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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 8/9/2023, filed 10/15/2024, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the first control information is based on the pen-pressure value transmitted to the sensor controller in the downlink signal”.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “acquires first control information from the first uplink signal;”
The language of claim 2 is contrary meaning with claim 1.
Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite.
Claims 3, 4 have same issue because of claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dekel et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20220334658 A1, Assignee: Microsoft, Filed: 4/20/2021) in view of Gur et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20220334698 A1, Assignee: Microsoft, Filed: 4/20/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Dekel discloses “An active pen that communicates with a sensor controller, the active pen comprising:
a haptic element; ([0020] – [0023]) and
an integrated circuit coupled to the haptic element, wherein the integrated circuit, in operation: ([0057] [0058])
receives a first uplink signal that is transmitted by the sensor controller; ([0057] [0058])
acquires first control information from the first uplink signal; ([0057] [0058])
determines a value of the first control information; ([0057] The stylus 100 then determines an uplink value corresponding to uplink activity in which the stylus is operated to receive an electrostatic energy signal from the computing device 104. If the stylus 100 is currently receiving the electrostatic energy signal from the computing device 104, then an uplink value of 2.0 is determined, such as by retrieving from memory 120. In this example the uplink value is weighted by a factor of 1.5 to generate a weighted uplink value of 3.0. The weighted inking value of 5.0 is combined with the weighted uplink value of 3.0 to generate a combined weighted predictive result of 8.0. This combined weighted predictive result is then compared to a haptic threshold value. In this example the haptic threshold value is 4.5. Because 8.0>=4.5, the comparison yields a haptic predictive result indicating that a haptic event is likely to occur. Accordingly, and based on the comparison yielding a haptic predictive result, the stylus 100 continues to transmit power to the haptic circuit 162. [0058]) and
controls the haptic element based on the first control information, ([0057] [0058])
wherein, in response to determining that the value of the first control information is a first value, the integrated circuit starts controlling the haptic element, ([0057] In this example the uplink value is weighted by a factor of 1.5 to generate a weighted uplink value of 3.0. The weighted inking value of 5.0 is combined with the weighted uplink value of 3.0 to generate a combined weighted predictive result of 8.0. This combined weighted predictive result is then compared to a haptic threshold value. In this example the haptic threshold value is 4.5. Because 8.0>=4.5, the comparison yields a haptic predictive result indicating that a haptic event is likely to occur. Accordingly, and based on the comparison yielding a haptic predictive result, the stylus 100 continues to transmit power to the haptic circuit 162.) and
Dekel does not disclose “wherein, in response to determining that the value of the first control information is a second value, the integrated circuit stops controlling the haptic element”.
Gur discloses “wherein, in response to determining that the value of the first control information is a second value, the integrated circuit stops controlling the haptic element”. ([0065] [0040] – [0042])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate disable haptic device by Gur into device of Dekel. The suggestion/motivation would have been to control stylus. (Gur: [0065])
Regarding claim 2, Dekel and Gur disclose further comprising: a core body; (Dekel [0009] [0012]) and a pressure sensor that, in operation, detects pressure applied to an end of the core body, (Dekel [0017] [0026]) and supplies a pen-pressure value to the integrated circuit, (Dekel [0017] [0026]) wherein the integrated circuit, in operation, causes the pen-pressure value to be transmitted to the sensor controller in a downlink signal, (Dekel [0017] [0026]) and wherein the first control information is based on the pen-pressure value transmitted to the sensor controller in the downlink signal. (Dekel [0017] [0026])
Regarding claim 3, Dekel and Gur disclose wherein: the pen-pressure value is zero when no pressure is applied to the end of the core body, (Dekel [0017] [0026]) the pen-pressure value is greater than zero when the pressure is applied to the end of the core body, (Dekel [0017] [0026]) the first control information has the first value when the pen-pressure value is greater than zero, (Dekel [0017] [0026]) and the first control information has the second value when the pen-pressure value is zero. (Dekel [0017] [0026])
Regarding claim 4, Dekel and Gur disclose wherein: the integrated circuit, in operation, controls the haptic element based on the first control information such that the haptic element vibrates when the end of the core body is pressed again a touch surface of the sensor controller, and the haptic element does not vibrate when the end of the core body is pressed against a surface other than the touch surface of the sensor controller. (Dekel [0017] [0026])
Regarding claim 6, Dekel and Gur disclose wherein: the control information is 1-bit data having a value of zero or one. (Dekel [0057] [0058])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 – 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240118756 A1 [0039] More specifically, the sensor controller 31 in the present modification determines whether or not there is occurrence of pen-down or pen-up in reference to the series of pen pressure values acquired so far (S10 and S11) and uses the uplink signal US to transmit the control signal of the haptic element 26 according to the result of the determination (S12 and S13). The specific process of S10 to S13 is similar to that of S3 to S6 except that the uplink signal US is used instead of the near field communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN-NAN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 6pm.
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, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at 571-2722963. 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.
/CHUN-NAN LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights