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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 04/27/2026. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application and considered below.
Response to Arguments
The objections of the specification and abstract in the previous Office action dated 01/27/2026 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the specification and abstract.
The rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims.
The double patenting rejections in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the terminal disclaimer filed with the amendment and accepted, as indicated below.
In response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the previous Office action, Applicant has amended independent claim 1 and provided an argument that the prior arts, cited in the rejections, fail to teach the newly added limitation in last line of claim 1. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot because the below new ground of rejections does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/27/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent Numbers 10,055,036 and 10,606,382 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Examiner notes that the specification is not the measure of invention. Therefore, limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. See In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968).
Further, the names/ terms of the features/elements used in the pending application or pending claims may be different from the names/terms of the matching features/ elements of the prior arts; however, the matching features/ elements of the prior arts contain all characteristics/ functions of the features/elements DEFINED by the pending claims.
Note that in order to avoid confusion, the below citations in the below rejection(s) are mere one or more places in the reference to disclose the "claimed" limitation(s) and/or are directed to one or more of embodiments disclosed by the cited reference(s). In other words, the “claimed” features/limitations may be read in other places in the reference or other embodiments of the reference. In order to better understand how the claimed limitations are taught by the reference(s), a review of the entire reference(s) is suggested by the examiner. Applicant is reminded a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention as not all relevant paragraphs may have been cited in the rejection. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
FIRST SET OF REJECTIONS:
Claims 1-8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (US 2016/0092010 A1; hereinafter Agarwal) in view of Chandran et al. (US 2016/0048234 A1; hereinafter Chandran,) Hsu (US 2016/00004338 A1,) Boulanger (US 2016/0048221 A1,) and Lapstun (WO 00/72247 A1.)
As per claim 1, Agarwal discloses a stylus that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller connected to a sensor electrode group (see at least Figs. 2-3, disclosing a stylus 208 that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller comprising at least element [212] and connected to a sensor electrode group [310, 312] of a touch sensor panel 202/302; also see another embodiment shown in Fig. 8,) the stylus (see Fig. 2) comprising:
an electrode (see at least Fig. 2; ¶ 29, disclosing a stylus comprising an electrode injecting a stimulation signal into a touch sensor panel) and
a processor (see at least ¶ 29, disclosing the stylus comprising a processor in order to receive the information from the touch controller, to process the received information, and to generate stimulation signals injected to the touch sensor panel,) wherein the processor, in operation:
repeatedly detects a second signal supplied to the wireless module from the sensor controller in each of one or more slots included in each frame of a plurality of frames, wherein the second signal that notifies one or more timing of one or more blank periods corresponding to the one or more slots in the frame and wherein each frame corresponds to a display operation period of a display panel (see at least ¶ 29, disclosing the touch controller transmitting scan plan information, timing information and/or frequency information to the stylus, via the wireless module, to synchronize the stylus with the touch controller; see at least Fig. 6; ¶¶ 36, 43-44, disclosing the processor repeatedly detecting a second signal, supplied to the wireless module from the touch controller, in each of three slots 610 included in each frame of a plurality of frames [600-604], wherein the second signal that notifies one or more timing of one or more intra-frame blank periods 610 corresponding to the one or more slots in the frame and wherein each frame corresponds to a display operation period of a display panel) and
transmits a first downlink signal to the sensor controller using the electrode (see at least ¶ 29, disclosing, in response to the signal received from the touch controller via the wireless module, the stylus generates a stimulation signal transmitted to the sensor controller by injecting it into the touch sensor panel, i.e., transmitted to the sensor controller using the electrode and the touch sensor panel.)
Agarwal, as discussed above, discloses the processor detecting the second signal supplied to the wireless module, instead of the sensor electrode group, from the sensor controller. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose a first signal, a local identifier, a global identifier, and limitations associated with the first signal, the local identifier, and the global identifier, as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chandran discloses a stylus (130; see Fig. 1) that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller (120) connected to a sensor electrode group (a group of sensing electrodes [115, 117]; see Fig. 1,) the stylus comprising:
an electrode (see at least Fig. 1; ¶ 30, disclosing the stylus comprising an electrode tip capacitively coupled to the capacitive sensing panel;)
a memory (see at least ¶ 40; ¶ 42], disclosing the stylus having a memory storing various stylus information including identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc.;) and
a processor (Fig. 1, disclosing the stylus comprising a processor in order to perform at least steps [262-268, 272] shown in Fig. 7,)
wherein the processor, in operation:
repeatedly detects a second signal supplied to the sensor electrode group from the sensor controller in each of one or more slots included in the frame (see at least Figs. 7-10; ¶ 40; ¶ 42, disclosing to repeatedly detect all signals including a wake-up signal [[as a second signal]] which includes a common ID [[as a local identifier]] and is supplied to the sensor electrode group from the sensor controller 120 in a slot 252 of each frame 250 of a plurality of frames) and
compares a value of a local identifier included in the second signal with the value of the local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal, and transmits a first downlink signal to the sensor controller using the electrode if the value of the local identifier included in the second signal corresponds to the value of the local identified in the memory (see at least Fig. 9; ¶ 40, ¶ 42, disclosing to compare a value of a local identifier included in the second signal with the value of the stylus local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal, and transmits a modulated responsive sync signal [[as a first downlink signal]], including the unique identification, to the sensor controller using the electrode if the values correspond with each other.)
Chandran further teaches that such stylus identifier would benefit at least the use of multiple different styluses with a single panel provided with a system supporting applications (see at least ¶ 41.)
Agarwal, as discussed above, discloses the processor detecting the second signal supplied to the wireless module, instead of the sensor electrode group as claimed, from the sensor controller and does not explicitly disclose a local identifier and limitations associated with the local identifier, as claimed. Chandran remedies for the deficiencies of Agarwal by teaching “the processor detecting the second signal supplied to the sensor electrode group from the sensor controller and comparing a value of a local identifier included in the second signal with the value of the local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal, and transmits a first downlink signal to the sensor controller using the electrode if the value of the local identifier included in the second signal corresponds to the value of the local identified in the memory,” as claimed, and the use of the stylus local identifier to benefit at least the use of multiple different styluses with a single panel provided with a system supporting applications. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to modify the Agarwal system and stylus to include a memory in the stylus for storing various stylus information including identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc., and to utilize the stylus local identifier and the aforementioned bolded features associated with the stylus local identifier, in view of the teaching in the Chandran reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of the Agarwal reference for the predictable result of at least benefiting the use of multiple different styluses with a single panel provided with a system supporting applications.
The above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran obviously renders the stylus local identifier stored in both the stylus and the capacitive sensing panel (see the above discussion; or see Chandran at least Fig. 9; ¶ 40; ¶ 42,) the processor detecting all signals supplied to the sensor electrode group from the sensor controller in each of a plurality of frames (taught by Chandran; see the above discussion,) and the second signal including the value of the local identifier (taught by Chandran; see the above discussion,) but fails to teach “the processor detecting a first signal and determining whether the first signal represents a setting instruction of a local identifier, and writes a value of the local identifier specified by the setting instruction to the memory if the first signal is determined to represent the setting instruction,” as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hsu discloses a stylus (11; see Fig. 1) that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller comprising elements [121-123] connected to a sensor electrode group (a group of sensing electrodes TX; see ¶ 28), the stylus comprising a processor (see at least Fig. 1, disclosing a processor comprising elements [121-122],) wherein the processor, in operation:
detects a first signal (see at least Figs. 5-7; ¶ [0031], disclosing the processor of the stylus detecting a regulation signal as the first signal from the sensor controller;) and
determines whether the first signal represents a setting instruction of a local identifier, and obtains a value of the local identifier specified by the setting instruction if the first signal is determined to represent the setting instruction (see at least ¶ 31, disclosing the processor determining whether the first/ regulation signal representing a setting instruction of a local/stylus identifier and obtaining a value of the local/stylus identifier specified by the setting instruction if the first signal is determined to represent the setting instruction,) thereby providing the touch device capability of individually setting each of a plurality of styluses having a distinct ID (see at least ¶ 31) and improving the efficiency of the whole synchronization system (see at least ¶ 39.)
The above modified Agarwal, as discussed above, obviously renders the touch sensing panel interacting with multiple different styluses, each stylus having various stylus information, including the local identifier, identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc., stored in the memory of the stylus, and the memory of the sensor controller storing ID numbers individually assigned to the stylus (see the above discussion or see at least Chandran step 372 of Fig. 9,) but is silent to the ID numbers set and received from the sensor controller. Hsu, as discussed above, discloses the sensor controller capability of setting each of a plurality of styluses having a distinct ID (see at least ¶ 31) and improving the efficiency of the whole synchronization system (see at least ¶ 39.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to further modify the above modified system and stylus of Agarwal in view of Chandran to apply the same aforementioned technique of providing the sensor controller capability of setting each of a plurality of styluses having a distinct ID, in view of the teaching in the Hsu reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of Agarwal for the predictable result of individually setting each of a plurality of styluses having a distinct ID and improving the efficiency of the whole synchronization system.
Accordingly, the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran and Hsu obviously renders all limitations of this claim except for a global identifier and limitations associated with the global identifier, as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Boulanger discloses a stylus [102; see Fig. 15] communicating with a computing device [104] comprising a touch panel/display and a sensor controller controlling the touch panel/display, via a wireless communication, such as radio frequency communication, Bluetooth communication, etc. (see at least Fig. 15; Abstract; ¶¶ 18, 28,) and notifying/ transmitting various information, including at least color identifiers [as a global identifier] stored in the memory of the stylus, to the computing device with a wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling (see at least Fig. 15; Abstract; ¶¶ 18, 27-29; note that information, that is/are notified/transmitter to the computing device through a wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, is considered to include a global identifier,) thereby at least providing in real-time the stylus information including a global identifier to the computing device though a wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, while other information is transmitted through capacitive coupling (see at least ¶ 31.)
Further, the above modified stylus of Agarwal in view of Chandran obviously renders the stylus communicating with the sensor controller of the computing device through the wireless/ Bluetooth communication various styles information stored in the stylus memory and including identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc. (see Agarwal at least ¶ 29; Chandran at least ¶ 40; ¶ 42,) but is silent to explicitly disclose/identify that the stylus information, which is/are stored in the memory and notified/ transmitted to the computing device with the wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, includes a global identifier. Boulanger remedies for the deficiency of the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran by explicitly disclosing/identifying that the stylus information, which is/are stored in the memory and notified/ transmitted to the computing device with the wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, includes a global identifier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to recognize that the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran and Boulanger obviously rendering “wherein the stylus notifies a global identifier to the sensor controller with a wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling and wherein the stylus information including the global identifier, such as identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc. (see the above discussion or see at least Chandran ¶ 40; ¶ 42) is written/stored in the memory,” but is silent to the stylus information including the global identifier written/stored in the memory during manufacturing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lapstun discloses a stylus (see at least Figs. 8-10) comprising a memory storing/writing stylus information including unique identifier and other stylus information, during manufacturing and notifying/transmitting the stylus information to the computing system through the wireless communication (see at least page 30: lines-15-37; page 38: lines 1-13,) thereby protecting the stylus information made by the manufacturer in read-only-memory and preventing a fake stylus (see at least page 30:15-42.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to write/store at least some style information in the memory during manufacturing, in view of the teaching in the Lapstun reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of the Agarwal reference for the predictable result of at least protecting the stylus information made by the manufacturer in read-only-memory and preventing a fake stylus.
Accordingly, the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran, Hsu, Boulanger, and Lapstun obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 2, the above modified Agarwal, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, obviously renders the wireless communication being Bluetooth communication (see the above rejection of claim 1, whereat both Agarwal and Boulanger teach the wireless communication being Bluetooth communication.)
As per claim 3, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the first signal and the second signal, but is silent to the second signal having a shorter time length than that of the first signal, as claimed. However, a change in size was judicially recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961); In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); and In re Reven, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968). Therefore, while the above modified Agarwal may not exemplify the particular size of the time length of the second signal being shorter than that of the first signal, as presently claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the time length of the second signal being shorter than that of the first signal, as desired as claimed, in accordance with a particular application.
As per claim 4, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders only a value that represent the local identifier included in the second signal (see Chandran at least ¶ [0040] or ¶ [0042]; also see Hsu at least ¶ [0031]:12-15.)
As per claim 5, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders that the processor does not employ the first signal as a trigger of transmission of the first downlink signal and the processor is triggered to transmit the first downlink signal by detection of the second signal (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1.)
As per claim 6, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the processor transmitting a second downlink signal as a response to the setting instruction in response to detection of the first signal (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1; and further see Hsu at least steps [S105, S109] of Fig. 6 or steps [S205-S209] of Fig. 7.)
As per claim 7, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the processor transmitting the second downlink signal in a same slot as the first signal that represents the setting instruction or in an immediately-subsequent slot (see Chandran at least Figs. 3, 6, disclosing the processor transmitting the second downlink signal in a same slot 150 as the signal received from the panel; further see the above discussion in the rejection of claim 1 whereas Hsu teaches the first signal representing the setting instruction or in an immediately-subsequent slot.)
As per claim 8, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the processor transmitting the second downlink signal in a slot in which the processor has detected the second signal including a predetermined local identifier (see Chandran at least Figs. 3, 6, disclosing the processor transmitting the second downlink signal in a same slot 150 in which the processor has detected the second signal including a predetermined local identifier; also see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1 for the detection of the second signal including a predetermined local identifier.)
As per claim 11, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders that the processor does not transmit the first downlink signal in one frame if none of the second signals transmitted a plurality of times in the one frame includes the value of the local identifier written to the memory (see Chandra at least Fig. 9, disclosing that if the signal transmitted a plurality of times in the one frame does not include the value of the local identifier written to the memory, a “NO” responds to the step S364, the processor does not perform the steps [S366-370], i.e., does not transmit the downlink signal to the panel in one frame.)
As per claim 12, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders: wherein the global identifier represents an identifier of a vendor of the stylus, an identification number of the vendor’s for the stylus, or a device type of the stylus (see Chandran at least ¶ 40; ¶ 42, disclosing the stylus information including identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc.; Lapstun at least page 30:15-39, disclosing the stylus information including a unique identifier for a particular type of the stylus/pen.)
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Chandran, Hsu, Boulanger, and Lapstun, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Roh et al. (US 2004/0073620 A1; hereinafter Roh.)
As per claim 9, the above modified Agarwal discloses the processor detecting the second signal including a value of a local identifier (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1,) but is silent to “the processor determining whether the second signal includes a reset order and deleting the value of the local identifier stored in the memory if the second signal is determined to include the reset order” as claimed.
However, Roh discloses a technique, of operating a system comprising a single device used with a plurality of client devices, comprising: a technique of inputting a control command including a distinct local identifier (ID) [[as a setting instruction of a local identifier]], into each of [[client]] devices to individually set each of a plurality of client devices having a distinct local identifier (ID) (see at least ¶ [0013]; ¶ [0014]; ¶ [0028]), as substantially similar to the technique of Hsu discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and a technique of deleting the value of the local identifier stored in the memory of the [[client]] device when the processor of the [[client]] device determines the received signal including a reset command/order, thereby allowing the new assigned local identifier continuously stored in the deleted space of the memory (see at least ¶ [0029].)
The above modified Agarwal, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, discloses a substantially similar technique of inputting a control command including a distinct local identifier (ID) [[as a setting instruction of a local identifier]], into each of [[client]] devices to individually set each of a plurality of client devices having a distinct local identifier (ID), but is silent to a technique of deleting the value of the local identifier stored in the memory of the device when the processor of the device determines the received signal including a reset command/order, which is taught by the Roh reference to allow the new assigned local identifier continuously stored in the deleted space of the memory. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to utilize the technique of deleting the value of the local identifier stored in the memory of the device when the processor of the device determines the received signal including a reset command/order, in the above modified system and stylus of Agarwal, in view of the teaching in the Roh reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of Agarwal for the predictable result of allowing the new assigned local identifier continuously stored in the deleted space of the memory. Accordingly, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 10, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the processor holding, in the memory, a state that identifies whether pairing of the stylus with the sensor controller has been carried out, and the processor setting the state to a state indicating that the pairing has been carried out after writing the local identifier to the memory, and the processor setting the state to a state indicating that the pairing has not been carried out if the second signal is determined to include the reset order. See the discussion in the rejections of claims 1 and 9.
SECOND SET OF REJECTIONS:
Claims 1-8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (US 2016/0092010 A1; hereinafter Agarwal) in view of Chandran et al. (US 2016/0048234 A1; hereinafter Chandran,) Hsu (US 2016/00004338 A1,) Boulanger (US 2016/0048221 A1,) and Eguchi (WO 2016/121477 A1; see the corresponding US 2017/0322643 A1 for the following citations, as English translation.)
As per claim 1, Agarwal discloses a stylus that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller connected to a sensor electrode group (see at least Figs. 2-3, disclosing a stylus 208 that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller comprising at least element [212] and connected to a sensor electrode group [310, 312] of a touch sensor panel 202/302; also see another embodiment shown in Fig. 8,) the stylus (see Fig. 2) comprising:
an electrode (see at least Fig. 2; ¶ 29, disclosing a stylus comprising an electrode injecting a stimulation signal into a touch sensor panel) and
a processor (see at least ¶ 29, disclosing the stylus comprising a processor in order to receive the information from the touch controller, to process the received information, and to generate stimulation signals injected to the touch sensor panel,) wherein the processor, in operation:
repeatedly detects a second signal supplied to the wireless module from the sensor controller in each of one or more slots included in each frame of a plurality of frames, wherein the second signal that notifies one or more timing of one or more blank periods corresponding to the one or more slots in the frame and wherein each frame corresponds to a display operation period of a display panel (see at least ¶ 29, disclosing the touch controller transmitting scan plan information, timing information and/or frequency information to the stylus, via the wireless module, to synchronize the stylus with the touch controller; see at least Fig. 6; ¶¶ 36, 43-44, disclosing the processor repeatedly detecting a second signal, supplied to the wireless module from the touch controller, in each of three slots 610 included in each frame of a plurality of frames [600-604], wherein the second signal that notifies one or more timing of one or more intra-frame blank periods 610 corresponding to the one or more slots in the frame and wherein each frame corresponds to a display operation period of a display panel) and
transmits a first downlink signal to the sensor controller using the electrode (see at least ¶ 29, disclosing, in response to the signal received from the touch controller via the wireless module, the stylus generates a stimulation signal transmitted to the sensor controller by injecting it into the touch sensor panel, i.e., transmitted to the sensor controller using the electrode and the touch sensor panel.)
Agarwal, as discussed above, discloses the processor detecting the second signal supplied to the wireless module, instead of the sensor electrode group, from the sensor controller. Agarwal does not explicitly disclose a first signal, a local identifier, a global identifier, and limitations associated with the first signal, the local identifier, and the global identifier, as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chandran discloses a stylus (130; see Fig. 1) that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller (120) connected to a sensor electrode group (a group of sensing electrodes [115, 117]; see Fig. 1,) the stylus comprising:
an electrode (see at least Fig. 1; ¶ 30, disclosing the stylus comprising an electrode tip capacitively coupled to the capacitive sensing panel;)
a memory (see at least ¶ 40; ¶ 42], disclosing the stylus having a memory storing various stylus information including identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc.;) and
a processor (Fig. 1, disclosing the stylus comprising a processor in order to perform at least steps [262-268, 272] shown in Fig. 7,)
wherein the processor, in operation:
repeatedly detects a second signal supplied to the sensor electrode group from the sensor controller in each of one or more slots included in the frame (see at least Figs. 7-10; ¶ 40; ¶ 42, disclosing to repeatedly detect all signals including a wake-up signal [[as a second signal]] which includes a common ID [[as a local identifier]] and is supplied to the sensor electrode group from the sensor controller 120 in a slot 252 of each frame 250 of a plurality of frames) and
compares a value of a local identifier included in the second signal with the value of the local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal, and transmits a first downlink signal to the sensor controller using the electrode if the value of the local identifier included in the second signal corresponds to the value of the local identified in the memory (see at least Fig. 9; ¶ 40, ¶ 42, disclosing to compare a value of a local identifier included in the second signal with the value of the stylus local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal, and transmits a modulated responsive sync signal [[as a first downlink signal]], including the unique identification, to the sensor controller using the electrode if the values correspond with each other.)
Chandran further teaches that such stylus identifier would benefit at least the use of multiple different styluses with a single panel provided with a system supporting applications (see at least ¶ 41.)
Agarwal, as discussed above, discloses the processor detecting the second signal supplied to the wireless module, instead of the sensor electrode group as claimed, from the sensor controller and does not explicitly disclose a local identifier and limitations associated with the local identifier, as claimed. Chandran remedies for the deficiencies of Agarwal by teaching “the processor detecting the second signal supplied to the sensor electrode group from the sensor controller and comparing a value of a local identifier included in the second signal with the value of the local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal, and transmits a first downlink signal to the sensor controller using the electrode if the value of the local identifier included in the second signal corresponds to the value of the local identified in the memory,” as claimed, and the use of the stylus local identifier to benefit at least the use of multiple different styluses with a single panel provided with a system supporting applications. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to modify the Agarwal system and stylus to include a memory in the stylus for storing various stylus information including identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc., and to utilize the stylus local identifier and the aforementioned bolded features associated with the stylus local identifier, in view of the teaching in the Chandran reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of the Agarwal reference for the predictable result of at least benefiting the use of multiple different styluses with a single panel provided with a system supporting applications.
The above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran obviously renders the stylus local identifier stored in both the stylus and the capacitive sensing panel (see the above discussion; or see Chandran at least Fig. 9; ¶ 40; ¶ 42,) the processor detecting all signals supplied to the sensor electrode group from the sensor controller in each of a plurality of frames (taught by Chandran; see the above discussion,) and the second signal including the value of the local identifier (taught by Chandran; see the above discussion,) but fails to teach “the processor detecting a first signal and determining whether the first signal represents a setting instruction of a local identifier, and writes a value of the local identifier specified by the setting instruction to the memory if the first signal is determined to represent the setting instruction,” as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hsu discloses a stylus (11; see Fig. 1) that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller comprising elements [121-123] connected to a sensor electrode group (a group of sensing electrodes TX; see ¶ 28), the stylus comprising a processor (see at least Fig. 1, disclosing a processor comprising elements [121-122],) wherein the processor, in operation:
detects a first signal (see at least Figs. 5-7; ¶ [0031], disclosing the processor of the stylus detecting a regulation signal as the first signal from the sensor controller;) and
determines whether the first signal represents a setting instruction of a local identifier, and obtains a value of the local identifier specified by the setting instruction if the first signal is determined to represent the setting instruction (see at least ¶ 31, disclosing the processor determining whether the first/ regulation signal representing a setting instruction of a local/stylus identifier and obtaining a value of the local/stylus identifier specified by the setting instruction if the first signal is determined to represent the setting instruction,) thereby providing the touch device capability of individually setting each of a plurality of styluses having a distinct ID (see at least ¶ 31) and improving the efficiency of the whole synchronization system (see at least ¶ 39.)
The above modified Agarwal, as discussed above, obviously renders the touch sensing panel interacting with multiple different styluses, each stylus having various stylus information, including the local identifier, identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc., stored in the memory of the stylus, and the memory of the sensor controller storing ID numbers individually assigned to the stylus (see the above discussion or see at least Chandran step 372 of Fig. 9,) but is silent to the ID numbers set and received from the sensor controller. Hsu, as discussed above, discloses the sensor controller capability of setting each of a plurality of styluses having a distinct ID (see at least ¶ 31) and improving the efficiency of the whole synchronization system (see at least ¶ 39.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to further modify the above modified system and stylus of Agarwal in view of Chandran to apply the same aforementioned technique of providing the sensor controller capability of setting each of a plurality of styluses having a distinct ID, in view of the teaching in the Hsu reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of Agarwal for the predictable result of individually setting each of a plurality of styluses having a distinct ID and improving the efficiency of the whole synchronization system.
Accordingly, the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran and Hsu obviously renders all limitations of this claim except for a global identifier and limitations associated with the global identifier, as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Boulanger discloses a stylus [102; see Fig. 15] communicating with a computing device [104] comprising a touch panel/display and a sensor controller controlling the touch panel/display, via a wireless communication, such as radio frequency communication, Bluetooth communication, etc. (see at least Fig. 15; Abstract; ¶¶ 18, 28,) and notifying/ transmitting various information, including at least color identifiers [as a global identifier] stored in the memory of the stylus, to the computing device with a wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling (see at least Fig. 15; Abstract; ¶¶ 18, 27-29; note that information, that is/are notified/transmitter to the computing device through a wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, is considered to include a global identifier,) thereby at least providing in real-time the stylus information including a global identifier to the computing device though a wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, while other information is transmitted through capacitive coupling (see at least ¶ 31.)
Further, the above modified stylus of Agarwal in view of Chandran obviously renders the stylus communicating with the sensor controller of the computing device through the wireless/ Bluetooth communication various styles information stored in the stylus memory and including identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc. (see Agarwal at least ¶ 29; Chandran at least ¶ 40; ¶ 42,) but is silent to explicitly disclose/identify that the stylus information, which is/are stored in the memory and notified/ transmitted to the computing device with the wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, includes a global identifier. Boulanger remedies for the deficiency of the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran by explicitly disclosing/identifying that the stylus information, which is/are stored in the memory and notified/ transmitted to the computing device with the wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, includes a global identifier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to recognize that the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran and Boulanger obviously rendering “wherein the stylus notifies a global identifier to the sensor controller with a wireless communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling and wherein the stylus information including the global identifier, such as identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc. (see the above discussion or see at least Chandran ¶ 40; ¶ 42) is written/stored in the memory,” but is silent to the stylus information including the global identifier written/stored in the memory during manufacturing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eguchi discloses a stylus (see at least Figs. 3, 13A) comprising a memory [409/609] storing/writing stylus information including at least manufacturer number and product number, during manufacturing and notifying/transmitting the stylus information to the computing system through the wireless communication (see at least ¶ 60, ¶ 202, ¶ 210,) thereby simultaneously ensuring of security the additional information and avoiding unnecessary transmission of the additional information (see at least ¶ 12.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to write/store at least some style information in the memory during manufacturing, in view of the teaching in the Eguchi reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of the Agarwal reference for the predictable result of at least simultaneously ensuring of security the additional information and avoiding unnecessary transmission of the additional information.
Accordingly, the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran, Hsu, Boulanger, and Eguchi obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 2, the above modified Agarwal, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, obviously renders the wireless communication being Bluetooth communication (see the above rejection of claim 1, whereat both Agarwal and Boulanger teach the wireless communication being Bluetooth communication.)
As per claim 3, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the first signal and the second signal, but is silent to the second signal having a shorter time length than that of the first signal, as claimed. However, a change in size was judicially recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961); In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); and In re Reven, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968). Therefore, while the above modified Agarwal may not exemplify the particular size of the time length of the second signal being shorter than that of the first signal, as presently claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the time length of the second signal being shorter than that of the first signal, as desired as claimed, in accordance with a particular application.
As per claim 4, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders only a value that represent the local identifier included in the second signal (see Chandran at least ¶ [0040] or ¶ [0042]; also see Hsu at least ¶ [0031]:12-15.)
As per claim 5, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders that the processor does not employ the first signal as a trigger of transmission of the first downlink signal and the processor is triggered to transmit the first downlink signal by detection of the second signal (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1.)
As per claim 6, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the processor transmitting a second downlink signal as a response to the setting instruction in response to detection of the first signal (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1; and further see Hsu at least steps [S105, S109] of Fig. 6 or steps [S205-S209] of Fig. 7.)
As per claim 7, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the processor transmitting the second downlink signal in a same slot as the first signal that represents the setting instruction or in an immediately-subsequent slot (see Chandran at least Figs. 3, 6, disclosing the processor transmitting the second downlink signal in a same slot 150 as the signal received from the panel; further see the above discussion in the rejection of claim 1 whereas Hsu teaches the first signal representing the setting instruction or in an immediately-subsequent slot.)
As per claim 8, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the processor transmitting the second downlink signal in a slot in which the processor has detected the second signal including a predetermined local identifier (see Chandran at least Figs. 3, 6, disclosing the processor transmitting the second downlink signal in a same slot 150 in which the processor has detected the second signal including a predetermined local identifier; also see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1 for the detection of the second signal including a predetermined local identifier.)
As per claim 11, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders that the processor does not transmit the first downlink signal in one frame if none of the second signals transmitted a plurality of times in the one frame includes the value of the local identifier written to the memory (see Chandra at least Fig. 9, disclosing that if the signal transmitted a plurality of times in the one frame does not include the value of the local identifier written to the memory, a “NO” responds to the step S364, the processor does not perform the steps [S366-370], i.e., does not transmit the downlink signal to the panel in one frame.)
As per claim 12, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders: wherein the global identifier represents an identifier of a vendor of the stylus, an identification number of the vendor’s for the stylus, or a device type of the stylus (see Chandran at least ¶ 40; ¶ 42, disclosing the stylus information including identification being unique to a particular stylus, a class or group of styluses, and etc.; further see Eguchi at least ¶ 60, disclosing the stylus information including at least manufacturer number and product number.)
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Chandran, Hsu, Boulanger, and Eguchi, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Roh et al. (US 2004/0073620 A1; hereinafter Roh.)
As per claim 9, the above modified Agarwal discloses the processor detecting the second signal including a value of a local identifier (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1,) but is silent to “the processor determining whether the second signal includes a reset order and deleting the value of the local identifier stored in the memory if the second signal is determined to include the reset order” as claimed.
However, Roh discloses a technique, of operating a system comprising a single device used with a plurality of client devices, comprising: a technique of inputting a control command including a distinct local identifier (ID) [[as a setting instruction of a local identifier]], into each of [[client]] devices to individually set each of a plurality of client devices having a distinct local identifier (ID) (see at least ¶ [0013]; ¶ [0014]; ¶ [0028]), as substantially similar to the technique of Hsu discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and a technique of deleting the value of the local identifier stored in the memory of the [[client]] device when the processor of the [[client]] device determines the received signal including a reset command/order, thereby allowing the new assigned local identifier continuously stored in the deleted space of the memory (see at least ¶ [0029].)
The above modified Agarwal, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, discloses a substantially similar technique of inputting a control command including a distinct local identifier (ID) [[as a setting instruction of a local identifier]], into each of [[client]] devices to individually set each of a plurality of client devices having a distinct local identifier (ID), but is silent to a technique of deleting the value of the local identifier stored in the memory of the device when the processor of the device determines the received signal including a reset command/order, which is taught by the Roh reference to allow the new assigned local identifier continuously stored in the deleted space of the memory. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to utilize the technique of deleting the value of the local identifier stored in the memory of the device when the processor of the device determines the received signal including a reset command/order, in the above modified system and stylus of Agarwal, in view of the teaching in the Roh reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of Agarwal for the predictable result of allowing the new assigned local identifier continuously stored in the deleted space of the memory. Accordingly, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 10, the above modified Agarwal obviously renders the processor holding, in the memory, a state that identifies whether pairing of the stylus with the sensor controller has been carried out, and the processor setting the state to a state indicating that the pairing has been carried out after writing the local identifier to the memory, and the processor setting the state to a state indicating that the pairing has not been carried out if the second signal is determined to include the reset order. See the discussion in the rejections of claims 1 and 9.
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 Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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 at (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights