Office Action 3: Notice of Allowance (2024-09-25)

CLAIMS:
AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS

  
  
1\. (Original) An electronic device comprising:  
a housing;  
a cover substrate;  
a touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of touch nodes that are configured to be driven with a first stimulation signal; and  
one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing, wherein the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation and driven with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation.  
  
2\. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second stimulation signal has a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal.  
  
3\. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the one or more conductors is disposed at an edge of the cover substrate.  
  
4\. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:  
one or more gaskets between the cover substrate and the housing;  
wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets.  
  
5\. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:  
sensing circuitry configured to sense the plurality of touch nodes driven with the first stimulation signal.  
  
6\. (Currently amended) The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:  
processing circuitry configured to:  
perform a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with \[\[a\]\] the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground; and  
perform a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects contacting the cover substrate of the electronic device.  
  
7\. (Previously Presented) The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:  
determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and  
exclude the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing.  
  
8\. (Previously Presented) The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:  
determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and  
further processing the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects.  
  
9\. (Currently amended) The electronic device of claim 1, ~~the touch sensing device of claim~~ ~~1~~, wherein the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed in a same layer.  
  
10\. (Currently amended) The electronic device of claim 1, ~~the touch sensing device of claim~~ ~~1~~, wherein the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed on opposite sides of the cover substrate.  
  
11\. (Previously Presented) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein a first conductor of the one or more conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate.  
  
12\. (Currently amended) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of touch nodes form an active touch area for the touch sensor panel and the cover substrate, and the one or more conductors are located at least partially outside the active touch area wherein the one or more conductors are an extension of one or more driven shield layers in proximity to the active touch area, the one or more conductors extending the one or more driven shield layers beyond the active touch area.  
  
13\. (Previously Presented) A method comprising:  
at an electronic device comprising a housing, a cover substrate, a touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of touch nodes that are configured to be driven with a first stimulation signal, and one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing:  
biasing the one or more conductors at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation; and  
driving the one or more conductors with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation to shield one or more objects contacting the cover substrate from capacitively coupling to ground through the housing.  
  
14\. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 13, wherein the second stimulation signal has a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal.  
  
15\. (Currently amended) The method of claim 13, further comprising:  
performing a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with \[\[a\]\] the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground; and performing a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects.  
  
16\. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 15, further comprising:  
determining which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan;  
and excluding the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing.  
  
17\. (Previously Presented) A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by an electronic device comprising a housing, a cover substrate, a touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of touch nodes that are configured to be driven with a first stimulation signal, and one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing, cause the electronic device to:  
bias the one or more conductors at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation; and  
drive the one or more conductors with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation to shield one or more objects contacting the cover substrate from capacitively coupling to ground through the housing.  
  
18\. (Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the second stimulation signal has a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal.  
  
19\. (Currently amended) The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17, the instructions, when executed by the electronic device, further cause the electronic device to:  
perform a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with \[\[a\]\] the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground; and  
perform a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects.  
  
20\. (Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19, the instructions, when executed by the electronic device, further cause the electronic device to:  
determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and  
exclude the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing.  
5 6 7 8 9 4874-6579-6654, v. 2

OFFICE 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshida, US PGPUB 20220058355 discloses a plurality of electrodes detected by a change in a physical quantity detected by a touch panel by bringing it into contact with or by substantially into contact with the touch panel connected to a first information processing apparatus is arranged on a bottom surface of a housing, and the apparatus comprises a communication processing unit that is equipped with a housing formed of a conductive member connected to the plurality of electrodes and that enters a connected state based on at least a part of an electrode code with the first information processing apparatus that recognizes the electrode code formed based on electrodes detected by the touch panel among the plurality of electrodes.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-20 stand rejected and have been rejected twice, making this application eligible for appeal. Appellant requests reversal for the reasons outlined below.
3 See, e.g., id. at paragraphs [0056]-[0067] and [0076]-[0084] and FIGs. 7A and 10.
4 See, e.g., id. at paragraph [0076] and FIG. 10.
5 See, e.g., id. at paragraphs [0079]-[0085] and FIG. 10.
6 See, e.g., id. at paragraph [0038] and FIG. 2.
7 See, e.g., id. at paragraphs [0056]-[0067] and [0076]-[0084] and FIGs. 7A and 10.
8 See, e.g., id. at paragraph [0076] and FIG. 10.
9 See, e.g., id. at paragraphs [0079]-[0085] and FIG. 10.
The claims do not all stand and fall together. For purposes of this appeal, the following groups of claims are argued separately:
Group A - independent claims 1, 13, and 17 and dependent claims 3, 5, 12, 16, and 20.
Group B - dependent claims 2, 14, and 18.
Group C - dependent claim 4.
Group D - dependent claims 6, 15, and 19.
Group E - dependent claims 7 and 8.
Group F - dependent claims 9-11.
While the groups of claims do not stand and fall together, Appellant submits that that the separate rejections for each group of claims share common errors that warrant reversal. Notably, each rejection is fundamentally based, at least in part, on (a) failure of the Examiner's cited combination of prior art references to disclose each and every recitation of the claims, and/or (b) reliance on non-analogous art, and/or (c) failure of the Examiner to provide reasoning explaining how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would arrive at a conclusion of obviousness for the specific combination without hindsight, as described in more detail below.
A. Group A - independent claims 1, 13, and 17 and dependent claims 3, 5, 12,
16, and 20.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 17, from which dependent claims 3, 5, 12, 16, and 20 depend, are directed, at least in part, to a conductor located between a cover substrate and a housing. A non-limiting embodiment may be found at paragraphs [0056]-[0057] and FIG. 7A (reproduced below) of the Application as filed. As an example, at least a portion of the conductor (e.g. conductor 708) can be disposed partially or fully between the cover substrate (e.g., touch surface 700) and the housing (e.g., housing 704), outside or beyond the active touch area. The conductor can be distinct from the touch nodes (e.g. touch nodes 710), and can be configurable, depending on the mode of touch operation, to be biased at a first potential or driven with a
stimulation signal (e.g., with the same characteristics as the stimulation signal being applied to some of the touch nodes).
SVG {EMBED HERE} 2.6574.387 HOUSING
704
FIG. 7A
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims. In the Final Office Action dated January 9, 2023 ("Office Action"), the Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for allegedly being unpatentable over Maharyta (U.S. Patent No. 10,725,591) and Wuerstlein (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0237963). However, independent claims 1, 13, and 17 recite "one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing" (emphasis added), which is not taught, disclosed, or suggested by the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein. To establishprimafacie obviousness, all the claim elements must be taught, disclosed, or suggested by the prior art.10 Therefore, the Examiner fails to establish primafacie obviousness of the claimed invention because the cited combination of prior art references fails to disclose all the elements of the claimed invention.
For example, the Examiner maps "a housing" to Maharyta's housing 1105 of FIG. 11
(reproduced below, left), "a cover substrate" to Maharyta's "transparent substrate in front of the display" of FIG. 11, and "one or more conductors" to Maharyta's external transmission electrode
SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.242.00 SPQ 580 (CCPA 1974).
1210 of FIG. 12 (reproduced below, right).11 However, the Examiner fails to map any part of the disclosure of Maharyta to the recitation of "one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing" (emphasis added). FIGs. 11-12 of Maharyta do not show-and the Examiner does not provide further explanation or citation to support a showing of-external transmission electrode 1210 disposed between the transparent substrate in front of the display (e.g., corresponding to capacitive sense array 1125) and housing 1105.
SVG {EMBED HERE} 2.4775.693states "TX lectro SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1171.153 hihMh SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1530.483 uae it1 SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1170.593 102 uthr h
Exmie doe no ci SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1070.253 n or otews eyo n icoueo utli to reed thi
SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1536.42SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1536.33SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1776.413SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1536.023deficiency. As such, Wuerstlein fails to cure the deficiencies of Maharyta. Therefore, the Examiner' s mapping of "one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing" (emphasis added) is incomplete.
" Office Action at 2-3.
1 Maharytaat 17:1-3.
To the extent the Office Action includes additional comments in the Response to
Arguments section,13 the additional mapping (to non-conductive housing of FIG. 13) and the reasoning presented are directed only to "one or more conductors... electrically insulated from the housing," and do not address the "one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing" (emphasis added).
Moreover, the mapping of Maharyta is incomplete, and indeed incorrect, with respect to
another recitation of the claims; that is, the claims require "wherein the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation and driven with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation." The Examiner first asserts Maharyta discloses the entirety of this recitation by mapping the claim recitations to two blocks of FIG. 10 of Maharyta,14 but the Examiner ultimately concedes at least the first half of the recitation (i.e. "wherein the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation") is not disclosed in Maharyta.15 However, the entirety of the mapping, not just half, is incomplete and incorrect because FIG. 10 is directed to the capacitive sensing at capacitive sense array 125 (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1) and has nothing to do with the external transmission electrodes (e.g., external transmission electrodes 1112, 1210, 1341-1344) and touch detection in the presence of water as described with reference to FIGs. 11-13.
In fact, regarding FIG. 10, Maharyta describes and "illustrat[es] touch detection using multimodal capacitance touch detection." The two modes are "passive touch detection" and "mutual capacitance touch detection," and method 1000 of FIG. 10 is described with reference to FIGs. 1-SC.16 The external transmission electrodes (e.g., external transmission electrodes 1112) of Maharyta are only described subsequently in the context of FIGs. 11-13 because method 1000 is unable to differentiate between touch and water, and method 1000 cannot detect touch when thecapacitive sense array is submerged underw SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.140.39 Thus, the cited portions of FIG. 10 of Maharytacannot properly be mapped as functionality of the "one or more conductors," which the Examiner
SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.7531.013 15-16.
ta at 17:7-16 and 17:44-46.
maps to external transmission electrodes (e.g., external transmission electrode 1210) that are different and distinct from the touch electrodes of sensor array 1125 (equivalent to capacitance sense array 12518). As such, Maharyta fails to disclose the one or more conductors "are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation" and fails to disclose the one or more conductors are "driven with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation," as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts, in error, that Wuerstlein discloses "the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation."19 However, Wuerstlein fails to disclose any touch operation or even a touch sensor panel. Instead, Wuerstlein discloses a resistance sensor to detect water penetration into the housing of an electronic system.20 For example, Wuerstlein discloses "detect[ing] an electrical resistance that forms between the two sensor electrodes 20 or a variable derived therefrom, and to compare it to a stored normal value that is measured between the two sensor electrodes 20 in the absence of water."21 Additionally, the Examiner concedes that Wuerstlein does not disclose different operation for the water sensor depending on a mode of operation (let alone touch operation). Furthermore, the cited portion of Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest biasing the one or more conductors at a first potential. Thus, the Examiner's mapping of Wuerstlein's resistance sensor electrodes to the recitation of "the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation" is incomplete, improper, and cannot support a conclusion of prima facie obviousness.
Accordingly, the Examiner fails to show that the cited references-alone or in
combination-disclose each and every recitation of the claimed invention. As such, the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependents) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper.
18 Id. at 16:42-45.
19 Office Action at 3.
20 See, e.g., Wuerstlein at [0009].
21 Office Action at 3; see also Wuerstlein at [0054].
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
The Examiner also fails to establish prima facie obviousness by improperly relying on non- analogous art. In order for a reference to be proper for use in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention.22 A reference can only be considered analogous art to the claimed invention if it is (a) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention or (b) is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.23 Wuerstleinfails to qualify as analogous art because it is from a different field of endeavor and not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors of the Application.
Wuerstlein and the Application are in entirely different fields of endeavor. For example, Wuerstlein provides electronic control devices (e.g., for actuating motors in dampers, doors, seats, ventilation devices) for vehicles and includes resistance sensors for detecting the interior penetration of water to enhance reliability of the electronic systems. Specifically, Wuerstlein defines its field of invention as relating to "an electronic control device for use in a motor vehicle," and "a motor vehicle that includes the electronic control device."24 In contrast, the Application describes the field as relating to "touch sensor panels, and more particularly to techniques for rejecting water droplets located near the edges of the touch sensor panels."25 The Examiner identifies no overlap between these fields.
Additionally, Wuerstlein's solution-a resistance sensor to detect penetration of water into an electronic housing-is not reasonably pertinent to identifying and ignoring floating water on a surface of a touch sensor panel. For example, as described in the Application, "[a] water droplet 608 at the edge of a touch surface 600 capacitively couples to a grounded housing, bezel, or other grounded conductor... As a result, water droplet 608 can appear to be a touching object, and device operations can be adversely impacted."26
22 MPEP § 2141.01(a); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 23 Id.
24 Wuerstlein at [0002].
25 Application at [0002].
26Id. at [0051].
An inventor looking to solve this problem would not look at Wuerstlein, which does not
disclose capacitive input devices or touch sensor panels, and which is not concerned with water on an exterior surface. In contrast to touch sensor panels, Wuerstlein only mentions electronic control devices including actuating motors for automatically adjusting vehicle parts (e.g. dampers, doors, seats, etc.) or motors of ventilation devices, as discussed above. Wuerstlein's solution is concerned with water penetration into the interior of the housing and is not relevant to water on an exterior surface. Finally, Wuerstlein's solution relies on a change in resistance measured by a resistance sensor which is inapplicable to the problem of floating water on a capacitive touch surface faced by the inventors.
Thus, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art, and the Examiner's reliance Wuerstlein is improper, indicative of hindsight bias, and undercuts the effort to establish prima facie obviousness.
3. The Examiner relies on a conclusory statement rather than reasoned explanation for its obviousness conclusion.
The Examiner also fails to provide an explicit, reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention without hindsight, and therefore fails to establish a primafacie case of obviousness.27 Obviousness rejections cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, which should be made explicit.28 Even assuming arguendo that the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses all of the elements of claim 1 (it does not per Section 1, above), and that Wuerstlein is in the same field of endeavor (it is not per Section 2, above), the Examiner's entire analysis for the conclusion of obviousness is a conclusory statement: "Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta to further include Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes in order to isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively."29 The Examiner cannot meet the Office's burden with such a conclusory
27 To establish aprimafacie case of obviousness under MPEP §§ 2141-43, Office personnel are required to provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP § 214327; see also MPEP § 2142. 28 See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 418 (2007). 29 Office Action at 4.
statement because the conclusory statement lacks-and the Examiner otherwise fails to provide any rationale providing a link between the earlier findings and the conclusion of obviousness.
For example, the conclusory statement fails to make clear what exactly the Examiner is proposing as a combination of the references. The Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to "modify the disclosure of Maharyta to further include Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes."30 However, the Examiner fails to link this conclusory statement to the prior mapping of the references to the claims. The statement is ambiguous about what "disclosure of Maharyta" is being modified, and implies Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes as an addition to Maharyta's "disclosure," independent from the capacitive sense array 1125 and external transmission electrodes 1210 (or 1112 or 1341-1344) of Maharyta. As such, this statement is insufficient to establish obviousness because the Examiner maps "the one or more conductors" to both the external transmission electrodes of Maharyta and Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes (at least the recitation of the one or more conductors biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation).
Assuming instead that the Examiner's intended modification is to modify the external
transmission electrodes of Maharyta with the functionality Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes, there is no support for why a POSITA would make such a modification or would link the operation of Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes to a mode of touch operation. Maharyta's external transmission electrode 1210 is design to enable touch detection for a capacitive sense array submersed underwater using an external transmission signal. By contrast Wuerstlein's water sensor is a resistive sensor that is internal to the housing to detect water penetration within the housing. A POSITA would not integrate these disparate features of Maharyta and Wuerstlein using the same electrodes given the differences between Maharyta and Wuerstlein including sensors with: (a) different operating principles (e.g., resistive versus capacitive); (b) different purposes (underwater touch detection versus water penetration); and (c) different placement (e.g., electrodes interior to the housing versus implemented in the housing for external transmission). Indeed, a POSITA would not implement the resistive sensor of Wuerstlein using the external transmission electrodes of Maharyta because the combination would not be able to detect water
o Id.
penetration into the interior of the housing (and Maharyta already can detect submersion in waterusing the electrodes of the capacitive sense array3 SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1730.123 The Examiner also fails to provide any reasoning or explanation why a POSITA would be motivated to combine the cited references to arrive at the claims without hindsight based on the proffered rationale. The Examiner suggests a rationale, without providing any reasoning or explanation, for combining Wuerstlein with Maharyta to "isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively."32 However, this purported rationale is not found in either of the cited references, and even if the source of the rationale is extrinsic to the cited references, its relevance to the mapping and/or the combination is not explained. Without a link to the cited references or the factual findings (or any other explanation), the rationale is ambiguous about the meaning of an "unwanted signal" or "activating desired functions effectively," or their relationship to the combination. This irrelevant and ambiguous rationale, unmoored from the mapping, cannot possibly justify applying such disparate, incompatible, and non-analogous art. Rather than support a conclusion of obviousness, the aforementioned errors are further evidence of hindsight reasoning.
For the reasons explained above, the Examiner fails to establish a primafacie case of
obviousness by failing to meet the threshold burden of establishing that each and every recitation of the claims is disclosed in the cited references (see Group A, Section 1); improperly relying on non-analogous art for the combination (see Group A, Section 2); and failing to provide a reasoned explanation as to how the combination of references meets the claims and why the claims would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention without hindsight (see Group A, Section 3).
Therefore, independent claims 1, 13, and 17 and their respective dependents are patentable over the cited combination of prior art references. Appellant therefore requests that the Board overturn the rejections of these claims.
31 Maharyta at 17:12-32 and 19:22-27.
32 Office Action at 4.
B. Group B - dependent claims 2, 14, and 18.
Claims 2, 14, and 18 depend from independent claims 1, 13, and claim 17, respectively. As discussed above,33 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 17. Mo fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 17. Accordingly, claims 2, 14, and 18 are patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claims 2, 14, and 18 recite additional subject matter directed to the second stimulation signal having a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal.
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims.
The Examiner concedes that Maharyta and Wuerstlein fail to disclose "the second
stimulation signal has a same frequency, a same phase and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal."34 Instead, the Examiner relies on a mapping to FIG. 2 of Mo as allegedly disclosing "the second signal may be a pulse signal with a same frequency, a same phase and a same amplitude as the first signal."35 However, Mo discloses, with reference to FIG. 2, "a circuit diagram of a sub- pixel unit in a liquid crystal display" and does not describe any pulse signals in the context of FIG. 2.36 To the extent that Mo discloses driving the common electrodes, gate lines, and data lines of the display with pulse signals having similar characteristics,37 the signals are applied to display electrodes (common electrode, gate line, data line) to reduce display interference with touch detection, which is irrelevant to the stimulation applied to the claimed one or more conductors (mapped by the Examiner to external transmission electrodes 1210). Thus, the Examiner's cited portions of Mo fail to disclose "wherein the second stimulation signal [driving the one or more conductors] has a same frequency, a same phase and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal."
s3 Supra Section IV(A).
34 Office Action at 13.
35 Id. at 14.
36 Mo at 1:48-50.
7 Id. at FIGs. 5-6 and 8:16-9:18.
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.38 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
3. The Examiner relies on a conclusory statement rather than reasoned explanation for its obviousness conclusion.
Even assuming arguendo that the combination of Maharyta, Wuerstlein, and Mo discloses all of the elements of the claims (it does not, per Section 1, above), and that Wuerstlein is in the same field of endeavor (it is not, per Section 2, above), the Examiner fails to provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention. In fact, the Examiner's entire analysis for the conclusion of obviousness is another conclusory statement: "[t]herefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta and Wuerstlein to further include Mo's method of electrodes driving in order to isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively."39
The conclusory statement fails to make clear what exactly the Examiner is proposing as a combination of the references. To the extent the Examiner is suggesting overloading the "one or more conductors" in the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein with respect to the independent claims with yet another driving scheme (in addition to the driving scheme for submerged touch detection of Maharyta and water penetration detection of Wuerstlein), a POSITA would not do so. Specifically, a POSITA would not apply Mo's method of driving display electrodes to the "one or more conductors" (mapped by the Examiner to Maharyta's external transmission electrodes). Additionally, Mo's driving scheme is applied during touch sensing, not limited just to one specific mode of touch operation.
The Examiner's conclusory statement also includes the identical rationale provided to justify the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein with respect to the independent claims. As
38 Supra Section IV(A)(2).
39 Office Action at 14.
discussed above,40 this irrelevant and ambiguous rationale, unmoored from the mapping, cannot possibly justify applying disparate, incompatible, and non-analogous art as the Examiner does for the independent claims. The rationale is no more relevant, clear, or linked to the mapping to justify applying the disparate, incompatible, and non-analogous art as the Examiner does for the dependent claims.
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 14, and 18 are patentable over the cited combination of prior art references. Appellant therefore requests that the Board overturn the rejections of these claims.
C. Group C - dependent claim 4.
Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1. As discussed above,41 the Examiner's
combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of independent claim 1. The cited portion of Kuboyama (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0237963) fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 4 is patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claim 4 recites additional subject matter directed to one or more gaskets
between the substrate and the housing, wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets.
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims.
The Examiner concedes that Maharyta and Wuerstlein fail to disclose "one or more gaskets between the cover substrate and the housing; wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets."42 Instead, the Examiner relies on a mapping to gasket 6106 of FIG. 61 of Kuboyama as allegedly disclosing "one or more gaskets between the cover substrate and the housing; wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets."43 However,
4o See, e.g., supra Section IV(A)(3).
41 Supra Section IV(A).
42 Office Action at 14.
43 Id.
the Examiner's citation to gasket 6106 of FIG. 61 is merely a mapping to the "one or more gaskets" and does not address the claim recitation of "the one or more conductors formed in the one or more gaskets." Thus, the cited portions of Kuboyama relied upon by the Examiner cannot disclose "wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets."
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.44 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
3. The Examiner relies on a conclusory statement rather than reasoned explanation for its obviousness conclusion. Even assuming arguendo that the combination of Maharyta, Wuerstlein, and Kuboyama
discloses all of the elements of the claims (it does not, per Section 1, above), and that Wuerstlein is in the same field of endeavor (it is not, per Section 2, above), the Examiner fails to provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention. In fact, the Examiner's entire analysis for the conclusion of obviousness is another conclusory statement: "[t]herefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta and Wuerstlein to further include Kuboyama's gaskets in order to increase the durability of the device."45
At best, the Examiner's conclusory statement supports some incorporation of a gasket of Kuboyama into the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein to increase durability. The Examiner fails to provide any reasoning or explanation why a POSITA would be motivated to form the one or more conductors in the one or more gaskets.
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is patentable over the Examiner's combination of cited references. Appellant therefore requests that the Board overturn the rejections of this claim.
\* Supra Section IV(A)(2).
4 Office Action at 14.
D. Group D - dependent claims 6, 15, and 19.
Claims 6, 15, and 19 depend from independent claims 1, 13, and 17, respectively. As
discussed above,46 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 17. Accordingly, claims 6, 15, and 19 are patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claims 6, 15, and 19 recite additional subject matter directed to performing a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground, and performing a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects.
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims. The Examiner fails to establish prima facie obviousness of the claimed invention because the cited combination of prior art references fails to disclose all the elements of the claimed invention.
For example, the Examiner maps "perform a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground" (emphasis added) and "perform a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects contacting the
46 Supra Section IV(A).
cover substrate of the electronic device" (emphasis added) to column scanning and row scanning of Maharyta's passive touch detection.47
However, the Examiner fails to establish that the column and row scanning of Maharyta are two different modes of touch operation. Indeed, Maharyta refers to these as steps of passive touch detection (a first mode distinct from the second mode of touch detection - mutual capacitance touch detection).48 Furthermore, this mapping is inconsistent with the Examiner's mapping of the first mode and the second mode of touch operation with respect to claim 1, which the Examiner maps to the passive touch detection and the mutual capacitance touch detection.49
Moreover, the column scanning portion of passive touch detection of Maharyta enables
only determination of an X coordinate and the row scanning portion of the passive touch detection of Maharyta enables only determination of an Y coordinate.50 Thus, in the Examiner's mapping of claim 6, Maharyta's first scan or second scan independently do not provide first or second patches. Nor does the Examiner's mapping of claim 6 account for the differences between the claimed first scan and second scan. The first scan includes "first touch signals grouped intofirst patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground" and the second scan includes "second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects contacting the cover substrate of the electronic device" (emphasis added). The Examiner does not explain why the column scan of Maharyta includes patches indicative of capacitive coupling of objects to ground whereas the row scan includes patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects contacting the cover substrate of the electronic device.
Finally, the Examiner fails to map any part of the disclosure of Maharyta to the recitations of "shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing." That is, Maharyta's passive touch detection does not disclose-and the Examiner does not provide further
47 Office Action at 7-8.
48 Maharyta at 3:55-4:63.
49 Office Action at 3.
s Maharyta at 4:28-30; 4:54-57.
explanation or citation to support a showing of-shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing.
Therefore, the Examiner's mapping of the claims is incorrect and incomplete. The Examiner does not cite to or otherwise rely on any disclosure of Wuerstlein to remedy this deficiency. As such, Wuerstlein fails to cure the deficiencies of Maharyta.
Accordingly, the Examiner fails to show that the cited references-alone or in
combination-disclose each and every recitation of the claimed invention. As such, the rejections of dependent claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependents) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper.
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.51 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
E. Group E - dependent claims 7 and 8.
Claims 7 and 8 depend from dependent claim 6, which depends from independent claim 1. As discussed above,52 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of independent claim 1. Moreover, As discussed above,53 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of dependent claim 6. Accordingly, claims 7 and 8 are patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites additional subject matter directed to determining which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan, and excluding the first patchesSVG {EMBED HERE} 0.562.00
indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing.
Furthermore, claim 8 recites additional subject matter directed to determining which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects using results of the first scan and results of the second scan, and further processing the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects.
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims.
The Examiner fails to establish prima facie obviousness of the claimed invention because the cited combination of prior art references fails to disclose all the elements of the claimed invention. For example, regarding claim 7, the Examiner maps "determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and exclude the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing" (emphasis added) to Maharyta's disclosure of rejecting signal measurements of mutual capacitance touch detection when passive touch detection indicate a non-touch.54 The mapping is facially inconsistent as the claims require using "results of the first scan and results of the second scan" to determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device. The cited portion of Maharyta is explicitly rejecting the signal measurements of the second mode (mutual capacitance touch detection) based on the results of the first mode (passive touch detection), not using them both for another purpose. Furthermore, this mapping of claim 7 is inconsistent with the mapping of claim 6. The mapping of claim 6 equates the first and second scans to column and row scanning of Maharyta's passive touch detection, but now the Examiner in claim 7 maps the first and second scans to passive touch detection and mutual capacitance touch detection.
Moreover, the Examiner fails to map any part of the disclosure of Maharyta to the recitations of "determin[ing] which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively
s Office Action at 8.
coupled to ground through the electronic device" (emphasis added) and "exclud[ing] the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing" (emphasis added). The cited portion of Maharyta rejects signal measurements from the second mode (mutual capacitance touch detection), when there is a non- touch detected in the first mode (passive touch detection). This cited portion therefore implies no identification of patches that are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device, and therefore also does not exclude said patches.
Similarly, the mapping of claim 8 is facially deficient. The cited portion of Maharyta
describes multiplexer circuitry for row electrodes for coupling to transmission signal or SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1730.613 This cited portions of Maharyta has no relationship to the claim which requires "determin[ing] which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and further processing the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects."
Accordingly, the Examiner fails to show that the cited references-alone or in
combination-disclose each and every recitation of the claimed invention. As such, the rejections of dependent claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper.
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.56 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
F. Group F - dependent claims 9, 10, and 11.
Claims 9, 10, and 11 depend from independent claim 1. As discussed above,57 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the
s Id. at 9; Maharyta at 5:35-40.
56 Supra Section IV(A)(2).
s Supra Section IV(A).
recitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, claims 9, 10, and 11 are patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claim 9 recites additional subject matter directed to the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed in a same layer.58 Further, claim 10 recites additional subject matter directed to the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed on opposite sides of the cover substrate.59 Further, claim 11 recites additional subject matter directed to a first conductor of the one or more conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate.60
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims.
The Examiner fails to establish prima facie obviousness of the claimed invention because the cited combination of prior art references fails to disclose all the elements of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 9, the Examiner maps "the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed in a same layer" to Maharyta's capacitive sensor 1240 and electrode 1210 in FIG. 12."61 However, FIG. 12 is "a circuit diagram of a capacitive sense array of an electronic device submersed underwater."62 As such, FIG. 12 cannot show (and the corresponding paragraphs do not describe) where the touch nodes or conductors are formed, let alone that they are in the same layer. Thus, the cited portions of Maharyta relied upon by the Examiner cannot disclose "the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed in a same layer," as recited in claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, the Examiner maps "the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed on opposite sides of the cover substrate" to Maharyta's disclosure at FIG. 11, asserting "as shown in fig. 11, The conductive nature of water may couple the external
58 See, e.g., non-limiting example of FIG. 7C of the Application. 59 See, e.g., non-limiting example of FIG. 7D of the Application. 60 See, e.g., non-limiting examples of FIGs. 7A-7B of the Application. 61 Office Action at 9.
62 Maharyta at 18:13-14.
transmission signal 1111 received through the second part of passive touch object 1115 to multiple receiving electrodes outside of the touch location."63 The conductive nature of water is irrelevant to the formation of touch nodes or conductors on opposite sides of the cover substrate. Thus, the cited portions of Maharyta relied upon by the Examiner cannot disclose "the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed on opposite sides of the cover substrate," as recited in claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner maps "a first conductor of the one or more
conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate" to Wuerstlein. Specifically, the Examiner maps to "[t]he voltage divider circuit 30 includes, for example, three identical ohmic resistors 34 connected in series, the two sensor electrodes 20 being connected one on either side of the middle resistor 34."64 However, the cited portion of Wuerstlein shows a resistance sensor within the housing, and are irrelevant to the recitation of "a first conductor of the one or more conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate." Even if Wuerstlein were relevant (and it is not), there is no explanation or reasoning for the combination or conclusion of obviousness for this aspect of the combination. Thus, the cited portions of Wuerstlein relied upon by the Examiner cannot disclose "a first conductor of the one or more conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate," as recited in claim 11.
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.65 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
63 Office Action at 9.
M Id. at 7.
65 Supra Section IV(A)(2).
V. CONCLUSION
For at least the reasons above, the Examiner fails to establish aprimafacie case of obviousness for claims 1-20. Accordingly, Appellant respectfully requests reversal of the rejections.
The Commissioner is authorized to charge the cost of any fees due in connection with the filing of this document to Deposit Account No. 602925 referencing Docket No. 106842173701 (P43264USC1).
Dated: July 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
Electronic signature: /Jonathan Statman/ Jonathan Z. Statman Registration No.: 71,638KUBOTA & BASOL LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2140 Los Angeles CA 90071 (213) 408-0794


CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20220058355A1: Claims:
An apparatus, wherein a plurality of electrodes detected by a change in a physical quantity detected by a touch panel by bringing it into contact with or by substantially into contact with the touch panel connected to a first information processing apparatus is arranged on a bottom surface of a housing comprising: a communication processing unit that is equipped with a housing formed of a conductive material connected to the said plurality of electrodes and that enters a connected state based on at least a part of an electrode code with the said first information processing apparatus that recognizes the electrode code formed based on electrodes detected by the said touch panel among the said plurality of electrodes.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the said communication processing unit includes a storage means, and at least a unique device ID or a unique ID formed by combining a device ID with an electrode code is stored.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the said electrode code is formed based on at least one of shapes, sizes, and geometric arrangements of the detected electrodes, magnitudes of detected physical quantities, and combinations thereof.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the said first information processing apparatus enters a connected state with the said communication processing unit by recognizing a communication address including at least a part of the said electrode code or a communication address corresponding to at least a part of the said electrode code.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , comprising a first operation unit configured to control the said communication processing unit, wherein the said first information processing apparatus enters a connected state with the said communication processing unit by recognizing a communication address including at least a part of the said electrode code or a communication address corresponding to at least a part of the said electrode code and by operating the said first operation unit.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , comprising a sensing unit for sensing a state wherein the said first information processing apparatus is in contact with or substantially in contact with the said touch panel, wherein the said first information processing apparatus enters a connected state with the said communication processing unit by recognizing a communication address including at least a part of the said electrode code or a communication address corresponding to at least a part of the said electrode code and by having the said sensing unit sensing a state wherein the said first information processing apparatus is in contact with or substantially in contact with the said touch panel.
The apparatus according to claim 7 , wherein the said sensing unit detects a change in a physical quantity detected from the said touch panel.
The apparatus according to claim 8 , wherein the said sensing unit comprises one or more light detection sensors on a surface that is in contact with or substantially in contact with the said touch panel, and detects light displayed on the touch panel.
The apparatus according to claim 9 , wherein positions of the said one or more light detection sensors are recognized by at least one of shapes, sizes, and geometric arrangements of the electrodes, magnitudes of detected physical quantities, and combinations thereof serving as a basis for forming the said electrode code and an optical code formed upon a history thereof is acquired by changing at least one of light colors, light intensities, and blinking times in time series in a region of the said touch panel corresponding to the said position.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the said first information processing apparatus enters a connected state with the said communication processing unit located at a distance closest from the said first information processing apparatus when a plurality of communication addresses including at least a part of the said electrode codes or a plurality of communication addresses corresponding to at least a part of the said electrode codes are recognized.
The apparatus according to claim 11 , wherein the said communication processing unit comprises a GPS and causes the first information processing apparatus to recognize a position acquired by the said GPS.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the said communication processing unit has a clock function and transmits time information or information that changes with time.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the said housing has either a plate shape or a three-dimensional shape, and a film formed of a non-conductive material is provided on the surface of the bottom surface section of the housing.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the said conductive material is connected to a contact region formed in a region of a surface of the said housing, and an electrode code formed based on electrodes detected by the said touch panel is recognized by conduction of the conductive material to the said electrodes caused upon making contact with or holding the said contact region.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the said conductive material is connected to a contact region formed in a region on the surface of the said housing, the contact region is formed in a plurality of regions on the surface of the housing, and by causing conduction between each conductive material in the said regions and the said electrodes connected to respective conductive material by making contact with or holding at least one of the said plurality of areas, a switchable electrode code formed based on electrodes detected by the said touch panel is recognized.
The apparatus according to claim 15 , wherein a film formed of a non-conductive material is provided on a surface of the contact region.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , further comprising: one or more second operation units capable of switching electrode codes formed based on electrodes detected by the said touch panel by conduction or disconnection of at least a part of conduction paths between the said electrodes and the said conductive material when a predetermined operation is received.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , further comprising: a conduction control unit capable of switching electrode codes formed based on electrodes detected by the said touch panel by electrically connecting or disconnecting at least a part of conduction paths between the said electrodes and the said conductive material.
The apparatus according to claim 19 , wherein an electrode code is formed based on a history of electrodes detected by the said touch panel by electrically changing the said connection or disconnection in time series.
The apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein at least a part of the said electrode code includes a code for instructing the said first information processing apparatus to perform a predetermined information processing.
An information communication method, wherein a communication processing unit provided in a housing of the apparatus according to claim 1 with a plurality of electrodes arranged on the housing bottom surface, and a first information processing apparatus connected to a touch panel that detects one or more positions by detecting changes in physical quantities are caused to enter a connected state based on at least a part of the said electrode codes by causing the said first information processing apparatus to recognize an electrode code formed based on a plurality of electrodes detected by changes in physical quantities detected by the said touch panel by bringing the housing bottom surface into contact with or substantially into contact with the touch panel.
An information communication system comprising: the apparatus according to any claim 1 and a first information processing apparatus connected to a touch panel that detects one or more positions by detecting changes in physical quantities, and wherein a plurality of electrodes arranged at the bottom surface of the housing of the apparatus is brought into contact with or substantially into contact with the said touch panel, the said first information processing apparatus recognizes an electrode code formed based on electrodes detected by the said touch panel among the said plurality of electrodes, and the communication processing unit provided in a housing of the said apparatus and the said first information processing apparatus enter a connected state based on at least a part of the said electrode code.
A program wherein a plurality of electrodes arranged on a bottom surface of a housing of the apparatus according claim 1 is brought into contact with or substantially into contact with a touch panel that detects one or more positions by detecting changes in physical quantities and is connected to the first information processing apparatus, the said first information processing apparatus recognizes an electrode code formed based on electrodes detected by the said touch panel among the said plurality of electrodes, and by using the information communication method according to any one of claims 22 to 25 , the said first information processing apparatus and a communication processing unit provided in the housing of the said apparatus are caused to enter a connected state based on at least a part of the said electrode code.
Ref US20220058355D: [content unavailable]