Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 30, 20212021000494 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/989,063 05/24/2018 Ehsan KHAJEH 106842160500 (P32654US1) 7238 161038 7590 06/30/2021 Apple c/o Kubota & Basol LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street Suite 2140 Los Angeles, CA 90071 EXAMINER COOPER, JONATHAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2021 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): docket@kuba-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EHSAN KHAJEH, BRIAN MICHAEL KING, MOHAMMAD YEKE YAZDANDOOST, MARCUS YIP, AARON SCOTT TUCKER, MARDUKE YOUSEFPOR, PETER JON KARDASSAKIS, GIOVANNI GOZZINI, SUPRATIK DATTA, and ASIF HUSSAIN Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–27. Oral argument was heard on June 3, 2021. A copy of the transcript was entered into the record on June 16, 2021. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention generally relates to acoustic touch and force sensing. Spec. ¶ 2. The claimed subject matter relates to systems and methods for using one set of transducers to send and receive acoustic signals through both a surface and a deformable material to detect a touch location and force, respectively. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A touch and force sensitive device, comprising: a surface; a deformable material disposed between the surface and a rigid material, such that force on the surface causes a deformation of the deformable material; one or more transducers coupled between the surface and the deformable material and configured to transmit ultrasonic waves to and receive ultrasonic waves from the surface and the deformable material; and a processor configured to: determine a location of a contact by an object on the surface based on ultrasonic waves propagating in the surface; and determine an applied force by the contact on the surface based on ultrasonic waves propagating in the deformable material. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Stan US 5,341,687 Aug. 30, 1994 Grahn US RE37065 E Feb. 27, 2001 Nakagawa US 6,392,167 B1 May 21, 2002 Benard US 2004/0164970 A1 Aug. 26, 2004 Horii US 2015/0054779 A1 Feb. 26, 2015 Choi US 2016/0357279 A1 Dec. 8, 2016 Medina US 2017/0255338 A1 Sept. 7, 2017 Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 3 REJECTIONS Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Medina. Final Act. 2–3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Medina and Choi. Final Act. 4–7. Claims 2 and 21–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Medina, Choi, and Horii. Final Act. 7–8, 17–20. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Medina, Choi, and Grahn. Final Act. 8. Claims 6–8, 12, 13, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Medina, Choi, and Benard. Final Act. 9–11, 13–16. Claims 10 and 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Medina, Choi, and Stan. Final Act. 11–13. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Medina, Choi, Bernard, and Nakagawa. Final Act. 16–17. ANALYSIS REJECTION OF CLAIM 27 AS ANTICIPATED The Examine rejected claim 27 as anticipated by Medina. Final Act. 2–3. Appellant does not appeal the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27. Appeal Br. 4 n.15 (“Without agreeing with the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 presented in the Office Action, this rejection is not a subject of this appeal.”). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection of claim 27 as anticipated by Medina under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–26 AS OBVIOUS The Examiner rejects claims 1–26 as obvious over Medina and Choi or Medina and Choi in view of one or more of Horii, Grahn, Benard, Stan, Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 4 and Nakagawa. Final Act. 4–17. Among other arguments, Appellant contends the Examiner’s rationale for combining Medina and Choi is insufficient. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4–5. Each rejection of claims 1–26 relies on the same rationale for combining Medina’s and Choi’s teachings. Because we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reason for combining Medina and Choi is not supported by a rational underpinning, as discussed further below, and because this determination is dispositive with respect to the rejections of claims 1–26, we need not reach Appellant’s other arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). The Examiner finds Medina teaches every limitation recited in claim 1 except for the transducers being “coupled between the surface and the deformable material.” Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner, however, finds Choi teaches this limitation. Final Act. 5. More specifically, the Examiner finds a configuration of transducers 120-1 between surface of display 110 and acoustic absorbing martial 20 “is taught by Choi in order to remove a ghost touch,” and the Examiner determines a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Medina with Choi’s teachings in order “to remove . . . ghost touches.” Final Act. 5 (citing Choi ¶¶ 14, 71, Fig. 2). Medina discloses systems and methods for determining the force applied using an ultrasonic sensor that detects reflected signals from a finger interacting with the sensor. Medina, Abstract. Medina includes transducers on one side of a surface that emit ultrasonic signals through the surface and capture ultrasonic signals that are reflected when a user’s finger interacts with the opposite side of the surface and a processor that generates a three- Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 5 dimensional (3D) fingerprint based on an image generated using the captured reflected signals. Medina ¶¶ 67–74, Fig. 8. Medina’s ultrasonic sensor system may be implemented with mobile electronic devices (e.g., a mobile phone) having a display (e.g., liquid crystal display or light emitting diode devices) and, accordingly, the user’s finger that reflects the signals may interact with an external surface of the display (or a layer covering the display) that is opposite the side of the surface on which Medina’s transducers are arranged. Medina ¶¶ 29–43. Using coordinated time delays, Medina activates various transducers in a two- dimensional array to emit the ultrasonic signals so that the signals reach a desired focal point (i.e., the location at or slightly above the surface with which a user’s finger may interact) approximately simultaneously and, at a later time, the transducers switch to a reception mode so the desired transducer(s) may receive the reflected signals. Medina ¶¶ 44–49; see also Medina ¶¶ 50–56 (further describing transducer arrays and synchronizing emitted signals to target desired focal points). Analyzing the captured signals, Medina can generate a 3D fingerprint. Medina ¶ 61. Medina uses the depth information captured from the signals to obtain the 3D fingerprint using, for example, the reflection time (or “time of flight” (ToF))—the time difference between signal emission and reception. Medina ¶ 63. Medina can use the captured signals for various purposes, including to identify a user (based on their fingerprint) or to determine the force applied by the user’s finger to the surface. Medina ¶¶ 60, 75 (describing identifying and/or authenticating a user based on the captured fingerprint), 76 (describing detecting “the force or pressure that the user applies with the finger”). Medina discloses an embodiment that Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 6 determines the force applied based on the finger deformations determined using multiple captured reflected signals. Medina ¶¶ 77– 87, Fig. 9. Choi discloses a touch screen device that determines touch locations using ultrasonic waves and, more specifically, based on ToFs of the received ultrasonic signals. Choi ¶ 11, Abstract, Fig. 2. Choi recognized one issue with surface acoustic wave (SAW) touchscreens is that ghost touches may be generated either by “pollutants on a touch screen surface” or by multi- touch events. Choi ¶¶ 8, 14–15, 25, 36, 46, Figs. 8A–8D. Choi employs multiple transducers at the outer part of a display’s surface that emit ultrasonic signals and “receive ultrasonic signals reflected or refracted from an object to detect distances from the” transducers. Choi ¶¶ 60–64. More specifically, Choi discloses detecting reflected ultrasonic signals that were emitted parallel to a display—i.e., the transducers “irradiate ultrasonic waves across and above the display” and the device calculates a ToF for the signal being reflected from an object touching the display. Choi ¶¶ 66–67. Choi discloses using a reflector apparatus “to reflect or refract a portion of an ultrasonic signal irradiated from the first ultrasonic sensor 120- 1 so as to be parallel with a surface of the display.” Choi ¶ 69. Choi further discloses “an ultrasonic signal absorbing material 20 for absorbing an ultrasonic signal, other than the ultrasonic signal that is reflected above the display 110 to be parallel with the surface of the display.” Choi ¶ 71. In other words, Choi’s reflector apparatus and signal absorbing material work together to minimalize signals that are not parallel to the display. Choi also discloses that the described arrangement minimizes the height above the surface that is irradiated with ultrasonic signals in order to better avoid Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 7 detecting a touch event when an object merely hovers over the surface. Choi ¶¶ 72–73. As already explained, Choi’s SAW system detects a touch event using at least two transducers to determine the ToF of received ultrasonic signals. Choi ¶¶ 67, 84. More specifically, Choi may determine a touch point by calculating the respective distance an object is from two or more transducers using the respective ToFs and identify the intersection point on the display for those distances from the respective transducers. Choi ¶¶ 85–91. Accordingly, Choi uses the distance of the touch location (based on respective ToFs) from at least two ultrasonic sensors. Choi ¶ 92. While detecting a multi-touch event, “ultrasonic signals respectively detected from ultrasonic sensors include all of ultrasonic signals respectively reflected from the two or more objects” and, therefore, when the ToFs are combined, a “ghost touch” (i.e., a determined touch point that is not a “real touch”) appears. Choi ¶ 107; see Choi ¶¶ 109–111 (describing how ghost touches may occur). Choi, therefore, describes a method for removing such ghost touches that includes synchronizing the ultrasonic sensors with each other. Choi ¶¶ 112–115. We agree with Appellant’s argument, see Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 3–5, that Medina does not suffer from the ghost touches that Choi’s system prevents due to the fact that Medina and Choi operate using different principles. As explained above, Choi’s system removes ghost touches that may occur due to multi-touch events and Choi’s technique for determining the touch point and combining ToFs from multiple transducers. See Choi ¶ 92. As already explained, combining various ToFs for signals generated from different transducers results in identifying a touch point that was not a Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 8 “real” touch point. Choi ¶¶ 107–115. Medina, on the other hand, acoustically images a finger to generate a fingerprint and/or detect the force applied. Medina ¶ 48. Although Medina may use ToF to acoustically image the object touching the surface, Medina explicitly generates a high-intensity beam at a desired focal point and receives the signals at particular transducers by controlling the timing of emitting and receiving signals. Medina ¶ 47. The evidence does not indicate that Medina detects a touch position by combining the ToFs of multiple signals received at multiple transducers. Even accepting that the particular configuration (i.e., transducers between the surface and the deformable material) taught in Choi that the Examiner proposes incorporating into Medina is integral to removing ghost touches,2 the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the determination that Medina suffers from the ghost touches identified in Choi. Absent persuasive explanation or evidence that Medina suffers from this issue, we see no basis for the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Medina with to configure the system as taught by Choi in order to remove these ghost touches that have not been demonstrated to be present in Medina. 2 Choi teaches combining multiple ultrasonic sensors’ data regarding received signals were emitted from multiple sources introduce ghost touches and synchronizing the sensors may be useful to eliminate the ghost touches. The role Choi’s particular structural configuration the Examiner determines a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied to Medina—placing transducers between the surface and the deformable material—would play in reducing ghost touches when added to a different system is unclear. Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 9 For these reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner has not provided a reason with a rational underpinning for modifying Medina with Choi’s teachings to arrive at the arrangement of transducers coupled between the surface and the deformable material, as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 11, 18, and 21. The rejections of dependent claims 2–10, 12–17, 19, 20, and 21–26 rely on this same combination and, accordingly, suffer from the same deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1–26 as obvious. Appeal 2021-000494 Application 15/989,063 10 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 27 102(a)(1) Medina 27 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 17 103 Medina, Choi 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 17 2 103 Medina, Choi, Horii 2 5 103 Medina, Choi, Grahn 5 6–8, 12, 13 103 Medina, Choi, Benard 6–8, 12, 13 10, 14–16 103 Medina, Choi, Stan 10, 14–16 18, 20 103 Medina, Choi, Benard 18, 20 19 103 Medina, Choi, Bernard, Nakagawa 19 21–26 103 Medina, Choi, Horii 21–26 Overall Outcome 27 1–26 RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation