`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/372,420
`
`07/15/2014
`
`Yoshitaka Hirabayashi
`
`PIPMB—52762
`
`9192
`
`05’1”“ —PEARNE&GORDON LLP m
`7590
`52054
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`COHEN, YARON
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 14-3 108
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`2696
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/13/2016
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdocket @ pearne.c0m
`jcholley @pearne.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/372,420 HIRABAYASHI ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2696YARON COHEN first“
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions 0137 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/16/2016.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:| This action is non-final.
`2a)IZ| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PT0_413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`—
`4) I:I Other'
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date .
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20160509
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)|XI C|aim(s)1-_15is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6 III Claim s) _ is/are allowed.
`s 1-_15 is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) )
`
`_
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)|:l C|aim(s
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atents/init events"
`h/index.‘s
`
`
`
`
`
`, or send an inquiry to PF"I-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:I The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)IZI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)le All
`1.IZI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`2. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s Remarks dated February 16, 2016.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`The objection to the title is overcome as a result of the title having been amended to be
`
`more descriptive.
`
`As for Applicant’s argument regarding the amendment to independent claim 1
`
`overcoming Zwart (Remarks, pages 8-9); outside sources are being used in this Office
`
`Action in order to teach the new limitation of claim 1.
`
`As for Applicant’s argument regarding new claims 13-15 not being taught by the cited
`
`prior art (Remarks, page 10); a secondary reference is being introduced in this Office
`
`Action to teach a limitation of claim 13. Claims 14 and 15 are taught by Zwart.
`
`Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 remains rejected, as does the similarly
`
`amended independent claim 11, as well as the dependent claims. The new claims are
`
`rejected as well.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not
`
`be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`4.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 14, 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Zwart (US 2010/0060604 A1).
`
`Instant Claim 1: An electronic apparatus comprising: a touch panel having an operation
`
`surface,
`
`(“The present invention provides the ability to detect the location of an impulse
`
`on an electronic enabled device” (Zwart, paragraph 18) The electronic enabled device
`
`of Zwart corresponds to the electronic apparatus of claim. Referring to fig 10A of Zwart,
`
`the device includes a touch panel to receive the user’s touch, with input surface 1000
`
`corresponding to the operation surface of the claim.)
`
`and configured to detect a contact with the operation surface, and output a contact
`
`detection signal;
`
`(“First, the device is configured with software which prompts the user
`
`to provide an input impulse on the surface of the device. Once data of an impulse vector
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`input event is collected by the motion sensors, it is analyzed by the processor with
`
`advanced algorithms.” (Zwart, paragraph 20) The motion sensors of Zwart detect
`
`contact (impulse) with the input surface, and output data ("contact detection signal") to
`
`the processor.)
`
`an acceleration detector configured to detect an acceleration of the electronic apparatus
`
`and output an acceleration signal;
`
`(“Once data of an impulse vector input event is
`
`collected by the motion sensors, it is analyzed by the processor with advanced
`
`algorithms. These algorithms extract information relating to the motion ( acceleration of
`
`vibration in a preferred embodiment) of the device and populate a Composite Vibration
`
`Profile (CVP) for the impulse event.” (Zwart, paragraph 20) Therefore, Zwart’s device
`
`does contain acceleration sensors, which output the information (“acceleration signal”)
`
`to the processor.)
`
`an angular velocity detector configured to detect an angular velocity of the electronic
`
`apparatus and output an angular velocity signal;
`
`(“The particular sensor characteristics
`
`may be selected after consideration of housing dimensions and the proposed site
`
`relative the instantaneous axis of rotation and the angular velocity which results from a
`
`typical impulse to that or nearby locations.” (Zwart, paragraph 61) Therefore, Zwart’s
`
`motion sensors may record angular velocity as well, and then output the data (“angular
`
`velocity signal”) to the processor.)
`
`and a controller connected to the touch panel, the acceleration detector, and the
`
`angular velocity detector, (Referring to fig 10 of Zwart, the CPU (“controller”) is
`
`connected to the sensors 107 as well as display screen 105 (which includes the touch
`
`panel).)
`
`and operable to output the contact detection signal as a contact determination signal
`
`when the acceleration signal is input from the acceleration detector and the angular
`
`velocity signal is input from the angular velocity detector, (“For instance, for a frequency
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`of 64 Hz, the CVP that results from the first peaks of each of the sensors will be read
`
`from the sensors about 0.016 s after impulse; this leaves an interval of 0.084 s for the
`
`CPU and microprocessors to determine the characteristics of the command impulse and
`
`provide a response to the user.” (Zwart, paragraph 412) Therefore, once Zwart's
`
`processor receives all the data from the sensors - including acceleration data and
`
`angular velocity data - the processor provides a response (“contact determination
`
`signal”).)
`
`(Zwart does not explicitly teach the following limitation of this claim:
`
`wherein a threshold of the angular velocity increases from a center of the touch panel
`
`toward an outer edge of the touch panel.
`
`such a feature is obvious, however, based on the nature of angular velocity)
`
`wherein a threshold of the angular velocity increases from a center of the touch panel
`
`toward an outer edge of the touch panel.
`
`(According to Wikipedia.com, “The angular
`
`velocity of a particle is measured around or relative to a point, called the origin.”
`
`
`
`LA“ 2
`
`The formula for angular velocity is given by:
`
` PE
`
`, where r is the distance
`
`from the origin. Therefore, angular velocity is weaker the further away one gets from
`
`the origin. Given this fact, it would be obvious for the threshold of the angular velocity to
`
`increase further away from the center of the touch panel, which is the relative point
`
`around which the angular velocity is being measured. The further away from the origin
`
`that angular velocity is being detected, the stronger the signal needs to be in order to be
`
`reasonably assured that the detected angular velocity is a real input by the user.)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`Instant Claim 2: The electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller
`
`outputs the contact detection signal as the contact determination signal when a
`
`magnitude of an acceleration indicated by the acceleration signal exceeds a
`
`predetermined threshold and a magnitude of an angular velocity indicated by the
`
`angular velocity signal exceeds a first threshold. (”Sensor reading threshold
`
`comparison: in which a conditioned reading or readings gathered resulting from (230)
`
`are compared to a specified threshold value or values. This comparison (240) (fig 2) is
`
`indicative of whether or not a user impulse impact has occurred.” (Zwart, paragraph
`
`208))
`
`Instant Claim 6: The electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller
`
`outputs the contact detection signal as the contact determination signal when duration
`
`of detection of the contact detection signal is a predetermined threshold or longer.
`
`(“Further, the transmitted signal data are distinctive in format, sufficient in intensity and
`
`duration to convey the input data or response and specific to the user's intent.” (Zwart,
`
`paragraph 38))
`
`Instant Claim 9: The electronic apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a
`
`casing supporting the touch panel,
`
`(”the sensing and processing components of the
`
`present invention are integrated within a protective housing” (Zwart, paragraph 39) The
`
`housing of Zwart corresponds to the casing of the claim.)
`
`wherein, when the contact detection signal is not input, the acceleration signal is input,
`
`and the angular velocity signal is input, the controller determines that an input operation
`
`to the casing is performed, and outputs an input determination signal.
`
`(Referring to fig
`
`1E of Zwart, the user is applying a touch input to a side of the device rather than to the
`
`touch screen. Therefore, in this case, the detection signal of the touch screen is not
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`input, however, the remaining motion sensors do input their signals to the controller for
`
`analysis and determination.)
`
`Instant Claim 10: The electronic apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the controller
`
`determines a position of an input operation to the casing based on a direction and a
`
`magnitude indicated by the acceleration signal and a rotation direction indicated by the
`
`angular velocity signal.
`
`(Referring to fig 1E of Zwart, the user is applying a touch input
`
`to a side of the device rather than to the touch screen. Therefore, the motion sensor
`
`signals (including acceleration and angular velocity) transmitted to the controller for
`
`analysis allow the controller to determine the position of the input operation.)
`
`Instant Claim 11: (This claim is substantially identical to a combination of claim 1 and
`
`claim 9, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.)
`
`Instant Claim 12: (This claim is substantially identical to claim 10, and thus, is rejected
`
`under similar rationale.)
`
`Instant Claim 14: (This claim is substantially identical to claim 10, and thus, is rejected
`
`under similar rationale. Detecting gripping of the casing is equivalent to determining a
`
`position of an input operation to the casing.)
`
`Instant Claim 15: The electronic apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the controller
`
`determines the position of the input operation to the casing when the input operation to
`
`the casing is performed on a rear surface of the casing or on a side surface of the
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`casing.
`
`(“F|G. 1E A schematic view of a fingertip impulse being applied from the left-
`
`side or left-long-edge aspect.” (Zwart, paragraph 130))
`
`5.
`
`Claim 3, 4, 7, 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Zwart in view of Gillespie (US 2008/0048997 A1).
`
`Instant Claim 3: The electronic apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the operation
`
`surface of the touch panel
`
`is disposed on coordinates defined by an X axis and a Y
`
`axis orthogonal to each other, and a Z axis perpendicular to the operation surface is
`
`defined,
`
`(Referring to fig 8D of Zwart, the touch panel is defined by mutually orthogonal
`
`x, y, and z axes, with the z-axis being perpendicular to the touch surface.)
`
`and in a case where a magnitude of an acceleration along the Z axis indicated by the
`
`acceleration signal is equal to a gravitational acceleration, the controller outputs the
`
`contact detection signal as the contact determination signal when a magnitude of the
`
`acceleration indicated by the acceleration signal exceeds the predetermined threshold
`
`and a magnitude of the angular velocity indicated by the angular velocity signal exceeds
`
`a second threshold smaller than the first threshold.
`
`(“Such embodiments use one or
`
`more special-dedicated, three-axis accelerometers in order to measure and store the
`
`direction-change pattern of the gravity vector in the time frames immediately adjacent
`
`the impulse event. By this provision, instantaneous vehicle and driver passenger
`
`movements--as would be experienced in a corner, skid, bump, or other violent
`
`maneuver--do not result in spurious or unanticipated input commands.” (Zwart,
`
`paragraph 430) Therefore, Zwart does compensate for the effects of gravity when
`
`measuring an input. Both the acceleration and angular velocity thresholds would be
`
`adjusted accordingly.
`
`It would be obvious for the updated angular acceleration
`
`threshold to be smaller than the previous angular acceleration threshold since the user
`
`would not have to exert as much force when being helped by gravity.)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`(Zwart does not teach the following limitation of this claim:
`
`the operation surface of the touch panel has an origin at a center of the touch panel
`
`In the same field of endeavor, however, Gillespie does disclose a touch pad
`
`whose origin is defined as the center of the touch pad.)
`
`the operation surface of the touch panel has an origin at a center of the touch panel
`
`(“The center of the sensing plane 10 (fig 1) may be described as the origin
`
`(X.sub.center, Y.sub.center) in a Cartesian coordinate system.” (Gillespie, paragraph
`
`195))
`
`(At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to combine the touch panel as taught by Zwart; with the touch pad as taught
`
`by Gillespie - along with the center of the touch pad corresponding to the origin of the
`
`coordinate system. Such a combination involves a simple substitution of the origin as
`
`defined in Zwart in favor of the origin defined in Gillespie in order to provide predictable
`
`results of intuitive and logical positioning of the coordinate system.)
`
`Instant Claim 4: the touch panel outputs, to the controller, contact position coordinates
`
`indicating a position at which the touch panel detects a contact,
`
`(“The area within
`
`particular defined coordinates may be used to indicate a predetermined impulse action
`
`such as: a logical "no", a number or an alphabet character.” (Zwart, paragraph 49)
`
`Therefore, the sensors of Zwart would indicate the coordinates of the detected contact
`
`since the coordinates of the contact are critical to the nature of the touch.)
`
`the controller estimates contact estimation coordinates indicating a contact position on
`
`the touch panel based on the angular velocity signal and acceleration signal,
`
`(“Once
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`data of an impulse vector input event is collected by the motion sensors, it is analyzed
`
`by the processor with advanced algorithms. These algorithms extract information
`
`relating to the motion ( acceleration of vibration in a preferred embodiment) of the
`
`device and populate a Composite Vibration Profile (CVP) for the impulse event.” (Zwart,
`
`paragraph 20) Therefore, the processor of Zwart analyzes all data collected by the
`
`motion sensors (including acceleration data and angular velocity data).
`
`It is obvious
`
`that the coordinates of the impulse would be evaluated, especially in areas within
`
`particular defined coordinates, since in these areas the coordinates of the contact are
`
`critical to the nature of the touch.)
`
`and the controller outputs the contact detection signal as the contact determination
`
`signal when the contact estimation coordinates agree with the contact position
`
`coordinates. (“Therefore, if a deliberate impulse is detected within a single defined-
`
`and-activated area, the related output signal will be sent to the connected device.”
`
`(Zwart, paragraph 49))
`
`(The remainder of this claim is substantially included within claim 3, and thus, is
`
`rejected under similar rationale.)
`
`Instant Claim 7: and the controller outputs the contact detection signal as the contact
`
`determination signal when a value of the contact detection signal along the Y axis is
`
`positive and the angular velocity indicated by the angular velocity signal directs
`
`counterclockwise with respect to a positive direction of the X axis, or when a value of
`
`the contact detection signal along the Y axis is negative and the angular velocity
`
`indicated by the angular velocity signal directs clockwise with respect to a positive
`
`direction of the X axis.
`
`(If Zwart, in view of Gillespie, were to configure the X axis and Y
`
`axis as claimed, then when there is a detected positive Y coordinate of the user’s touch,
`
`the angular velocity would have to be counterclockwise with respect to the positive X
`
`axis in order for the input touch signal to be valid. Similarly, when there is a detected
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`negative Y coordinate of the user’s touch, the angular velocity would have to be
`
`clockwise with respect to the positive X axis in order for the input touch signal to be
`
`valid.)
`
`(The remainder of this claim is substantially included within claim 3, and thus, is
`
`rejected under similar rationale.)
`
`Instant Claim 8: and the controller outputs the contact detection signal as the contact
`
`determination signal when a value of the contact detection signal along the X axis is
`
`positive and the angular velocity indicated by the angular velocity signal directs
`
`counterclockwise with respect to a positive direction of the Y axis, and when a value of
`
`the contact detection signal along the X axis is negative and the angular velocity
`
`indicated by the angular velocity signal directs clockwise with respect to a positive
`
`direction of the Y axis.
`
`(If Zwart, in view of Gillespie, were to configure the X axis and Y
`
`axis as claimed, then when there is a detected positive X coordinate of the user’s touch,
`
`the angular velocity would have to be counterclockwise with respect to the positive Y
`
`axis in order for the input touch signal to be valid. Similarly, when there is a detected
`
`negative X coordinate of the user’s touch, the angular velocity would have to be
`
`clockwise with respect to the positive Y axis in order for the input touch signal to be
`
`valid.)
`
`(The remainder of this claim is substantially included within claim 3, and thus, is
`
`rejected under similar rationale.)
`
`6.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Zwart, in view of Gillespie, and further in view of Chang (US 2010/0321328
`
`A1).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`Instant Claim 5: The electronic apparatus according to claim 4, wherein assuming that
`
`an angular velocity signal around the Y axis is defined as X1, a maximum value in a
`
`detection range of the angular velocity signal around the Y axis is defined as X2, an
`
`angular velocity signal around the X axis is defined as Y1, and a maximum value in a
`
`detection range of the angular velocity signal around the X axis is defined as Y2,
`
`contact estimation coordinates (X, Y) are determined based on equation (2) and
`
`equation (3), X=X1/abs(X2) (2) where, -abs(X2)<=X1<=abs(X2), and Y=Y1/abs(Y2) (3)
`
`where, -abs(Y2)<=Y1<=abs(Y2).
`
`(Zwart, in view of Gillespie, teaches the electronic
`
`apparatus in accordance with claim 4, but does not disclose determining coordinates of
`
`the user’s touch through a ratio of a detected parameter (such as angular velocity) to
`
`the maximum possible value of that particular parameter. However, in the same field of
`
`endeavor, Chang describes a similar method for determining the coordinates of a user’s
`
`touch on a touch panel: “Under such circumstance, the x base coordinate, being 384
`
`(fig 6), is the x central coordinate of the x-directional sensing line X1, and the x base
`
`coordinate, being 384, is adjusted according to the ratios of the sensing capacitance
`
`D.sub.X1 of the x-directional sensing line X1 to a maximum sensing capacitance
`
`D.sub.M to obtain an interpolated x coordinate x.sub.d.
`
`Likewise, the same scenario
`
`is also applicable to the y-directional sensing lines.” (Chang, paragraph 36) While
`
`Chang determines the coordinates of the user’s touch through a ratio of capacitances,
`
`the same principle applies to a ratio of angular velocities.
`
`At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to combine the touch panel as taught by Zwart, in view of Gillespie; with the
`
`touch panel as taught by Chang - along with determining the coordinates of the user’s
`
`touch through a ratio of a detected parameter to the maximum possible value of that
`
`parameter. Such a combination involves incorporating a known technique into a known
`
`device in order to provide predictable results of determining the coordinates of the
`
`user’s touch.)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`7.
`
`Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Zwart in view of Borta (US 2002/0164560 A1).
`
`Instant Claim 13: wherein a threshold of the acceleration near a grasped part is smaller
`
`than near a center.
`
`(Zwart does not explicitly discuss the relative acceleration
`
`depending on where the user grasps the device. However, in a related field of
`
`endeavor involving moving objects, Borta does teach the magnitude of acceleration at
`
`the outside relative to that at the center of a moving platform: “As would be recognized
`
`by one skilled in the art, the greater the off -center positioning of the g-force sensitive
`
`load bearing portion 15 (fig 1)(and the user module 13 attached thereon), the greater
`
`would be the enhanced motion and acceleration experienced by the user module 13
`
`when compared a user module positioned substantially over the support portion 17 of
`
`the platform 10.” (Borta, paragraph 38) Therefore, the acceleration acts opposite to the
`
`angular velocity, in that the acceleration is stronger the further one gets away from the
`
`center of measurement. Consequently, opposite to the threshold of the angular
`
`velocity, the threshold of the acceleration would become smaller the further away one
`
`gets away from the center — a lower reading is necessary to be reasonably assured of a
`
`real input by a user.
`
`At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to combine the touch panel as taught by Zwart — along with various forces
`
`being detected when the panel is moved; with the platform of Borta - along with the
`
`various forces being detected when the platform is moved.
`
`Incorporating the natural
`
`law disclosed in Borta - wherein the acceleration is stronger further away from the
`
`center — into the device of Zwart yields the predictable results of being able to properly
`
`adjust the threshold depending on where the device of Zwart is grasped.)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`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
`
`CFR1.136(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
`
`extension fee 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 date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to YARON COHEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-
`
`7995. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9 am. - 5 pm.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on (571) 272-3017. The fax
`
`phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is
`
`571 -273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 14/372,420
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`/YARON COHEN/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2696
`
`/J|MMY H NGUYEN/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2696
`
`