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 .
Double Patenting
In order to expedite prosecution even though the claims have not been allowed, a double patenting rejection is provided below for applicant consideration.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,572,226.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claim 1, include all of the limitations of the patent claim 2. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent, and therefore all of the limitations of the patent claims are taken to be included in the claim of the instant application.
Note also, having the wires being insulated are taken to inherent for adjacent winding layers in order to prevent short circuit and increase the magnetic field.
Note, for example,
Claim 1 is met by patent claims 2, as being broader than the patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims.
As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 3 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,026.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1 and 10, include all of the limitations of the patent claims 2, 3 and 18. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent, and therefore all of the limitations of the patent claims are taken to be included in the claims of the instant application.
Note also, having the wires being insulated are taken to inherent for adjacent winding layers in order to prevent short circuit and increase the magnetic field.
Also note, for example,
Claim 1 is met by patent claim 2, as being broader than the patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims.
Claim 10 is met by patent claims 3 and 18, as being broader than the patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims.
As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 3 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,662,837.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1 and 10, include all of the limitations of the patent claims 2, 3 and 18. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent, and therefore all of the limitations of the patent claims are taken to be included in the claims of the instant application.
Note also, having the wires being insulated are taken to inherent for adjacent winding layers in order to prevent short circuit and increase the magnetic field.
Also note. for example,
Claim 1 is met by patent claim 2, as being broader than the patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims.
Claim 10 is met by patent claims 3 and 18, as being broader than the patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims.
As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,301,062.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1-17, include all of the limitations of the patent claims 1-20. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent, and therefore all of the limitations of the patent claims are taken to be included in the claims of the instant application.
Note also, the dependent claims are met by the dependent claims of the patent.
For example,
Claims 1-10 are met by patent claims 1-10, as being broader than the patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims.
Claims 10-17 are met by patent claims 3 and 11-20 , as being broader than the patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims.
As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,942,587.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1-17, include all of the limitations of the patent claims 1-13. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent, and therefore all of the limitations of the patent claims are taken to be included in the claims of the instant application.
Also, the dependent claims are met by the dependent claims of the patent.
For example,
Claims 1-9 are met by patent claims 1-7, as being broader than the patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims.
Claims 10-17 are met by patent claims 3 and 8-13 , as being broader than the patent claims and therefore include all of the limitations of the patent claims.
As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art Under 35 USC 102/103
No applicable rejection under 35 USC 102/103 over the prior art of record have been found for Claims 1-17.
The following is an Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter, and Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter Not Withstanding the Obvious Double Patenting Rejection Above:
The following is an Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance:
Regarding claims 1-9
The prior art of record, including Jeong (US 2014/0132529), taken to be the closest prior art noted below, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the stylus pen having the combination of recited elements and structure, along with the further limitations that include:
wherein the ferrite core has a permittivity of 1000 F/m or less, and wherein the coil has a form where adjacent winding layers are alternately wound, and the coil is a wire covering two or more insulated wires, as set forth in claims 1-9.
It should be noted, that even though Jeong, taken to be the closest prior art, shows the invention substantially as claimed, as described below,
there is no teaching or description presented by Jeong, or any of the prior art of record, to have the ferrite core has a permittivity of 1000 F/m or less, and wherein the coil has a form where adjacent winding layers are alternately wound, and the coil is a wire covering two or more insulated wires, as recited in claims 1-9.
Further, it would not be obvious, by one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Jeong, using the teaching of the prior art of record, in order to arrive with an invention that includes the limitations as recited in claims 1-9.
Regarding claims 10-17
The prior art of record, including Jeong (US 2014/0132529), taken to be the closest prior art noted below, taken alone or in combination does not teach, suggest or render obvious the stylus pen having the combination of recited elements and structure, along with the further limitations that include:
wherein the ferrite core has permittivity of 1000 F/m or less, the coil is zigzag wound so that adjacent winding layers are inclined, and coil is a wire covering two or more insulated wires, as set forth in claims 10-17.
It should be noted, that even though Jeong, taken to be the closest prior art, shows the invention substantially as claimed, as described below, there is no teaching or description presented by Jeong, or any of the prior art of record, to have the ferrite core has permittivity of 1000 F/m or less, the coil is zigzag wound so that adjacent winding layers are inclined, and coil is a wire covering two or more insulated wires, as recited in claims 10-17.
Further, it would not be obvious, by one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify Jeong, using the teaching of the prior art of record, in order to arrive with an invention that includes the limitations as recited in claims 10-17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong (US 2014/0132529), taken to be the closest prior art, shows the stylus pen comprising:
a body (150);
an inductor unit (see for example Figs. 7 and 10 and para. 0074, 0082, 0085 and 0086) including a ferrite core (see for example para. 0030 and 0099) disposed in the body and a coil (L1, 140 or L2, 120) (see for example para. 0098-0101) wound in multiple layers over at least a portion of the ferrite core (see for example Figs. 7 and 9 and para. 0092-0096); and
10a capacitor unit (C2, see for example Fig. 8) disposed in the body to be electrically connected to the inductor unit to form a resonance circuit (see for example para. 0075, 0081, 0089 and 0093), and
wherein the coil (see Figs. 7-9, L1 and L2) is wound so that the winding of an upper winding layer begins at the point where the winding of the lower winding layer (see Figs. 7 and 9), where the coil is wound multiple times, ends (see Figs. 7 and 9).
Jeong however does not specifically show the permittivity of the ferrite core is greater than 0 F/m and less than 1000 F/m (note however, it is taken to be inherent that the ferrite core includes permittivity for generating induction and magnetism, see for example Figs. 7 and 10 and para. 0074, 0082 and 0086).
McLean et al. (US 2010/0176817), shows a probe that includes ferrites materials used in the core exhibits relatively high dielectric permittivity, which include permittivity in range of 10-1000 (see para. 0040), and further include nickel to be within the range of 10-1000.
Katsurahira (US 2011/0115753), shows stylus pen to be used with a tablet, having a body (10b), a conductive tip (10a) configured to be exposed from an inside of the body to an outside thereof; a resonance circuit (see claims 7 and 8), and a coil (1) having wires that are alternately wound (see the abstract, Figs. 1-8, and para. 0034-0045).
Miyazawa et al. (US 2018/0209818), shows stylus pen to be used with a tablet, having a body (2), a conductive tip (3) configured to be exposed from an inside of the body to an outside thereof; and a coil (5) having plural wires that are wound around a core (4a) see the abstract, Figs. 1A-3, and para. 0052-0064).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD N EDUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30.
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 on (571) 272-2963. 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.
/MUHAMMAD N. EDUN/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2629
/MUHAMMAD N EDUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights