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 Amendment
The amendments to the claims filed 7/24/2026 were received and have been entered. Claims 1-9 and 12-13 have been amended. Claims 3-4 and 10-11 have been canceled. Claims 14-17 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-9 and 12-17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-9 and 12-17 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 § 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) 1, 5-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeganathan et al. US 2016/0337496 in view of Lukane et al. US 2016/0246390.
As to claim 1, Jeganathan teaches a position detecting apparatus (a tablet/companion device 104, ¶6-¶7, Figs 1-4) comprising: a first wireless communication device (Bluetooth, ¶23); a second wireless communication device (sensors includes capacitors, ¶8); and
wherein the processor (324), in operation, establishes a pairing with the stylus via the first wireless communication device based on the configuration information received from the stylus. (See Abstract and ¶ 31 for automatic Bluetooth pairing between the stylus 102 and the table/companion device 104).
Jeganathan fails to teach controlling the capacitive coupling to transmit an uplink signal to a stylus via capacitive coupling between the stylus and the position detecting device, and to receive from the stylus in response to the uplink signal, configuration information via the capacitive coupling between the stylus and the position detecting apparatus.
Lukane teaches transmitting upstream from the processing system to the active pen, via capacitive coupling. This data is transmitted from the active pen to the processing system in one or more downstream packets. These attributes are specified within fields of the downstream packets. The processing system determines the attributes of the active pens based on the received downstream packets, via capacitive coupling. See at least Lukane ¶25, ¶38, and Figs 1-7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), to implement the transmitting upstream from the processing system to the active pen via capacitive coupling, the data is transmitted from the active pen to the processing system via capacitive coupling, as Lukane teaches, to modify Jeganathan. The motivation for doing so would improve usability along with beneficial to communicate the current state to both devices regardless of where the selection was made. See Lukane ¶38.
As to claim 8, Jeganathan teaches a stylus (stylus 102, see ¶7, Figs 1-4), a first wireless communication device (Bluetooth, ¶23), a second wireless communication device (sensors includes capacitors, ¶8);
a processor (a processor 324) that, in operation, establishes a pairing with the position detecting apparatus (104) via the first wireless communication device based on the configuration information communicated with the position detecting apparatus. (See Abstract and ¶ 31 for automatic Bluetooth pairing between the stylus 102 and the table/companion device 104).
Jeganathan fails to teach controlling the second wireless communication device to receive an uplink signal from a position detecting apparatus via capacitive coupling between the stylus and the position detecting apparatus, and to transmit to the position detecting apparatus in response to the uplink signal, configuration information via the capacitive coupling between the stylus and the position detecting apparatus.
Lukane teaches transmitting upstream from the processing system to the active pen, via capacitive coupling. This data is transmitted from the active pen to the processing system in one or more downstream packets. These attributes are specified within fields of the downstream packets. The processing system determines the attributes of the active pens based on the received downstream packets, via capacitive coupling. See at least Lukane ¶25, ¶38, Figs 1-7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), to implement the transmitting upstream from the processing system to the active pen via capacitive coupling, the data is transmitted from the active pen to the processing system via capacitive coupling, as Lukane teaches, to modify Jeganathan. The motivation for doing so would improve usability along with beneficial to communicate the current state to both devices regardless of where the selection was made. See Lukane ¶38.
As to claims 2, 9, Lukane teaches the first wireless communication device, in operation, communicates based on capacitive coupling between the stylus and a sensor electrode of the position detecting apparatus. (See Lukane ¶25-¶51).
As to claims 5, 12, Jeganathan teaches wherein a communication range of the first wireless communication device is longer than a communication range of the second wireless communication device. (See ¶ 31 for the Bluetooth range is longer than the proximity sensor range).
As to claims 6, 13, Lukane teaches wherein the processor, in operation, establishes the pairing with the stylus via the first wireless communication device based on an identifier communicated via the capacitive coupling between the stylus and the position detecting apparatus. (See Lukane ¶25-¶51).
As to claim 7, Lukane teaches wherein, after the pairing is established, based on whether reception information received via the second wireless communication device includes information related to the identifier, the processor determines whether the reception information is from the stylus. (See Lukane ¶25-¶51).
As to claim 14, Lukane teaches the stylus according to claim 8, wherein the configuration information indicates a pairing request. (Lukane ¶ 39-¶43).
As to claim 15, Lukane teaches the stylus according to claim 8, wherein the configuration information includes proximity information (Lukane ¶16).
As to claim 16, Lukane teaches the position detecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the configuration information indicates a pairing request. (Lukane ¶ 39-¶43).
As to claim 17, Lukane teaches the position detecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the configuration information includes proximity information. (Lukane ¶16).
Conclusion
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 Kevin Nguyen whose telephone is (571)272-7697. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 8am-5pm Eastern Time.
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, Nitin K Patel can be reached on 571-272-7677. 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.
/Kevin M Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Email: kevin.nguyen2@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights