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 papers filed on 06/06/2025. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application and considered below.
Specification
The following title is suggested: “Active Stylus” because the claimed invention is directed to a stylus.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is directed to an auxiliary device such as a ruler and the claimed invention is directed to a stylus. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, this claim recites a limitation, “compares values of a local identifier included in the second signal detected and the local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal” in lines 14-16. Since it is unclear whether the above underlined limitation requires (i) “compares values of a local identifier included in the second signal detected with values of the local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal,” (ii) “compares a value of a local identifier included in the second signal detected with a value of the local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal,” (iii) “compares values of a local identifier included in the second signal detected with the local identifier stored in the memory every time the processor detects the second signal,” (iv) other, it is considered that the invention is not clearly defined.
As per claims 2-11, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11 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,) and Boulanger (US 2016/0048221 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; ¶ [0029], disclosing a stylus comprising an electrode injecting a stimulation signal into a touch sensor panel) and
a processor (see at least ¶ [0029], 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 ¶ [0029], 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; ¶¶ [0036], [0043]-[0044], 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 ¶ [0029], 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; ¶ [0030], disclosing the stylus comprising an electrode tip capacitively coupled to the capacitive sensing panel;)
a memory (see at least ¶ [0040] or ¶ [0042], disclosing the stylus having a memory storing its stylus identification;) 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; ¶ [0040]; ¶ [0042], 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 values of a local identifier included in the second signal detected and 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 values correspond with each other (see at least Fig. 9; ¶ [0040], ¶ [0042], disclosing to compare values of a local identifier included in the second signal detected and 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 ¶ [0041].)
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 values of a local identifier included in the second signal detected and 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 values correspond with each other” 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 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; ¶ [0040]; ¶ [0042],) 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 ¶ [0028]), 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 ¶ [0031], 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 ¶ [0031]) and improving the efficiency of the whole synchronization system (see at least ¶ [0039].)
The above modified Agarwal, as discussed above, obviously renders the touch sensing panel interacting with multiple different styluses, each stylus having the local identifier 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 ¶ [0031]) and improving the efficiency of the whole synchronization system (see at least ¶ [0039].) 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 Bluetooth communication (see at least Fig. 15; Abstract; ¶¶ 18, 28,) and notifying color identifiers [as a global identifier] 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,) thereby at least providing the user with real-time feedback and altering the color as desired by the user’s actions (see at least ¶ 31.)
Further, Agarwal discloses the stylus communicating with the sensor controller of the computing device via a wireless/Bluetooth communication (see at least ¶ 29,) but is silent to the stylus notifying a global identifier to the sensor controller with the wireless/ Bluetooth communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, as claimed. 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 to utilize the wireless/Bluetooth communication of Agarwal to notify a global identifier to the sensor controller with the wireless/ Bluetooth communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, in view of the teaching in the Boulanger reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of Agarwal for the predictable result of at least providing the user with real-time feedback and altering the color as desired by the user’s actions.
Accordingly, the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran, Hsu and Boulanger obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 2, the above modified Agarwal in view of Chandran, Hsu and Boulanger 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.)
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Chandran, Hsu and Boulanger, 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 Chandran and Hsu, 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.
Double Patenting
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,055,036 B2 (hereinafter Pat036) in view of claims 4-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,606,382 B2 (hereinafter Pat382,) and further in view of Boulanger.
As per claim 1, patent claim 18 of Pat036 recites a stylus that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller connected to a sensor electrode group, the stylus comprising:
an electrode and
a processor,
wherein the processor, in operation:
repeatedly detects a second signal supplied to the sensor electrode group in each of one or more slots included in the frame, 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, wherein each frame corresponds to a display operation period of the display panel (note that each of refresh cycles corresponds to each of “claimed” frames, one or more of the first and second blank periods included in the refresh cycle corresponds to one or more “claimed” slots included in the frame, an uplink signal corresponds to a “claimed” second signal) and
transmits a first downlink signal to the sensor controller using the electrode if the values correspond with each other (note that a downlink signal corresponding to a “claimed” first downlink signal.)
Patent claim 18 of Pat036 does not recite a memory, a first signal, and a local identifier in the manner defined by this claim.
However, patent claim 5 of Pat382 recites a stylus that operates in synchronization with a sensor controller connected to a sensor electrode group, the stylus comprising:
an electrode;
a memory; and
a processor,
wherein the processor, in operation:
detects a first signal supplied to the sensor electrode group (see claim 5 of Pat382; note that an uplink signal including a setting instruction of a value of a local identifier corresponds to a “claimed” first signal,)
determines 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 (see claim 5 of Pat382,)
repeatedly detects a second signal supplied to the sensor electrode group (see at least claim 1 of Pat382; note that an uplink signal in claim 1 of Pat382 corresponds to a “claimed” second signal,) and
compares values of a local identifier included in the second signal detected and 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 values correspond with each other (see claim 1 of Pat382; note that a downlink signal in claim 1 of Pat382 corresponds to a “claimed” first downlink signal.)
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 patent claim 18 of Pat036 to include the memory, the first signal, the local identifier, and the features associated with these elements discussed above, in view of the patent claim 5 of Pat382, to obtain the invention of this claim, for the predictable result of individually setting each, of a plurality of styluses used in a single sensing panel, having a distinct ID and improving the efficiency of the whole synchronization system, as generally known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Note that the Applicant may see the Hsu and Chandran references discussed in the above rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the well-known benefit of the stylus local identifier before challenging the well-known benefit.
Accordingly, the above modified stylus of the claims of the Pat036 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 Bluetooth communication (see at least Fig. 15; Abstract; ¶¶ 18, 28,) and notifying color identifiers [as a global identifier] 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,) thereby at least providing the user with real-time feedback and altering the color as desired by the user’s actions (see at least ¶ 31.)
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 stylus of the patent claim of the Pat036 to utilize the wireless/Bluetooth communication to notify a global identifier to the sensor controller with the wireless/ Bluetooth communication that is different from communication through capacitive coupling, in view of the teaching in the Boulanger reference, to improve the above modified system and stylus of the patent claim of the Pat382 for the predictable result of at least providing the user with real-time feedback and altering the color as desired by the user’s actions. Accordingly, the above modified stylus of the claims of the Pat036 obviously renders all limitations of this claim
As per claim 2, the above modified stylus of the claims of the Pat036 obviously renders the wireless communication being Bluetooth communication (see the above rejection of claim 1, whereat Boulanger teaches the wireless communication being Bluetooth communication.)
As per claims 3-11, see the patent claims 18-21 of the Pat036 and patent claims 5-7 of Pat382.
Conclusion
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