DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. The patent application(CIP) submitted on June 06, 2025, has been received and recorded. There are 1-20 claims in the application of which claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent claims and 2-11, 13-18, and 20 are dependent claims. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(IDS) submitted was filed along with the mailing date of the application on June 06, 2025. A second IDS was filed on August 23, 2025, after the mailing date of the CIP application. Applicant submitted a third IDS on December 23, 2025. All three IDS submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitations, “a method for capacitive sensing, comprising: -----; obtaining, by the processing system and using the first set of electrodes, first resulting signals based on driving the first set of electrodes using the first waveform and driving the second set of electrodes using the second waveform”. However, first set of electrodes is used to get resulting signals from both from the first set of electrodes and the second set of electrodes. But the claim does not recite how the resulting signal is obtained either by mutual capacitance method or absolute capacitance method. Both first set of electrodes and second set of electrodes are driven by first waveform and second waveform respectively. From the current claim language, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how the capacitance measured by driving both the first and second set of electrodes.
The same arguments are applied to independent claims 12 and 19 also.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-2, 9-10, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al.(US 2020/0387248 A1)(herein after KIM) in view of Stevenson et al.(US 2019/0056823 A1) (herein after Stevenson).
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches a method for capacitive sensing (fig.1, Para-28), comprising:
driving, by a processing system(touch panel controller 200, fig.1, Para-28), a first set of electrodes from a plurality of electrodes of an input device using a first waveform(fig.8C, Para-89; figs.9-10 and related text) and a second set of electrodes from the plurality of electrodes using a second waveform(fig.8C, Para-89; figs.9-10&12 and related text), wherein the first set of electrodes and the second set of electrodes are oriented on a same axis of orientation(figs.6-7,&8C-10, and related texts), and wherein the first waveform and the second waveform are out of phase with each other such that the first waveform destructively interferes with the second waveform(Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108);
obtaining, by the processing system and using the first set of electrodes, first resulting signals based on driving the first set of electrodes using the first waveform and driving the second set of electrodes using the second waveform(fig.8C, Para-89; figs.2, 5-6, &9-10 and related text; Para-5, 28, 32, 35-38, 60 107-110); and
obtaining, by the processing system(controller 200, fig.1), second resulting signals based on operating a third set of electrodes from the plurality of electrodes in an absolute capacitance sensing (ABS) scheme(figs.8B, 12, Para-28, 88, 104).
Nevertheless, KIM is not found to teach expressly the method for capacitive sensing, comprising, determining, by the processing system, a presence of moisture on a sensing region of the input device based on the first resulting signals and the second resulting signals.
However, Stevenson teaches a touch sensing electronic device, comprising a processing system(processing system 110, fig.1, Para-40) to determine a presence of moisture(Para-143: combined capacitive profile to detect and measure ungrouped objects, e.g. moisture, sensitivity) on a sensing region of the input device based on the first resulting signals and the second resulting signals(figs.9&10 and related text).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified KIM with the teaching of Stevenson to include the feature in order to provide an input device where combination of adjusted absolute profile and adjusted mutual-capacitive profile results in a combined profile with a positive amplitude, thereby enabling the sensing of objects, in presence of low ground mass(LGM) conditions.
Regarding claim 2, KIM as modified by Stevenson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first waveform is 180 degrees out of phase from the second waveform(fig.8C, Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108, KIM).
Regarding claim 12, KIM teaches an input device(fig.1, Para-22: a display device may include a touch panel 100), comprising:
a plurality of electrodes(plurality of sensor electrodes 110 and 120, fig.1, Para-24);
a processing system(touch panel controller 200, fig.1, Para-28) configured to:
drive a first set of electrodes from the plurality of electrodes of an input device using a first waveform(fig.8C, Para-89; figs.9-10 and related text) and a second set of electrodes from the plurality of electrodes using a second waveform(fig.8C, Para-89; figs.9-10&12 and related text), wherein the first set of electrodes and the second set of electrodes are oriented on a same axis of orientation(figs.6-7,&8C-10, and related texts), and wherein the first waveform and the second waveform are out of phase with each other such that the first waveform destructively interferes with the second waveform(Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108).
Nevertheless, KIM is not found to teach expressly the input device, wherein the processing system configured to determine a grounding condition of the input device, wherein the grounding condition indicates whether the input device is operating in a low ground mass(LGM) condition; and determine the presence of moisture on the sensing region of the input device is based on the grounding condition of the input device.
However, Stevenson teaches a touch sensing electronic device, wherein the processing system(processing system 110, fig.1, Para-40) is configured to
determine a grounding condition(low ground mass) of the input device(step 1000, fig.10, Para-147), wherein the grounding condition indicates whether the input device is operating in a low ground mass(LGM) condition(1000, fig.10, Para-147); and
determine the presence of moisture on the sensing region of the input device is further based on the grounding condition of the input device(step 1020, fig.10, Para-150; fig.12, Para 155-164, 166-170).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified KIM with the teaching of Stevenson to include the feature in order to improve robustness of performance of a processing system, and to reduce negative amplitude in resulting adjusted mutual-capacitive profile in an input device.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2 since both claims 2 and 13 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 12 since both claims 12 and 19 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2 since both claims 2 and 20 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 9 recites the limitations as recited in claim 12 partially. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 10, KIM as modified by Stevenson teaches the method of claim 9, wherein determining the grounding condition comprises determining the input device is operating in the LGM condition(Para-147, Stevenson), and
wherein obtaining the second resulting signals is in response to determining the input device is operating in the LGM condition(Para-147, 157, Stevenson).
9. Claims 3-7, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al.(US 2020/0387248 A1) in view of Stevenson et al.(US 2019/0056823 A1) and further in view of Hoch et al.(US 2019/0056820 A1)(herein after Hoch).
Regarding claim 3, KIM as modified by Stevenson is not found to teach expressly the method of claim 2, wherein the first waveform has a first amplitude and the second waveform has a second amplitude, and wherein the first amplitude is different from the second amplitude.
However, Hoch teaches a method for use in a touch sensitive device(Para-7), wherein the first waveform has a first amplitude and the second waveform has a second amplitude, and wherein the first amplitude is different from the second amplitude(Para-5: the sensor module configured to perform a first measurement to obtain a combination signal using a first sensor electrode and a second sensor electrode among a plurality of sensor electrodes by selecting a first driving voltage amplitude for the first sensor electrode and a second driving voltage amplitude for the second sensor electrode, wherein the second driving voltage amplitude is greater than the first driving voltage amplitude).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified KIM further with the teaching of Hoch to include the feature in order to reconstruct accurate absolute capacitance profile, while providing benefit of lower charges measurement.
Regarding claim 4, KIM as modified by Stevenson and Hoch teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting the second waveform to be used for driving the second set of electrodes(Para-5, Hoch)(for motivation, see the rejection of claim 3 above); and
determining the first waveform to be used for driving the first set of electrodes based on the selected second waveform (Para-5, Hoch; Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108)(examiner interprets in a way that Hoch discloses the process of selecting the second waveform and KIM discloses the second waveform is 180 degree out of phase of the first waveform. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select first waveform based on second waveform using known method and known technology in the art which is 180 degree out of phase with one another).
Regarding claim 5, KIM as modified by Stevenson and Hoch teaches the method of claim 4, wherein determining the first waveform comprises:
determining a phase shift(Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108, KIM)(it is obvious to determine phase shifts of two driving voltages out of phase with one another); and
phase shifting the second waveform using the determined phase shift to obtain the first waveform(Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108)(it is well-known in the art to make first waveform out of phase with second waveform and vice versa).
Regarding claim 6, KIM as modified by Stevenson and Hoch teaches the method of claim 5, wherein determining the first waveform further comprises: determining an amplitude modification(modulated signal, Para-39, 60, Stevenson); and
subsequent to obtaining the first waveform based on phase shifting the second waveform(Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108, Hoch)(it is well-known in the art to make first waveform out of phase with second waveform and vice versa), modifying an amplitude of the first waveform based on the amplitude modification(Para-39, 60, 89, Stevenson; Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108, Hoch).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 4 as claim 7 recites identical claim limitations as recited in claim 4 by replacing second with first and first with second in the claims.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 3 since both claims 3 and 14 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 4 since both claims 4 and 15 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 5 since both claims 5 and 16 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 6 since both claims 6 and 17 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al.(US 2020/0387248 A1) in view of Stevenson et al.(US 2019/0056823 A1) and further in view of and further in view of Bharathan(US 8,823,399 B1).
Regarding claim 8, neither KIM nor Stevenson teaches clearly the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the processing system, a moisture sensing profile based on the first resulting signals, wherein determining the presence of moisture on the sensing region of the input device is based on the moisture sensing profile and the second resulting signals.
However, Bharathan a method for detecting and differentiating touches of different size objects on a capacitive button, wherein the method further comprises:
generating, by the processing system, am moisture sensing profile(Col-7, Lines 52-55) based on the first resulting signals(mutual capacitance), and
wherein determining the presence of moisture on the sensing region of the input device is based on the moisture sensing profile and the second resulting signals(Col-7, Lines 55-57: a water droplet has different signal profiles for self-capacitance measurement and for mutual capacitance measurement. The difference in signal profile can be used to detect and differentiate between whether water or finger is present on the sense elements).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified KIM further with the teaching of Bharathan to include the feature in order to provide a capacitance-sensing system configurable to detect and differentiate touches from different size conductive objects on a capacitive button.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al.(US 2020/0387248 A1) in view of Stevenson et al.(US 2019/0056823 A1) and further in view of Kuzo et al.(US 8,982,097 A1) (herein after Kuzo).
Regarding claim 11, KIM as modified by Stevenson is not found to teach expressly the method of claim 1, wherein determining the presence of moisture on the sensing region of the input device based on the first resulting signals and the second resulting signals comprises: comparing the first resulting signals with one or more first thresholds; comparing the second resulting signals with one or more second thresholds; and determining the presence of moisture on the sensing region of the input device based on the comparisons.
However, Kuzo teaches water rejection and wet finger tracking algorithm for true touch panels, wherein determining the presence of moisture on the sensing region of the input device based on the first resulting signals and the second resulting signals comprises:
comparing the first resulting signals(mutual capacitance measurements, 515, fig.5, Col-16, Lines 36-53) with one or more first thresholds(mutual capacitance threshold(e.g., 15 counts);
comparing the second resulting signals(self-capacitance measurements, 510, fig.5, Col-16, Lines 12-30) with one or more second thresholds(self-capacitance threshold(e.g., 10 counts); and
determining the presence of moisture(presence of water) on the sensing region(capacitive button) of the input device based on the comparisons(520, fig.5, Col-16, Line-61 to Col-17, Line-9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified KIM further with the teaching of Kuzo to include the feature in order to provide capacitance-sensing systems configurable to determine touch locations of touches and predict false touches on the capacitance-sensing systems in wet conditions.
Double Patenting
12. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
13. Claims 1-2, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,493,380 B2 in view of KIM et al.(US 2022/0387248 A1)(herein after KIM).
Comparison of claims of the current application and US published Patent No. US 12,493,380 B2 is given bellow: -
19/231,291
US 12,493,380 B2
Claim 1: A method for capacitive sensing, comprising:
driving, by a processing system, a first set of electrodes from a plurality of electrodes of an input device using a first waveform and a second set of electrodes from the plurality of electrodes using a second waveform, wherein the first set of electrodes and the second set of electrodes are oriented on a same axis of orientation, and wherein the first waveform and the second waveform are out of phase with each other such that the first waveform destructively interferes with the second waveform;
obtaining, by the processing system and using the first set of electrodes, first resulting signals based on driving the first set of electrodes using the first waveform and driving the second set of electrodes using the second waveform;
obtaining, by the processing system, second resulting signals based on operating a third set of electrodes from the plurality of electrodes in an absolute capacitance sensing (ABS) scheme; and
determining, by the processing system, a presence of moisture on a sensing region of the input device based on the first resulting signals and the second resulting signals.
Claim 10: The method of claim 9, wherein determining the grounding condition comprises determining the input device is operating in the LGM condition, and
wherein obtaining the second resulting signals is in response to determining the input device is operating in the LGM condition.
Claim 1: A method for capacitive sensing, comprising:
obtaining, by a processing system and using a first set of electrodes from a plurality of electrodes of an input device, first resulting signals based on driving a second set of electrodes from the plurality of electrodes, wherein the first set of electrodes and the second set of electrodes are oriented on a same axis of orientation;
determining, by the processing system, a grounding condition of the input device indicating whether the input device is operating in a low ground mass (LGM) condition; and
in response to determining that the input device is operating in the LGM condition:
obtaining, by the processing system, second resulting signals based on operating a third set of electrodes from the plurality of electrodes in an absolute capacitance sensing (ABS) scheme; and
determining, by the processing system, a presence of moisture on a sensing region of the input device based on the first resulting signals and the second resulting signals.
The only difference in claims between the published U. S. patent No. US 12,493,380 B2 and the current application is the missing claim limitations, “wherein the first waveform and the second waveform are out of phase with each other such that the first waveform destructively interferes with the second waveform”.
However, KIM teaches a capacitive touch panel(Para-28), comprising:
“wherein the first set of electrodes and the second set of electrodes are oriented on a same axis of orientation, and wherein the first waveform and the second waveform are out of phase with each other such that the first waveform destructively interferes with the second waveform(Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108)”.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the claim of published U. S. patent No. US 12,493,380 B2 with the teaching of KIM to include the feature in order to provide a touch sensing display device having touch controller that removes noise signals flowing into the touch panel from the display device, thus improving sensing sensitivity.
Regarding claim 2, claim of U. S. patent No. US 12,493,380 B2 as modified by KIM teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first waveform is 180 degrees out of phase from the second waveform(fig.8C, Para-6, 67-68, 104, 108, KIM).
Claims 9-10 corresponds to part of claim 9 of US 12,493,380 B2;
Claims 11 corresponds to part of claim 7 of US 12,493,380 B2;
Claim 12 corresponds to part of claim 9 of US 12,493,380 B2 and also disclosed by KIM(for mapping and motivation, see the rejection of claim 1);
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2 since both claims 2 and 13 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 18 corresponds to part of claim 8 of US 12,493,380 B2;
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 12 since both claims 12 and 19 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2 since both claims 2 and 20 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats.
14. Claims 3-7, and 14-17 are rejected are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,493,380 B2 in view of KIM et al.(US 2020/0387248 A1) and further in view of Hoch et al.(US 2019/0056820 A1) (herein after Hock).
For mapping and motivation see the rejection of claims 3-7 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
16. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 18: None of the prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claimed invention, “the input device of claim 12, wherein determining the grounding condition comprises determining the input device is not operating in the LGM condition, and wherein determining the presence of moisture on the sensing region of the input device comprises: in response to determining that the input device is not operating in the LGM condition, comparing the resulting signals with one or more first thresholds; and determining the presence of moisture on the sensing region of the input device based on comparing the resulting signals with the one or more first thresholds”.
Examiner Note
17. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626