[OPINION]

1. Premise of the Opinion

The applicant hereby submits the following opinion regarding the ground for rejection under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act notified in the Notice of Submission of Opinion dated July 15, 2026.

2. Partial Difference in the Touch-Determination Structure Acknowledged by the Examiner

In comparing element C of claim 1 with Cited Invention 1, the Notice of Submission of Opinion determined that the condition “where at least one of the following is satisfied: a state in which the amount of signal change is equal to or greater than a reference value continues for a predetermined time (T_hold) or longer; or the rate of change of the signal-change amount (dΔS/dt) is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (K)” is not explicitly disclosed in Cited Invention 1, and marked this as a “partial difference.”

Accordingly, the rejection itself acknowledges that a technical difference exists between the present invention and Cited Invention 1. The examiner, however, concluded that the above difference could be readily derived from the temporal signal change and derivative-based touch detection of Cited Invention 2.

The valid-input determination of the present invention is not merely directed to detecting the moment when a touch exists. It is an input-validity determination structure that distinguishes unintended contact from an actually intended input by combining the amount of signal change generated by deformation of an elastic dome, the duration of that state, the rate of change, and a reference value dynamically adjusted according to the user’s input pattern. Therefore, the mere possibility of adding certain signal-processing principles of Cited Invention 2 to Cited Invention 1 does not naturally result in the entire determination structure of the claim.

3. Core of the Present Invention

The core of the present invention does not lie in simply calling an artificial-intelligence function quickly. The present invention is a technology that subordinates the timing and scope of AI intervention to the user’s explicit selection so that AI cannot automatically intervene in the input process regardless of the user’s explicit intent or arbitrarily alter content that the user has revised.

Restriction of AI autonomy = prohibition of automatic intervention + initial execution by the user’s explicit selection + prohibition of automatic re-intervention during user revision + re-execution by the user’s explicit reselection

Claims 3 and 4 specify an AI control-key area including a first function key for character input and a plurality of second function keys for executing AI and performing regeneration, expansion, translation, summarization, or subsequent processing of generated sentences, and further limit the AI control-key area so that it is selectively activated according to an input-determination result based on the amount of signal change.

The specification further explains in concrete terms that, while the user is typing in the character-input area, AI does not perform autocomplete, recommendations, spell checking, or the like; that it operates only when the user explicitly selects the AI execution key; and that, after the user revises a generated sentence, the sentence is regenerated to reflect the revised content only when the user selects the AI execution key again.

Thus, the present invention does not restrict AI autonomy merely by an abstract declaration. Rather, it sets valid-input determination, AI execution conditions, and post-revision re-intervention conditions as control logic of the input device, thereby subordinating the initial intervention and re-intervention of AI to user approval. It is therefore an accident-preventive AI input-control technology.

4. Entire Continuous Control Structure of the Present Invention

The present invention forms the following continuous processing and control structure:

Deformation of elastic dome-shaped input structure → generation of signal-change amount → valid-input determination based on duration, rate of change, and adaptive reference value → selective activation of AI control-key area → user’s explicit selection of AI execution → AI generation → user revision → blocking of automatic re-intervention → reselection of AI execution function → regeneration reflecting revised content

In this structure, valid-input determination is the first control stage, which blocks unintended contact from being transmitted as an AI execution command. The user’s selection of the AI execution function is the second control stage, which confirms only those valid inputs for which the user actually desires AI processing. Blocking automatic re-intervention during user revision and requiring reselection of the execution function constitute the third control stage, which prevents AI from arbitrarily changing content revised by the user.

Accordingly, the present invention is a multi-stage autonomy-restriction structure that prevents unintended operation at the input-signal stage, the initial AI-execution stage, and the post-revision re-intervention stage.

5. Summary of the Grounds for Rejection in the Notice of Submission of Opinion

The Notice of Submission of Opinion matched the dome-shaped elastic structure, reduction in distance, capacitance change, sensitivity adjustment, and support structure of claim 1 with Cited Invention 1, and concluded that claim 1 could be readily derived by supplementing the duration and rate-of-change conditions, which are not explicitly disclosed in Cited Invention 1, with Cited Invention 2.

It further viewed the pressure-sensor layer of claim 2 as readily derivable from Cited Invention 1, and the AI function keys of claim 3 as readily derivable from buttons in Cited Invention 3 for AI question-and-answer, AI writing, translation, summarization, sentence correction, and the like. Claim 4 was rejected by combining the above findings, and the same ground for rejection was applied to the storage configuration of claim 5 and the recording medium of claim 6 on the basis that they share the same technical idea as the preceding claims.

However, the above determination merely extracted and matched individual elements from each cited invention. It did not evaluate, as a single technical concept, the difference in the touch-determination structure acknowledged by the examiner and the entire control structure that subordinates autonomous AI intervention to the user’s explicit selection.

6. Corresponding Scope and Limitations of Cited Invention 1

Cited Invention 1 relates to a sensor device, input device, and electronic apparatus that detect a small pressing force by means of capacitance change. However, Cited Invention 1 does not disclose an AI control-key area, selective activation of that area according to a valid-input determination result, execution of AI according to the user’s explicit selection, or regeneration control according to reselection after user revision.

According to the purport of Supreme Court Decisions 2019Hu11756 and 2021Hu10367, the subject of inventive-step determination is not individual elements but the technical concept of the invention as a whole in which the elements are organically combined.

7. Corresponding Scope and Limitations of Cited Invention 2

Cited Invention 2 is a technology that adjusts a baseline and threshold of a capacitive touch signal and detects the presence and timing of a touch by using temporal changes in the signal or deceleration/derivative information.

However, Cited Invention 2 contains neither the technical problem nor the control structure of blocking automatic AI intervention, separating user revision from an AI re-execution command, and allowing regeneration only upon explicit reselection.

According to the purport of Supreme Court Decisions 2018Hu11728 and 2018Hu10923, hindsight reasoning that selects and combines only necessary elements after learning of the present invention is not permitted.

8. Corresponding Scope of Cited Invention 3 and the Essential Difference

Cited Invention 3 is a technology that arranges buttons on a keyboard for quickly executing AI functions such as AI question-and-answer, AI PPT, AI writing, translation, voice typing, long-form and short-form writing, internet navigation, task summarization, and sentence correction.

However, the fact that buttons for calling AI functions exist is not the same as a control structure that subordinates autonomous AI intervention to the user’s explicit selection. The present invention is not a technology for quickly executing AI functions, but an autonomy-restriction technology that subordinates AI’s authority and timing of execution to the user’s explicit intent.

9. Absence of Determination Regarding the AI-Autonomy Restriction Structure

The Notice of Submission of Opinion matched the various AI buttons of Cited Invention 3 with the function keys of claim 3 for AI execution, regeneration, expansion, translation, summarization, or subsequent processing. This, however, amounts only to a comparison of function names or button types.

The grounds for rejection do not identify any specific corresponding configuration, paragraph, drawing, or embodiment regarding: the relationship in which the AI control-key area is selectively activated according to a valid-input determination result; the relationship in which the user’s explicit selection is a condition for the first AI execution; the relationship in which automatic AI re-intervention is blocked during user revision; and the relationship in which regeneration reflecting revised content occurs only upon reselection.

10. No Single Cited Invention Discloses the Entire Structure

None of the cited inventions discloses, as one system, the entire control structure comprising an elastic dome-shaped input structure; valid-input determination based on duration, rate of change, and a user-adaptive reference value; selective activation of the AI control-key area according to that determination result; AI execution by the user’s explicit selection; and regeneration by explicit reselection after revision.

11. The Present Invention Is Not Reached Even by Combining Multiple Cited Inventions

Even if Cited Inventions 1 and 2 are combined and the AI buttons of Cited Invention 3 are added thereto, the resulting system would still not form the multi-stage autonomy-restriction structure that blocks unintended contact at the valid-input determination stage, prevents AI from automatically intervening even after a valid input, prohibits automatic re-intervention during user revision, and regenerates revised content only upon reselection.

To reach the present invention, it would be necessary to separately design a waiting state before AI execution, an initial execution state triggered by explicit selection, a user-revision state, a non-intervention state during revision, and a regeneration state triggered by reselection.

12. Motivation and Technical Necessity for Selecting the Differing Configuration

Cited Inventions 1 through 3 do not present recognition of the problem or any motivation to separate user revision from an AI re-execution command and to set reselection as the condition for re-intervention.

Therefore, the differing configuration of the present invention cannot be treated as a mere design modification. The prior art would need to present the technical problem of restricting automatic AI intervention and post-revision re-intervention, as well as a state-transition structure and execution-condition control for solving that problem. The current grounds for rejection provide no such specific basis.

13. Predictability of the Operational Effects

The operational effects of the present invention are not limited to detecting a small pressing force or quickly calling an AI function.

The present invention progressively prevents errors, distortion, omission, and impairment of the user’s intent caused by AI by blocking erroneous input at the input-signal stage, blocking automatic intervention at the initial AI-execution stage, and blocking automatic re-intervention at the user-revision stage.

In addition, unless the user selects again, the revised content can be maintained as the final result, and unnecessary AI calls, communication, computation, and result updates can be reduced. These effects arise only when valid-input determination is organically combined with explicit selection, non-intervention during revision, and reselection conditions.

14. Comprehensive Determination by Claim

Claim 1 includes an elastic dome-shaped input structure and a valid-input determination structure based on the amount of signal change, duration, rate of change, and a dynamic reference value. Claim 2 further specifies a pressure-sensor layer. Claims 3 and 4 specify selective activation of the AI control-key area according to the valid-input determination result and execution and regeneration control according to the user’s explicit selection and reselection. Claim 5 specifies a related data-storage configuration, and claim 6 specifies the same technical idea in the form of a program recording medium.

The claims are not a mere collection of independent partial elements but are organically combined under the common technical idea of input-validity determination and restriction of AI autonomy. Therefore, inventive step cannot be denied merely by disassembling and matching the individual configurations of Cited Inventions 1 through 3.

15. Omission of the Core Determination

The current grounds for rejection contain no independent and specific determination as to: the significance of the partial difference in the touch-determination structure acknowledged by the examiner within the entire input-validity determination structure; the manner in which valid-input determination and selective activation of the AI control-key area are combined; and how the user’s explicit selection and reselection restrict the first intervention and re-intervention of AI.

Accordingly, determination of the core differing configuration and the overall operational effects of the present invention has been omitted.

16. Appropriateness of Responding by Opinion Without Amendment

The current claims already recite the elastic dome-shaped input structure; valid-input determination based on signal-change amount, duration, and rate of change; a dynamic reference value according to the user’s input pattern; the pressure-sensor layer; the AI control-key area selectively activated according to the valid-input determination result; data storage; and the program recording medium.

The examiner also acknowledged that claim 1 includes a partial difference in the touch-determination structure. In addition, selective activation of the AI control-key area is directly recited in claims 3 and 4.

Thus, the present issue is not whether the claim language must be further narrowed, but whether the acknowledged difference and the entire technical concept of restricting AI autonomy were correctly evaluated. It is therefore appropriate, rather than narrowing the scope of rights through amendment, to explain by opinion the actual language of the current claims, the technical meaning confirmed by the specification, the limitations of the cited inventions, the absence of motivation to combine, and the difference in operational effects.

17. Conclusion

The core of the present invention lies in a multi-stage autonomy-restriction structure that determines valid input by evaluating the signal-change amount caused by deformation of the elastic dome-shaped input structure using duration, rate of change, and an adaptive reference value; selectively activates the AI control-key area according to the determination result; and permits the first AI execution and post-revision re-execution only through the user’s explicit selection and reselection.

Cited Inventions 1 through 3 respectively concern sensor detection, temporal touch determination, and buttons for calling AI functions. They neither disclose the above entire control structure and its effects of preserving user intent and preventing AI errors nor provide any specific motivation or basis from which such structure and effects could be readily derived.

Therefore, claims 1 through 6 cannot be regarded as inventions that a person skilled in the art could readily make from Cited Inventions 1 through 3, and the ground for rejection under Article 29(2) of the Patent Act should be deemed overcome.

The applicant respectfully requests reexamination based on the current claims and an expeditious decision to grant a patent.