DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 112436047; machine translation relied upon) in view of Yan et al. (US 2021/0181888)
Claim 13
Kim
13. (New) A display panel comprising a display area and a non-display area located on a side of the display area, wherein the display panel comprises:
Lu page 1: "display panel…divided into a display area and non-display area"
a substrate;
Lu page 1: "a substrate"
a touch layer disposed on a side of the substrate, wherein the touch layer comprises touch electrodes arranged in the display area and arranged along a first direction and a second direction and touch wires disposed corresponding to the touch electrodes, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction; and
Lu page 2: "touch electrodes 3 of the display area," and "touch signal line," as seen in, e.g., Fig. 1
a demultiplexing circuit group disposed on a side of the substrate and located in the non-display area, wherein the demultiplexing circuit group comprises demultiplexing circuits corresponding to the touch electrodes, and each of the demultiplexing circuits is electrically connected to a corresponding touch electrode through the touch wires;
Lu page 2: "multiplexing circuit"
wherein the demultiplexing circuits are arranged along the first direction and the second direction in the non-display area, and some of the demultiplexing circuits that are connected to corresponding ones of the touch electrodes in a same column are also arranged in a same column;
Shown in Lu Fig. 2
wherein each demultiplexing circuit comprises a plurality of first transistors, and the plurality of first transistors within each demultiplexing circuit are arranged in alignment along the first direction; and
Lu Fig. 2: e.g., in the first demultiplexing circuit there are transistors T01, T04, and T09, arranged in alignment along the first direction
wherein the touch electrodes are disposed opposite the demultiplexing circuit group in the first direction, and the demultiplexing circuit group is located adjacent to an L-cut area of the display panel in the second direction; and a channel of each first transistor extends along the first direction.
Lu Fig. 1 shows the touch electrodes are opposite the demultiplexing circuit group in the first direction. Fig. 2 shows the channel of each transistor extends along the first direction (the gate indicates the channel, as shown in, e.g., Fig. 3). Lu does not shown an L-cut area of the display panel
Therefore Lu does not disclose:
"the demultiplexing circuit group is located adjacent to an L-cut area of the display panel in the second direction"
Yan discloses:
the demultiplexing circuit group is located adjacent to an L-cut area of the display panel in the second direction (Fig. 2, where the multiplexer 51 is adjacent to the cut seen in the figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in Lu the elements taught by Yan.
The rationale is as follows:
Lu and Yan are directed to the same field of art.
Yan discloses that a multiplexer here can save space (e.g., paragraph 41) and allow for a bending area (Fig. 2: 23). This is a known improvement that one ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Yan, and further in view of Takei (US 2010/0245308)
Regarding claim 14:
Lu in view of Yan discloses a display panel as discussed above.
Lu in view of Yan discloses:
wherein the display panel further comprises:
a driving circuit layer disposed between the substrate and the touch layer (Lu page 3: “array layer on one side of the substrate”), wherein the driving circuit layer comprises a plurality of driving circuits arranged along the first direction and the second direction, and the driving circuit comprises a second transistor (Lu page 3: “driving circuit, and the driving circuit includes thin film transistor”).
Lu in view of Yan does not disclose:
“wherein a channel extension direction of the second transistor is different from a channel extension direction of the first transistor.”
Takei teaches that the channel of the second transistor extends along the second direction (Figs. 3-4, where Tr13 is the driving transistor, as per Fig. 4 and paragraph 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Lu in view of Yan the elements taught by Takei.
The rationale is as follows:
Lu, Yan, and Takei are directed to the same field of art.
Although Lu discloses there are driving circuits including transistors, Lu does not discuss them in detail. Takei provides the necessary details to implement the display panel. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Lu in view of Yan and further in view of Takei discloses:
wherein a channel extension direction of the second transistor is different from a channel extension direction of the first transistor (as per Takei paragraph 86 the channel direction of the second transistor is in the second direction; but as per Lu Fig. 3 the channel direction of the first transistor is the first direction).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1:
Many elements of this claim are disclosed by Lu, including, e.g., the teaching of Lin (CN 11283474), as applied in the Office Action mailed 18 September 2025 (specifically the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Lu in view of Takei, and Lin, although the teaching of Takei is not required for the elements of this claim).
However, this claim recites wherein the plurality of first transistors of each demultiplexing circuit comprise a first driving transistor, a first sensing transistor, and a first reset transistor, the first driving transistor, the first sensing transistor, and the first reset transistor are arranged along the first direction and aligned with each other; the first driving transistor, the first sensing transistor, and the first reset transistor, as a group of first transistors corresponding to each demultiplexing circuit, are connected to a respective one of the touch electrodes through the touch wires.
This is not disclosed by the prior art of record. Lin does disclose first transistors for each demultiplexing circuit, but not a driving, sensing, and reset transistor for each. While Lin teaches driving, sensing, and reset transistors (see, e.g., Fig. 7), some of these transistors are shared by multiple touch electrodes, and therefore there is not a group of these specific first transistors corresponding to each demultiplexing circuit that are connected to a respective one of the touch electrodes. Instead of these transistors are connected to more than one touch electrode.
While others of the prior art of record, e.g., Kim et al. (US 2017/0228084) does show multiple transistors connected to a respective one of the touch electrodes in some embodiments, they are not a driving, sensing, and reset transistor for each. And while these transistors in general may be known in a detection circuit, the other limitations of the claim including their being in a demultiplexing circuit, the position of the demultiplexing circuit, and their alignment combine to make this combination allowable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 2, 4-6, and 8-12:
They are dependent on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant first argued (really page 8) that the combination of a first driving transistor, first sensing transistor, and first reset transistor as a group connected to one of the touch electrodes renders claim 1 allowable over the prior art of record. The Examiner agrees with this as discussed above.
Applicant next argues (page 9) that the L-cut of claim 13 renders it allowable. The Examiner does not agree with this and Yan has been applied to teach this element. Therefore claims 13-14 are rejected as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622