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 action is in response to the amendment filed by Applicant on 06/22/2026. This action is made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn in response to the Terminal Disclaimer filed by the Applicant on 06/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that “Kim teaches determining whether a contacting object is a stylus or a finger to adjust a threshold. Furthermore, pen detection and finger detection are completely distinct from each other; Kim does not teach or suggest mixing or combining a pen detection and a finger detection. More particularly, Kim does not teach or suggest dividing a detection process into partial detection processes, storing partial detection data in a memory, and combining temporally distinct sets of partial detection data to generate complete detection data for a predetermined region.
Note: Applicant’s entire argument rests on the notion that the pen detection and finger detection in Kim are not “combined.”
However, Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to the broad language of the claims regarding the meaning of “combining.” Referring to paragraph 170 of the instant application, the Applicant states that “all the sensor electrodes 30X are covered by the first and second processes. Accordingly, the MCU 40 can generate entire detection data indicating whether or not the finger 4 is present for the entire touch surface 3a by combining partial detection data retained in the shift register 40a (see FIG. 5) as a result of the first process, and partial detection data retained in the shift register 40a as a result of the second process. Further, paragraph 171 states that “at the time of acquisition of new partial detection data, the MCU 40 can generate entire detection data by combining the new partial detection data with (N−1) partial detection data already stored in the shift register 40a every time the 1/N process is performed. More specifically, entire detection data can be generated not only by combining the partial detection data retained in the shift register 40a as a result of the first process and the partial detection data retained in the shift register 40a as a result of the second process executed immediately after the first process, but also by combining the partial detection data retained in the shift register 40a as a result of the second process and the partial detection data retained in the shift register 40a as a result of the first process executed immediately after the second process. Accordingly, the detection result of the finger 4 can be output at a twice higher detection rate than the detection rate of the finger 4 of the example depicted in FIG. 2 or FIG. 12A.”
Referring to the context of “combining partial data” in view of the specification, the combination seems to generate a correlation value (or combining values) that are stored in shift registers. In contrast, the claims only generically state “first partial detection data;” “second partial detection data;” and “complete detection data.”
In other words, the process taught by Kim (as referenced by Applicant in the arguments submitted) shows stylus detection (first partial detection); finger detection (second partial detection); and determination of the which type is detected is the “complete detection.” The claim language argued by the Applicant does not limit the claims to any further interpretations (e.g. averaging, correlating, or mathematically processing any values).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (Publication number: US 2017/0205944).
Consider Claim 1, Kim et al shows a sensor controller for detecting a position of a pointer within a predetermined region (see figures 3 and 4), the sensor controller comprising:
(a) A memory; and a processor (see paragraphs 23 and 24); that, in operation: performs a partial detection process of a first detection process at a first detection rate; acquires first partial detection data indicating whether a pointer is detected based on the partial detection process (see figures 4 and 5; and paragraphs 65-68); (First partial detection data is read as read as determining whether an object is of a first type (e.g. stylus pen)).
(b) Stores the first partial detection data in the memory; combines the first partial detection data stored in the memory with second partial detection data previously stored in the memory and associated with the first detection process to obtain combined partial detection data (see figures 4 and 5; and paragraphs 68-70); (Second partial detection data is read as object of the second type (e.g. finger)).
(c) Generates complete detection data indicating whether the pointer is detected throughout the predetermined region based on the combined partial detection data; and outputs the complete detection data at the first detection rate (see figures 4 and 5; and paragraphs 70-72); (Step 404 is read as combined partial detection data. When the threshold is set to a second designated value (corresponding to a level for recognizing a finger touch), the electronic device 201 may ignore a pen touch. When touch input is not recognized for a given time after changing the touch recognition threshold, the electronic device 201 may reset the touch recognition threshold to the default value or the previous value before change).
Consider Claim 2, Kim et al shows that the partial detection process detects a portion of the predetermined region (see the detection areas in figure 5A).
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, 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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (Publication number: US 2017/0205944) in view of Maeda et al (Publication number: US 2012/0013555).
Consider Claims 3 and 5, Kim et al does not specifically show that the predetermined region includes a plurality of electrodes, and the partial detection process uses a subset of the plurality of electrodes, wherein the partial detection process is performed at predetermined intervals.
In the same field of endeavor, Maeda et al shows that the predetermined region includes a plurality of electrodes, and the partial detection process uses a subset of the plurality of electrodes, wherein the partial detection process is performed at predetermined intervals (see figures 1-2, 5 and 8; paragraphs 77-80); (The electrode selector 51 inputs a pen identification signal into the reception signal processor 52 at the time when the receiving electrode 4 close to a touch position of the electronic pen 1 is selected. Subsequently, the comparator 78 of the reception signal processor 52 outputs a pulse train corresponding to the pen identification signal. Further, when the transmitting electrode 3 close to a touch position of the electronic pen 1 is not selected, the electronic pen 1 cannot detect a pen-synchronization pulse signal, thus the electronic pen 1 does not transmit a pen identification signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Maeda et al into the teaching of Kim et al in order to distinguish an electronic pen from a finger (see Maeda et al; paragraphs 7 and 8).
Consider Claim 4, Kim et al does not specifically show that the predetermined region includes a plurality of first electrodes and a plurality of second electrodes; the processor, in operation, transmits a plurality of first signals to the plurality of first electrodes and receive a plurality of second signals output from the plurality of second electrodes as a result of transmitting the plurality of first signals; and the partial detection process uses a subset of the plurality of second signals.
In the same field of endeavor, Maeda et al shows that the predetermined region includes a plurality of first electrodes and a plurality of second electrodes; the processor, in operation, transmits a plurality of first signals to the plurality of first electrodes and receive a plurality of second signals output from the plurality of second electrodes as a result of transmitting the plurality of first signals; and the partial detection process uses a subset of the plurality of second signals (see figures 1-2, 5 and 8; paragraphs 77-80); (The electrode selector 51 inputs a pen identification signal into the reception signal processor 52 at the time when the receiving electrode 4 close to a touch position of the electronic pen 1 is selected. Subsequently, the comparator 78 of the reception signal processor 52 outputs a pulse train corresponding to the pen identification signal. Further, when the transmitting electrode 3 close to a touch position of the electronic pen 1 is not selected, the electronic pen 1 cannot detect a pen-synchronization pulse signal, thus the electronic pen 1 does not transmit a pen identification signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Maeda et al into the teaching of Kim et al in order to distinguish an electronic pen from a finger (see Maeda et al; paragraphs 7 and 8).
Consider Claim 6, Kim et al shows that a logic circuit that, in operation, determines whether to perform the partial detection process, wherein the partial detection process and combining of the first partial detection data stored in the memory with the second partial detection data previously stored in the memory and associated with the first detection process are performed when the logic circuit determines that the partial detection process is to be performed (see figures 4 and 5; and paragraphs 70-72); (Step 404 is read as combined partial detection data. When the threshold is set to a second designated value (corresponding to a level for recognizing a finger touch), the electronic device 201 may ignore a pen touch. When touch input is not recognized for a given time after changing the touch recognition threshold, the electronic device 201 may reset the touch recognition threshold to the default value or the previous value before change).
However, Kim et al does not specifically show that the partial detection process is performed at predetermined intervals.
In the same field of endeavor, Maeda et al shows that the partial detection process is performed at predetermined intervals (see figures 1-2, 5 and 8; paragraphs 77-80); (The electrode selector 51 inputs a pen identification signal into the reception signal processor 52 at the time when the receiving electrode 4 close to a touch position of the electronic pen 1 is selected. Subsequently, the comparator 78 of the reception signal processor 52 outputs a pulse train corresponding to the pen identification signal. Further, when the transmitting electrode 3 close to a touch position of the electronic pen 1 is not selected, the electronic pen 1 cannot detect a pen-synchronization pulse signal, thus the electronic pen 1 does not transmit a pen identification signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Maeda et al into the teaching of Kim et al in order to distinguish an electronic pen from a finger (see Maeda et al; paragraphs 7 and 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-17 would be allowed if the Double Patenting rejection is overcome by the Applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL A FARAGALLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A FARAGALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624 09/19/2026
Prosecution Insights