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 .
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.
Note that citations to figures and elements should be understood to also implicitly refer to any pertinent explanatory text in the reference.
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 1-4, 6-11, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0106041 A1 (“Ashida”).
Regarding claim 1, Ashida teaches a coordinate input device (Fig. 8), comprising:
a position detection sensor which, in operation, detects a position indicated by an indicator ([59], [168]-[169]);
a casing including a rear surface and housing the position detection sensor between the rear surface and an input surface, the rear surface being opposite the input surface, the input surface being a surface on which an input operation for inputting the position indicated by the indicator is performed and corresponding to a position detection region of the position detection sensor (Fig. 8);
at least one grip part disposed on the rear surface of the casing (Fig. 8 at 59);
one or more operation parts disposed on the at least one grip part (Fig. 8 at 54L, 54K);
a first recessed portion formed in the rear surface of the casing adjacent to one grip part of the at least one grip part (Fig. 8 at central recessed portion above 59); and
a second recessed portion disposed at a longitudinal side of the coordinate input device and adjacent to the one grip part of the at least one grip part (Fig. 8 at edge recessed portions above 54K, 54L),
wherein the first recessed portion (Fig. 8 at central (not at edge) recessed portion above 59, 54K, 54L) and the second recessed portion (Fig. 8 at edge recessed portions above 54K, 54L) extend inwardly from the rear surface of the casing (Fig. 8 at 59, Fig. 9 at 59),
wherein, in operation, a finger of an operator is inserted into the second recessed portion disposed at the longitudinal side of the coordinate input device and into the first recessed portion formed in the rear surface of the casing when the operator grips the at least one grip part so as to operate the one or more operation parts (Fig. 8 at edge and central recessed portions above 59 {as explained in [181]-[182], [185]-[186]}).
Regarding claim 2, Ashida teaches wherein the at least one grip part is disposed adjacent to an end edge of the rear surface of the casing (Fig. 8 at 59).
Regarding claim 3, Ashida teaches wherein part of a side portion of the at least one grip part is a surface along a side surface of the casing between the rear surface and the input surface (Fig. 8 at 59).
Regarding claim 4, Ashida teaches wherein the at least one grip part is shaped and sized so as to be grippable by an operator (Fig. 8 at 59).
Regarding claim 6, Ashida teaches wherein the one or more operation parts are disposed on a portion of the at least one grip part (Fig. 8 at 59, 54K, 54L).
Regarding claim 7, Ashida teaches wherein the one or more operation parts include an operation part disposed on a surface of the at least one grip part in a direction intersecting the rear surface (Fig. 8 at 59, 54K, 54L).
Regarding claim 8, Ashida teaches wherein the one or more operation parts include an operation part disposed across both a side portion of the at least one grip part in a direction intersecting the rear surface and an upper surface portion of the at least one grip part facing the rear surface (Fig. 8 at 59, 54K, 54L).
Regarding claim 9, Ashida teaches wherein a stand part (Fig. 20 at 210) holding the casing is disposed on the rear surface such that the input surface is in a direction intersecting a surface on which the coordinate input device is placed and such that a space is created between the rear surface and the surface on which the coordinate input device is placed (Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 10, Ashida teaches wherein the at least one grip part is disposed near an end edge of the rear surface of the casing in a direction parallel to the surface on which the coordinate input device is placed (Fig. 9 at 59, Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 11, Ashida teaches wherein the at least one grip part includes two grip parts (Fig. 9 at 59 left and 59 right), and wherein the two grip parts are disposed adjacent respective opposite end edges of the rear surface of the casing in a direction parallel to the surface on which the coordinate input device is placed (Fig. 9 at 59 left and 59 right, Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 16, Ashida teaches a display device including a display screen overlapping with the position detection region of the position detection sensor ([59], [168]).
Regarding claim 18, Ashida teaches wherein the position detection sensor detects the position indicated by the indicator using a capacitive coupling system ([168]).
Regarding claim 19, Ashida teaches wherein the one or more operation parts include an operation button (Fig. 8 at 54L, 54K) and the one or more operation parts are operatable by a user without the user visually checking the one or more operation parts (Fig. 8 at 54L, 54K).
Regarding claim 20, Ashida teaches wherein the longitudinal side of the coordinate input device extends between two lateral sides of the coordinate input device, and wherein a length of the longitudinal side of the coordinate input device is less than a length of each of the lateral sides of the coordinate input device (Figs. 8, 9).
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0106041 A1 (“Ashida”) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of obviousness to try.
Regarding claim 12, Ashida teaches wherein the one or more operation parts are disposed on the two grip parts disposed adjacent to the respective opposite end edges (Fig. 8 at 54L, 54K). Ashida does not expressly teach that the one or more operation parts disposed on each of the two grip parts are assigned identical functions. There is a problem of which functions to assign to each operation part. There are two possible categories of assignment, identical or different. Therefore, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to try that the one or more operation parts disposed on each of the two grip parts are assigned identical functions.
Regarding claim 13, Ashida teaches wherein the one or more operation parts are disposed on the two grip parts disposed adjacent to the respective opposite end edges (Fig. 8 at 54L, 54K). Ashida does not expressly teach that the one or more operation parts disposed on each of the two grip parts are assigned different functions. There is a problem of which functions to assign to each operation part. There are two possible categories of assignment, identical or different. Therefore, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to try that the one or more operation parts disposed on each of the two grip parts are assigned different functions.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected, claim 9 in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0106041 A1 (“Ashida”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10890944 B1 (“Tien”).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Ashida does not teach wherein a stand part holding the casing is disposed on the rear surface such that the input surface is in a direction intersecting a surface on which the coordinate input device is placed and such that a space is created between the rear surface and the surface on which the coordinate input device is placed, wherein the stand part includes a mechanism which, in operation, changes an angle of the input surface in the direction intersecting the surface on which the coordinate input device is placed. Tien teaches wherein a stand part holding the casing is disposed on the rear surface such that the input surface is in a direction intersecting a surface on which the coordinate input device is placed and such that a space is created between the rear surface and the surface on which the coordinate input device is placed (Figs. 1-3), wherein the stand part includes a mechanism which, in operation, changes an angle of the input surface in the direction intersecting the surface on which the coordinate input device is placed (Figs. 1-3). The suggestion to combine the teachings of Ashida and Tien is present as Ashida teaches an interface device and Tien teaches a stand for a computer interface device. Further suggestion is provided by Ashida, which teaches that different stands may be used (Figs. 15, 20). The motivation is to provide additional versatility for the stand. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Ashida teaches an interface device and Tien teaches a stand for a computer interface device, while Ashida teaches that different stands may be used. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Ashida and Tien would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein a stand part holding the casing is disposed on the rear surface such that the input surface is in a direction intersecting a surface on which the coordinate input device is placed and such that a space is created between the rear surface and the surface on which the coordinate input device is placed, wherein the stand part includes a mechanism which, in operation, changes an angle of the input surface in the direction intersecting the surface on which the coordinate input device is placed.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0106041 A1 (“Ashida”) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 2001/0040551 A1 (“Yates”).
Regarding claim 15, Ashida does not expressly teach wherein the one or more operation parts are assigned a function related to an input of the position indicated by the indicator. Yates teaches wherein one or more operation parts are assigned a function related to an input of the position indicated by the indicator ([49]-[50]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Ashida by the teaching of Yates is present as both teach input devices. The motivation is to provide increased input versatility and functionality to a user. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because both Ashida and Yates teach input devices with operation parts. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Ashida and Yates would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the one or more operation parts are assigned a function related to an input of the position indicated by the indicator.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0106041 A1 (“Ashida”) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 2010/0108409 A1 (“Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 17, Ashida does not expressly teach wherein the position detection sensor detects the position indicated by the indicator using an electromagnetic induction system. Tanaka teaches wherein the position detection sensor detects the position indicated by the indicator using an electromagnetic induction system ([6]). The suggestion to modify the teaching of Ashida by the teaching of Tanaka is present as Ashida teaches that different types of touch panel technologies may be used ([168]). The motivation is to implement touch detection. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Ashida teaches that different types of touch panel technologies may be used ([168]). Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Ashida and Tanaka would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the position detection sensor detects the position indicated by the indicator using an electromagnetic induction system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is subject to objection 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.
Claim 5, subject to objection as being dependent upon a rejected claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art cited to reject the aforementioned base and intervening claims does not subsequently teach or render obvious the dependent claims indicated as otherwise allowable in the full context of the claims. Nor does any observed additional prior art in combination with the cited prior art render obvious the dependent claims indicated as being allowable in the full context of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer filed 16 June 2026 has successfully overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-20. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have successfully addressed the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(a). Those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have successfully addressed the rejection of claims 11-13 under 35 USC 112(b). Those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the portion 59 is not a rear surface of the casing because it could alternately be described as a supporting member projecting from a rear surface, and therefore the recessed portion above the portion 59 does not extend inwardly from the rear surface of the casing. Remarks at 8. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because Applicant fails to explain why the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language “rear surface” does not read onto the portion 59 of Ashida. Whether the reference could be described using alternative language is immaterial. The term “rear surface” is a reasonable description of the section of the device that includes the portion 59, and therefore the claim language reads onto the reference.
Applicant also argues that Ashida does not teach that a finger is inserted into the second recessed portion and the first recessed portion. Remarks at 9. However, Ashida does teach that the embodiment of Figs. 8-9 is designed such that a finger is inserted into the recessed portions. See Ashida at Figs. 8-9 as further explained in [181]-[182], [185]-[186].
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 GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights