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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings filed 9-15-25 have been accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Peretz et al. (US 2018/0292923).
Regarding claim 1, Peretz (Fig. 1) discloses a sensor controller, comprising:
an obtaining section (25) configured to obtain a position signal (“signal produced by stylus 120… can be detected by circuit 25” discussed in [0030]) indicating a position of an electronic pen from a pen sensor (50) configured to detect the position of the electronic pen (eg. “tracking coordinates of stylus” discussed in [0030]); and
a pen pressure calculating section (eg. including 26 and 27, used to “to sample and process output from digitizer sensor 50” as discussed in [0027]) configured to calculate a pen pressure value regarding a pen pressure of the electronic pen on the pen sensor (“proportional to pressure applied on the tip” discussed in [0051]) on a basis of a change in a signal level of the position signal obtained by the obtaining section (“a pressure sensor 400 that changes its voltage based on pressure applied on tip 20” discussed in [0051]).
Regarding claim 14, Peretz (Fig. 1) discloses a control method of a sensor controller (25) connected to a pen sensor (50), the control method comprising:
obtaining a position signal (“signal produced by stylus 120… can be detected by circuit 25” discussed in [0030]) indicating a position of an electronic pen from the pen sensor (50) configured to detect the position of the electronic pen (eg. “tracking coordinates of stylus” discussed in [0030]); and
calculating a pen pressure value regarding a pen pressure of the electronic pen on the pen sensor (“proportional to pressure applied on the tip” discussed in [0051]) on a basis of a change in a signal level of the obtained position signal (“a pressure sensor 400 that changes its voltage based on pressure applied on tip 20” discussed in [0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Peretz discloses a sensor controller as discussed above, wherein the signal level is a potential (eg. a voltage potential, see “changes its voltage based on pressure” discussed in [0051]), and, when the potential of the position signal has risen by a first potential or more within a predetermined time (eg. when the stylus presses against the digitizer, pressure will increase the voltage, “while a threshold pressure is applied on tip 20” discussed in [0057] see also “reflective transmission can be applied while tip 20 is pressing against digitizer sensor 50” as discussed in [0057]), the pen pressure calculating section determines that an operation state has made a transition to a first state in which the electronic pen is pressing the pen sensor (eg. “switch 810 toggles between the two transmission modes based on input from pressure sensor 400” as discussed in [0057], the first state corresponding to a “reflective transmission” mode), and the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value as a first value (eg. corresponding to a “pressing against digitizer sensor” value).
Regarding claim 3, Peretz discloses a sensor controller as discussed above, wherein, when the potential of the position signal has fallen by a second potential or more within a predetermined time (eg. “while the stylus tip is hovering over the detection surface” as discussed in [0002], the pressure will reduce, see “when the tip pressure falls below a defined threshold” discussed in [0057]), the pen pressure calculating section determines that the operation state has made a transition to a second state in which the electronic pen is separated from the pen sensor (“active transmission circuit can be applied while tip 20 is hovering” discussed in [0057]), and the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value as a second value different from the first value (eg. corresponding to a “hovering” value).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peretz as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Stern (US 2017/0045961).
Regarding claim 4, Peretz discloses a sensor controller as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein, when the operation state has made a transition from the second state to the first state, the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value in such a manner as to make the pen pressure value change from the first value to the second value stepwise.
Stern (Fig. 2) discloses a sensor controller wherein, when the operation state has made a transition from the second state to the first state (eg. “switching between hover and touch operational mode” discussed in [0058]), the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value in such a manner as to make the pen pressure value change from the first value to the second value stepwise (“a stepwise fashion the amount of contact area formed between the elastomer element and the interacting element around a pressure defined for switching between hover and touch operational mode” discussed in [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peretz so the pen pressure value change from the first value to the second value stepwise as taught by Stern because this “provides a better feel for a user using the stylus” (see [0058]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peretz as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kadowaki (WO2023047512, with US 2023/0394721 used as an English translation).
Regarding claim 8, Peretz discloses a sensor controller as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates a movement speed of the electronic pen with respect to the pen sensor from the position signal and determines the first value according to the calculated movement speed.
Kadowaki (Fig. 2 and 19) discloses a sensor controller wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates a movement speed of the electronic pen with respect to the pen sensor from a position signal (“detects a position of the pen point included in an image region represented by each of pieces of imaging data 236, and calculates the position indicated by the electronic pen 204” discussed in [0193]) and determines a first value according to the calculated movement speed (“calculates the pen pressure acting on the electronic pen 204 such that the pen pressure decreases as the moving speed of the electronic pen 204 increases” discussed in [0193], see also Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peretz to as taught by Kadowaki because this “can reproduce a virtual behavior of the pen pressure when the electronic pen 204 is in a contacted state, even when the electronic pen 204 is actually in a hovering state” (see [0211]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, Peretz (Fig. 1) discloses a sensor controller (25) comprising:
an obtaining section (25) configured to obtain, from a pen sensor (50) configured to detect a position of an electronic pen (eg. “tracking coordinates of stylus” discussed in [0030]), a first signal transmitted from a first electrode of the electronic pen to the pen sensor (eg. a first signal using a “ring electrode” as discussed in [0043]), a second signal transmitted from a second electrode of the electronic pen (eg. a second signal using the “tip” as an electrode, as discussed in [0034]), the second electrode being different from the first electrode (the tip and ring electrodes are different, as discussed above), to the pen sensor, and a pen pressure signal indicating a pen pressure of the electronic pen (eg. as a modulated Vtip, “uses pressure sensor 400 to modulate Vtip” discussed in [0051]); and
a pen pressure calculating section (eg. including 26 and 27, used to “to sample and process output from digitizer sensor 50” as discussed in [0027]) configured to calculate a pen pressure value regarding the pen pressure of the electronic pen on the pen sensor (“proportional to pressure applied on the tip” discussed in [0051]) on a basis of the pen pressure signal obtained by the obtaining section (“a pressure sensor 400 that changes its voltage based on pressure applied on tip 20” discussed in [0051], see also “information such as tip pressure” and “support detection and decipher modulations imposed on the signal” discussed in [0020]).
However, Peretz fails to teach or suggest a pen pressure calculating section configured to calculate a pen pressure value regarding the pen pressure of the electronic pen on the pen sensor “on a basis of changes in signal levels of the first signal and the second signal obtained by the obtaining section” as well as the pen pressure signal.
Miyamoto (Fig. 1 and 6) discloses a pen pressure calculating section (31) configured to receive a pen pressure value regarding the pen pressure of the electronic pen on the pen sensor (using transmitted data, “data that is transmitted in the data signal includes, for example, pen pressure that is detected by the pen pressure detecting circuit 23” discussed in [0034]) on a basis of changes in signal levels of the first signal (“a symbol string SS1 to be transmitted from the electrode 21 (the first electrode)” discussed in [0066]) and the second signal obtained by the obtaining section (“a symbol string SS2 to be transmitted from the electrode 22 (the second electrode)” discussed in [0066]) as well as the pen pressure signal obtained by the obtaining section (“41 acquires pen pressure from the pen pressure detecting circuit 23” discussed in [0056]).
However, Miyamoto only determines the strings SS1 and SS2 that are transmit over the first and second electrodes using downlink signals DS “based on” the pen pressure data from 23 (eg. as discussed in [0066]), and so Miyamoto fails to teach or suggest wherein the pen pressure calculating station 31 specifically “calculates” a pen pressure based on SS1, SS2, and the pen pressure signal.
Therefore, each of the currently cited references of record fails to teach or suggest “a pen pressure calculating section configured to calculate a pen pressure value regarding the pen pressure of the electronic pen on the pen sensor on a basis of changes in signal levels of the first signal and the second signal obtained by the obtaining section as well as the pen pressure signal obtained by the obtaining section” when combined with each of the other claim limitations.
Claims 16-18 are dependent upon claim 15, and so are allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 5-7, and 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Peretz discloses a sensor controller as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates a movement speed of the electronic pen with respect to the pen sensor from the position signal and determines a value of the first potential according to the calculated movement speed.
Kadowaki (US 2023/0394721) discloses a sensor controller wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates a movement speed of the electronic pen with respect to the pen sensor from the position signal (“detects a position of the pen point included in an image region represented by each of pieces of imaging data 236, and calculates the position indicated by the electronic pen 204” discussed in [0193]) and determines a value of the pressure according to the calculated movement speed (“calculates the pen pressure acting on the electronic pen 204 such that the pen pressure decreases as the moving speed of the electronic pen 204 increases” discussed in [0193]).
However, Kadowaki is directed towards using cameras (eg. see Fig. 15), and so is not combinable with determining a value of a “first potential” as taught by Peretz.
Therefore, each of the currently cited references of record fails to teach or suggest “wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates a movement speed of the electronic pen with respect to the pen sensor from the position signal and determines a value of the first potential according to the calculated movement speed” when combined with each of the other claim limitations.
Claims 6 and 7 are dependent upon claim 5 and so would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, Peretz discloses a sensor controller as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value when a predetermined condition is not satisfied, and the predetermined condition is a condition that a time elapsed since a previous calculation of the pen pressure value is less than a reference time and a distance traveled by the electronic pen since the previous calculation of the pen pressure value is less than a reference distance.
Choi et al. (US 2022/0155889) discloses a sensor controller wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value (“a pressure sensor capable of measuring the intensity (pressure) of a touch” discussed in [0067], “detected pressure” also discussed in [0103]), and a predetermined condition is a condition that a time elapsed since a previous calculation of the pen pressure value is less than a reference time (eg. if “within a specified first time from the time at which the detected pressure is greater than or equal to the threshold pressure” as discussed in [0103]) and a distance traveled by the electronic pen since the previous calculation of the pen pressure value is less than a reference distance (“determine whether the touch moves by a specified distance” discussed in [0103]).
However, Choi still fails to teach or suggest wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value when the predetermined condition is not satisfied.
Therefore, each of the currently cited references of record fails to teach or suggest “wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value when a predetermined condition is not satisfied, and the predetermined condition is a condition that a time elapsed since a previous calculation of the pen pressure value is less than a reference time and a distance traveled by the electronic pen since the previous calculation of the pen pressure value is less than a reference distance” when combined with each of the other claim limitations.
Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 9 and so would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, Peretz discloses a sensor controller as discussed above, wherein the signal level is a potential (eg. a voltage potential, see “changes its voltage based on pressure” discussed in [0051]), the obtaining section obtains, from the pen sensor, a pen pressure signal that is transmitted from the electronic pen to the pen sensor and that indicates the pen pressure of the electronic pen on the pen sensor (“a pressure sensor 400 that changes its voltage based on pressure applied on tip 20” discussed in [0051]), and the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value on a basis of a change in the potential of the position signal (“uses pressure sensor 400 to modulate V.sub.tip, e.g. impose amplitude modulation according to the detected pressure” discussed in [0051]).
However, Peretz fails to teach or suggest wherein the pen pressure calculating section “calculates the pen pressure value by correcting the pen pressure indicated by the pen pressure signal on a basis of a change in the potential of the position signal.”
Therefore, each of the currently cited references of record fails to teach or suggest “wherein the pen pressure calculating section calculates the pen pressure value by correcting the pen pressure indicated by the pen pressure signal on a basis of a change in the potential of the position signal” when combined with each of the other claim limitations.
Claims 12 and 13 are dependent upon claim 11 and so would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M BLANCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9-5.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 5712727772. 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.
/JONATHAN M BLANCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights