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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of the response the applicant argues that Sundara-Rajan et al. fails to teach the claimed limitations regarding “when the control signal is not detected.” Specifically, the applicant argues on page 8 of the response by providing paragraph [0070] of Sundara-Rajan et al. and then concluding that because Sundara-Rajan et al. discloses the stylus enters the sleep mode after “a certain amount of time” etc. that Sundara-Rajan et al. does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations in question. The office respectfully disagrees. The applicant has ignored the explanation given in the rejection which also contained paragraphs [0066] and [0068]. Specifically, Paragraph [0066] of explains Sundara-Rajan et al. that “Once the correct stylus operation is detected, the touch controller may cease transmitting the handshake signals” i.e. the control signal [handshake packet] will not be detected. Paragraph [0068] explains that the transmit mode is performed after the handshake packet stops being detected, where paragraph [0070] then explains that the sleep mode will be re-entered after a “certain amount of time” of inactivity, which will then result in stopping of transmission of the stylus signal, thus making the transmission continued for a defined period of time when the handshake packet is not detected. Thus, the “continues transmission” and “releases the communication” steps occur when the control signal is not detected as claimed.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sundara-Rajan et al. (US 2015/0363012).
Regarding claim 1, Sundara-Rajan et al. disclose an active stylus (Figure 1, 102 is an active stylus, see also Figures 4-6), comprising:
an electrode (Figure 4 and paragraph [0036], the tip 108 has a conductive polymer that “may allow the tip 108 to function as an electrode and transmit and receive information over the capacitive communication channel”.); and
an integrated circuit, which is coupled to the electrode (Figure 6, 602 is an integrated circuit, which is in the pen 102 and thus is “coupled to” the electrode.) and which, in operation:
repeatedly attempts detection of a control signal transmitted from a sensor panel (Figure 14, 1409 and paragraphs [0064] and [0066], which says “every 10 ms” so the stylus repeatedly attempts detection of the handshake packet [control signal].);
after the control signal is detected, configures a communication setting for transmitting a stylus signal and transmits the stylus signal to the sensor panel according to the communication setting (Figure 14, 1410 and paragraphs [0029] and [0067]-[0068], after the handshake packet is detected, the encoding scheme, FSK, BPSK or ASK, is a communication setting.); and
when the control signal is not detected,
continues transmission of the stylus signal to the sensor panel according to the communication setting for a defined period of time (Paragraph [0066] explains that “Once the correct stylus operation is detected, the touch controller may cease transmitting the handshake signals” i.e. the control signal [handshake packet] will not be detected. Paragraph [0068] explains that the transmit mode is performed after the handshake packet stops being detected, where paragraph [0070] then explains that the sleep mode will be re-entered after a “certain amount of time” of inactivity, which will then result in stopping of transmission of the stylus signal, thus making the transmission continued for a defined period of time when the handshake packet is not detected.), and
releases the communication setting after said defined period of time (As explained above, the sleep mode will be re-entered after a “certain amount of time” of inactivity. Then, as shown in Figure 14, the process is restarted to pox, detect and handshaking meaning that the communication setting was “released” after the predefined timeout period which placed the device to sleep.).
Regarding claim 2, Sundara-Rajan et al. disclose the active stylus of claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit, in operation, repeatedly transmits the stylus signal according to the communication setting without detecting the control signal (As described above in claim 1, paragraph [0066] explains that the transmission of the handshake packet [control signal] from the touch controller is stopped, and thus the transmission from the active stylus as explained in paragraph [0068] is repeatedly performed without the handshake packet being detected.).
Regarding claim 3, Sundara-Rajan et al. disclose the active stylus of claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit, in operation, repeatedly transmits the stylus signal according to the communication setting as long as the active stylus traverses over a surface of the sensor panel (Paragraph [0070], the stylus is in use, and thus the transmission from the active stylus as explained in paragraph [0068] is repeatedly performed as long as the active stylus traverses over a surface of the sensor panel.).
Regarding claim 4, Sundara-Rajan et al. disclose the active stylus of claim 1, wherein, the communication setting includes a local ID (LID) allocated to the active stylus (Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]), and the integrated circuit releases the LID after the defined period of time in response to not detecting the control signal for the defined period of time (As explained in claim 1 above, after the defined time as explained in paragraph [0070], sleep is entered and when re-awakened, then the beacon is repeated [see Figure 14, for example], meaning that the previous LID was released.).
Regarding claim 5, Sundara-Rajan et al. disclose the active stylus of claim 1, wherein,
the integrated circuit returns to repeatedly attempting detection of the control signal from transmitting the stylus signal according to the communication setting, in response to not detecting the control signal for the defined period of time (Figure 14 and paragraph [0070], after time-out it goes back to sleep in 1402 and then goes back to detecting the handshake packet again in 1406.); and
the integrated circuit returns to configuring the communication setting from transmitting the stylus signal according to the communication setting, in response to detecting the control signal in the defined period of time (As explained, the process is repeated in Figure 14 after sleep at 1402 is re-entered, and thus integrated circuit returns to configuring the communication setting as explained in claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 6, Sundara-Rajan et al. disclose the active stylus of claim 5, wherein the integrated circuit, in response to detecting the control signal in the defined period of time, returns to configuring the communication setting while maintaining the communication setting (Paragraph [0071].).
Regarding claim 7, Sundara-Rajan et al. disclose the active stylus of claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit, in operation, detects the control signal transmitted from the sensor panel via the electrode (Paragraph [0036], “may allow the tip 108 to function as an electrode and transmit and receive information over the capacitive communication channel”, and thus the handshake packet [control signal] is detected via the electrode.).
Regarding claim 8, Sundara-Rajan et al. disclose the active stylus of claim 1, wherein the integrated circuit, in operation, transmits the stylus signal to the sensor panel via the electrode (Paragraph [0036], “may allow the tip 108 to function as an electrode and transmit and receive information over the capacitive communication channel”, and thus the transmission of stylus signal is made via the electrode.).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
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 STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
10 August 2026
Prosecution Insights