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 Amendment
The applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 1, 5-6, 10, 14-15 and 19
Cancelled: 8 and 17
Added: 20-21
Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-21 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright et al. (US 2012/0154324 A1, hereinafter “Wright”).
As to claim 10, Wright (Fig. 2) discloses an electronic device (101) comprising:
a capacitive touch sensor panel (121);
one or more processors (102);
memory (Para. 0101); and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory (Para. 0101) and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
stimulating a first set of drive electrodes (Fig. 7 step 717; Para. 0083, coarse scan of some electrodes), wherein the first set of drive electrodes are a subset of a plurality of drive electrodes (Fig. 2 element 222) associated with the capacitive touch sensor panel (Para. 0027);
generating a first touch image based on the stimulated first set of drive electrodes (Fig. 4 element 401; Para. 0049);
after stimulating the first set of drive electrodes, stimulating a second set of drive electrodes (Fig. 7 step 707; Para. 0048), different from the first set (Fig. 5 element 501; Para. 0058), wherein the second set of drive electrodes are a subset of the plurality of drive electrodes associated with the capacitive touch sensor panel, and wherein the first set of drive electrodes and the second set of drive electrodes include one or more common drive electrodes (Fig. 4; local scan electrodes would be part of coarse scan);
generating a second touch image based on the stimulated second set of drive electrodes (step 713 and 719; Para. 0085); and
generating an integrated touch image based on the generated first touch image and the generated second touch image (step 715; Para. 0085-0087, integrated whole contacts from multiple partial contacts).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 1 and similar media of claim 19.
As to claim 11, Wright discloses the electronic device of claim 10, wherein generating an integrated touch image based on the generated first touch image and the generated second touch image includes concatenating the first touch image and the second touch image (Fig 6A; Para. 0085-0087).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 2.
As to claim 18, Wright (Fig. 6C) discloses the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the first set of drive electrodes (Para. 0077) includes a first sub-group of drive electrodes (672) and a second sub-group of drive electrodes (674), and wherein the first sub-group and the second sub-group of adjacent drive electrodes are separated by one or more non-stimulated drive electrodes (673; Para. 0077).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 9.
As to claim 20, Wright (Fig. 6C) discloses the method of claim 9, wherein a starting drive electrode associated with the second set of drive electrodes (674) is based on a number of non-stimulated drive electrodes (673) separating the first sub-group and the second sub-group of adjacent drive electrodes of the first set of drive electrodes (673; Para. 0077, the electrode set 673 is non-stimulated when the set 674 is driven. The starting drive electrode of the set 674 would be the first electrode after the set 673. Therefore, the starting electrode of set 674 would depend on number of electrodes of set 673).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 21.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2022/0334670 A1, hereinafter “Hwang”).
As to claim 12, Wright discloses the electronic device of claim 10, wherein generating the integrated touch image based on the generated first touch image and the generated second touch image includes combining the first touch image and the second touch image (Fig. 7 step 713).
Wright does not disclose wherein combining the first touch image and the second touch image includes determining an average touch image associated with the common drive electrodes of the first set of drive electrodes and the second set of drive electrodes.
However, Hwang teaches wherein combining the first touch image and the second touch image includes determining an average touch image associated with the common drive electrodes of the first set of drive electrodes and the second set of drive electrodes (Para. 0326).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Hwang to calculate the average touch image in the device disclosed by Wright. The motivation would have been to identify a user input (Hwang; Para. 0330).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 3.
As to claim 13, Wright does not disclose the electronic device of claim 10, wherein generating the integrated touch image based on the generated first touch image and the second touch image includes applying a machine learning model to the generated first touch image and the second touch image.
However, Hwang (Fig. 2) teaches wherein generating the integrated touch image based on the generated first touch image and the second touch image includes applying a machine learning model (2410) to the generated first touch image and the second touch image (Para. 0073, 0329).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Hwang to include a machine learning in the device disclosed by Wright. The motivation would have been to train the touch data (Hwang; Para. 0161).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 4.
As to claim 14, Wright in view of Hwang disclose the electronic device of claim 13. Hwang (Fig. 21) further teaches wherein applying the machine learning model to the generated first touch image (2110, first frame) and the second touch image (second frame), includes:
concatenating the first touch image and the second touch image (2120; Para. 0328); and
applying the machine learning model to the concatenated first touch image and second touch image (Para. 0330).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 5.
As to claim 15, Wright in view of Hwang disclose the electronic device of claim 13. Hwang (Fig. 21) further teaches wherein applying the machine learning model to the generated first touch image (2110, first frame) and the second touch image (second frame), includes:
combining the first touch image and the second touch image (2120), wherein combining the first touch image and the second touch image includes determining an average touch image associated with the common drive electrodes of the first set of drive electrodes and the second set of drive electrodes (Para. 0328); and
applying the machine learning model to the combined first touch image and second touch image (Para. 0330).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright and Hwang as applied to claim 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0205359 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
As to claim 16, Wright does not disclose the electronic device of claim 13, wherein the machine learning model is trained using a supervised learning process, and wherein the supervised learning process includes training the machine learning model with one or more training touch images that include known touch signals and known noise signals.
However, Wang teaches wherein the machine learning model is trained using a supervised learning process, and wherein the supervised learning process includes training the machine learning model with one or more training touch images that include known touch signals and known noise signals (Para. 0057, touch data would include touch signal along with noise associated with it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wang to use a supervised machine learning in the device disclosed by Wright/Hwang. The motivation would have been to in order predict a next touch input (Wang; Para. 0058).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Geaghan (US 2006/0279548 A1) performing pre-touch scanning (Fig. 3C).
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 BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 PM.
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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
