state (step S107: Yes), the calculation unit 4 changes a vibration flag to OFF, and the processing returns to step S101 while moving to step S108 (step S111). Thereafter, the calculation unit 4 generates a stop signal (step S108), and transmits a vibration OFF signal to the drive unit 2 for terminating action of the drive unit 2 (step S109)).
Kameyama et al does not specifically disclose to cause a second vibration, wherein the second vibration is not detectable by the user. However Laslo in at least col. 6 lines 48-60 discloses a vibration generator 500 for a stylus 100 and in some examples the vibration generator operates to generate vibrations of the stylus tip at a frequency and amplitude which is barely noticeable to a user of the stylus. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pen of Kameyama et al to generate a second vibration that is not detectable by the user as disclosed by Laslo so that the user is able to operate the stylus without being disconcerted or distracted by the vibration (Laslo Col. 6 lines 59-60).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al (pub # 20140340326) in view of Laslo (U.S. Pat # 10,824,249) and further in view of Endo et al (pub # 20160209979).
Consider claim 2. Kameyama et al further teaches The pen according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to:
Kameyama et al in view of Laslo does not specifically disclose the second electrical signal is oscillating with an amplitude smaller than that of the first electrical signal. However Endo et al in at leas paragraph 0237 discloses a method of reducing the vibration of a vibrating element by reducing amplitude of the drive signal. Endo et al specifically discloses “The smaller the amplitude of the drive signal becomes, the smaller the intensity of the natural vibration becomes”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second signal of Kameyama et al to have a smaller amplitude than the first signal as disclosed by Endo et al in order to provide an efficient method of suppressing the movement of the vibrator.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al (pub # 20140340326) in view of Laslo (U.S. Pat # 10,824,249) and further in view of Endo et al (pub # 20160209979) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Abe et al (pub # 20130201127).
Consider claim 3. Kameyama et al in view of Laslo and further in view of Endo et al does not specifically disclose The pen according to claim 2, wherein the vibration device includes a coil, and the processing unit supplies the second electrical signal to the vibration device by supplying the second electrical signal to both ends of the coil. However Abe et al in at least paragraph 0090 and Fig. 10 discloses a vibration generator 80 comprising a coil 41 wherein a first driving signal having a frequency of 160 HZ or a second driving signal having a frequency of 480 HZ is applied to the coil by transistor 104. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coil of Abe et al with the pen of Kameyama et al in order to provide and input device that can effectively apply two types of vibration to an operation surface (Abe et al paragraph 0011).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al (pub # 20140340326) in view of Laslo (U.S. Pat # 10,824,249) and further in view of Marshall et al (pub # 20200012358).
Consider claim 6. Kameyama et al further teaches The pen according to claim 1, comprising: wherein the processing unit suppresses the movement of the vibrator when a current time is within the pen non-use period and a finger is being detected by the capacitive sensor. (Fig. 2 and paragraph 0035, When the touch pen 1 is judged not to be in a drawing mode (step S101: No), when a pen tip is judged not to be in contact with a screen (step S102: No), and when a pen tip is judged not to be moving (step S103: No), the calculation unit 4 judges whether or not a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is in an ON state (step S107). When a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is judged to be in an ON state (step S107: Yes), the calculation unit 4 changes a vibration flag to OFF, and the processing returns to step S101 while moving to step S108 (step S111). Thereafter, the calculation unit 4 generates a stop signal (step S108), and transmits a vibration OFF signal to the drive unit 2 for terminating action of the drive unit 2 (step S109)).
Kameyama et al in view of Laslo does not specifically disclose a capacitive sensor arranged on a surface of the pen. However Marshall et al in at least Fig. 3 and paragraph 0036 discloses stylus 100 comprising a touch sensor 200 that can be a capacitive touch sensor that extends along a length of the stylus 100. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the capacitive sensor of Marshall et al with the pen of Kameyama et al in order to effectively distinguish between tactile inputs from a user and disregard sustained tactile inputs that are provided while the user simply holds the stylus at the user's natural grip location (Marshall et al abstract).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al (pub # 20140340326) in view of Laslo (U.S. Pat # 10,824,249) and further in view of Sakamoto et al (pub # 20200371607).
Consider claim 7. Kameyama et al further teaches The pen according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to: enter a and suppress the movement of the vibrator when the processing unit has entered the startup mode and a current time is within the pen non-use period. (Fig. 2 and paragraph 0035, When the touch pen 1 is judged not to be in a drawing mode (step S101: No), when a pen tip is judged not to be in contact with a screen (step S102: No), and when a pen tip is judged not to be moving (step S103: No), the calculation unit 4 judges whether or not a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is in an ON state (step S107). When a vibration flag of the touch pen 1 is judged to be in an ON state (step S107: Yes), the calculation unit 4 changes a vibration flag to OFF, and the processing returns to step S101 while moving to step S108 (step S111). Thereafter, the calculation unit 4 generates a stop signal (step S108), and transmits a vibration OFF signal to the drive unit 2 for terminating action of the drive unit 2 (step S109)).
Kameyama et al in view of Laslo does not specifically disclose startup mode in response to a predetermined startup operation, and to enter a sleep mode when a state in which no pen input is performed continues for a predetermined time period or more after entering the startup mode. However Sakamoto et al in at least paragraph 0049 discloses a method of setting a pen A to a sleep mode if the user A does not use the pen for a certain period of time. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Sakamoto et al with the system and method of Kameyama et al in order to conserve energy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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.
Consider claim 4. The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious The pen according to claim 1, comprising: an oscillator circuit; and a switch element inserted between the vibration device and the oscillator circuit, wherein the vibration device includes a coil, and the processing unit turns on the switch element during the pen non-use period to allow an electrical signal to flow through the coil to thereby suppress the movement of the vibrator during the pen non-use period.
Claim 5 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 4.
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 CHAYCE R BIBBEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00-6:00.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/CHAYCE R BIBBEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2624
/MATTHEW A EASON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights