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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 06/22/2026, are accepted.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
Claims 4 and 12 are cancelled.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been reviewed and fully considered.
With regard to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (prior art)
Claims 1-20 were rejected in previous office action (Non Final Rejection dated 03/24/2026) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art by SHEN (US 20120293455 A1), JOHNSON (US 20170023632 A1), SHI (Shi, et al., “A new algorithm for wire fault location using time-domain reflectometry,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1171–1178, Apr. 2014), CHEN (US 20210247634 A1) and/or KAMI (JP 2005208345 A), relied upon in obvious combination.
Based on review of Applicant arguments and in view of amended claim limitations, Examiner finds arguments are not persuasive. Moreover, amended limitations present matter not previously considered, requiring further search and evaluation.
Specifically, Applicant argues (REMARKS, Pg7, §II, Paragraph 5 – Pg 8) that in examination, it must be considered as to “whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious” and “prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention”, citing guidance as found in MPEP § 2141.02 and MPEP § 2141.02 VI. Applicant further notes three essential criteria for determination of prima facie case of obviousness as found in MPEP § 2142, with concerns that references used in previous office action were relied upon by invoking impermissible hindsight and/or concerns that arguments used in previous office action may have rendered prior art “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” or “ change the principle of operation” as found in MPEP 2143. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as discussed below. Applicant then presents arguments regarding prior art as applied to claims presented for evaluation in previous office action, i.e., SHEN, JOHNSON, and SHI, with remarks directed to claim limitations as currently amended. As noted above, amendments to limitations present matter than has not been previously considered, specifically the implementation of a multiplexer (“MUX”) as an impedance measurement device requiring further search and evaluation to determine whether or not the claims differentiate over prior art made available on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees that a prima facie case of obviousness was not presented in previous office action, citing that each of the references used are directed at the same or relevant technical field and disclosed inventions or concepts toward solving a problem directly related to the claimed invention, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine cited references to teach the limitations as presented and considered in previous office action. As noted, amended claim limitations present matter not previously considered, necessitating a new grounds of rejection, as presented below with attention to Applicant’s concerns regarding obviousness and motivation for combination to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant further argues several key features as not being taught by references as relied upon in previous office action, including at least disclosure of the concept of a method for determination of short between conductive lines or short to ground (Remarks, Pg10), and use of time for determination of a short condition (Remarks Pg11). Examiner respectfully disagrees, and finds cited references that do teach these concepts as discussed in detail below, with new grounds of rejection based on amended claims.
Examiner finds claims as currently amended, which necessitate further search and evaluation, are not distinguishable over prior art available before effective filing date of the claimed invention. Detailed response addressing Applicant arguments, with attention to reasoning and rationale as applied to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in determination that the claimed invention does not distinguish over prior art is presented below with new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over SHEN (US 20120293455 A1) in view of LEE(KR 101610577 B1), and further in view of JOHNSON (US 20170023632 A1) and SHI (Shi, et al., “A new algorithm for wire fault location using time-domain reflectometry,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1171–1178, Apr. 2014).
With regard to Claims 1 and 9, SHEN teaches:
An electronic apparatus/method comprising: a communication interface configured to communicate with measuring device (SHEN is in same technical field, [0004]: “Techniques are described for testing a capacitive touch panel for the presence or absence of short circuits and open”; FIG8, element 800 “test system”, with [0050]: “system 800 coupled to the touch panel 100 undergoing testing”, with further description of test system [0051-53], and [0054]: “communication between modules in the test system 800 of FIG8 can be wired, wireless, or some combination thereof” (i.e., “”communication interface”); and see FIGs6A-B, with [0015]: “depict a capacitive touch panel when odd and even sense lines, respectively, are measured to determine shorts” (i.e., “measuring device”))
memory storing instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the communication interface and the memory (SHEN teaches use of memory, see FIG8, “memory 820”, “processor 810”, and FIG1 with [0050]: “test system 100 and may include any number of processors, micro-controllers, or other processing systems, and resident or external memory for storing data and other information accessed or generated by the test system 100. The processor 810 may execute one or more software programs that implement the techniques and modules described herein”)
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic apparatus to: transmit a control signal requesting measuring device to sequentially apply a first signal to each of a plurality of lines included in a transparent electrode sheet connected to the measuring device, to the measuring device (SHEN, as above, teaches execution of instruction, sending drive signal, and connection to measurement device, FIG1 with [0027]: “drive lines 110 are configured to be connected to an electrical current source (e.g., from a touchscreen controller (TSC) 150…drive lines 110 can be driven by the electrical current source in parallel, e.g., where a set of different signals are provided to the drive lines 110…drive lines 110 can be driven by the electrical current source in series, e.g., where each drive line 110 or subset of drive lines 110 is driven one at a time”; Examiner interprets “sequentially apply” as analogous to reference “in series” and “one at a time”.; FIGs.1, 3, 8, with [0053]: “test system 800 is coupled to the touch panel 100 (i.e. “transparent electrode sheet”)…interfaces with the touch screen controller (TSC) 150 (see also FIG1) to control the drive lines (i.e., “plurality of lines”)110, read the sense lines 120, and process the signals on the sense lines 120, e.g., via the test module 830…test module 830 may cause the touch panel 100 to be operated in accordance with process (method) 300 of FIG3 (e.g., by furnishing instructions to control operation of the TSC 150), so that shorts or opens may be detected.”; Examiner interprets “transmit a control signal” as analogous to reference of “control drive lines” to mean initiate measuring process by sending signal to touch panel. Further, Examiner interprets “transparent electrode sheet” using BRI and plain meaning to be analogous to reference, “touch screen”, supported further in reference [0003]: “touch screen is an electronic visual display that incorporates a touch panel overlying a display…common in devices such as all-in-one computers, tablet computers, satellite navigation devices, gaming devices, and smartphones…capacitive touch panel generally includes an insulator, such as glass, coated with a transparent conductor (i.e., “transparent electrode sheet”), such as indium tin oxide (ITO)”; and see FIG3 and FIG7; Abstract: “During a first stage of testing, drive lines of the touch panel are sequentially driven”(i.e., “sequentially apply a first signal”))
receive, for each of the plurality of lines in the transparent electrode sheet, a first time point at which the first signal is applied to a corresponding line of the transparent electrode sheet, a second time point at which a second signal from the corresponding line of the transparent electrode sheet as a response to the first signal, is acquired
by the measuring device, and a waveform of the second signal (SHEN, [0004]: “drive lines (i.e., “plurality of lines”) of the touch panel (i.e., “transparent electrode”) are sequentially driven (i.e., “signal is applied to a corresponding line”) while the other drive lines are floated…resulting signals on the sense lines (i.e., “ acquired by measuring device”) are read to indicate whether the driven drive line is shorted”; Claim 20 teaches detection of time between first and second signal: “processor is operable to execute the one or more modules to a location of a short between that at least two of the sense line by comparing the signals read from the sense lines the first time with the signals read from the sense lines the second time.”; and FIG2A with [0031]: “circuit model 200 of the drive line 110B drive voltage into the drive element 115B is V (e.g., where V represents the amplitude of the voltage waveform)”)
identify whether a defect exists in the transparent electrode sheet based the first time point and the second time point and a voltage magnitude of the second signal being less than a predetermined value (SHEN teaches comparison of time of first signal and time of second signal for detection of short, Claims 20, as above, also Claim 13; and see [0019]: “significant difference between the measured and expected values indicates a defect in the touch panel”; [0023]: “Different voltages on the sense lines indicate the occurrence of shorts and opens…any shorts between adjacent sense lines are detected”; and FIG4, with [0041]: “includes an amplifier 405A with a positive terminal connected to a reference voltage VREF (i.e., “predetermined value”)”, where voltages are compared to determine presence or absence of shorts depicted in FIGs4, 5A, 5B.)
identify that at least two of a plurality of lines included in the transparent electrode sheet are shorted to each other or at least some of the plurality of lines are shorted to a ground. (SHEN, FIG1 with [0029]: “touch panel 100 (i.e., “transparent electrode”) may be viewed as including a grid of drive lines 110 and sense lines 120…FIG1 illustrates two drive lines 110 (e.g., the drive lines 110B and 110C) shorted together.(i.e., “ identify that at least two…are shorted to each other”))
SHEN does not explicitly teach:
electronic apparatus comprising: configured to communicate with an impedance measuring device, the impedance measuring device including a multiplexer (MUX) circuit;
transmit a control signal requesting the MUX of the impedance measuring device to sequentially apply a first signal to each of a plurality of lines included in a transparent electrode sheet connected to the impedance measuring device, to the impedance measuring device;
receive, from the impedance measuring device, a first time point at which the first signal is applied, a second time point at which a second signal, reflected as a response to the first signal, is acquired by the impedance measuring device;
identify whether a defect exists in the transparent electrode sheet based on an elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point and based on an elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point being less than a predetermined time;
LEE teaches:
electronic apparatus comprising: a communication interface configured to communicate with an impedance measuring device, the impedance measuring device including a multiplexer (MUX) circuit; (LEE is in same technical field, Abstract: “apparatus includes a first mux 70 for inputting AC waveforms generated by the waveform generator 20 to the conductive film of the touch screen panel on a per-cell basis” and [0001]: “relates to an impedance measuring apparatus of a touch screen panel for detecting whether an ITO pattern is defective by measuring an impedance of the touch screen panel, and a method for detecting defects through the same”; further, see [0011]: “object of the present invention is to provide an impedance measuring apparatus and a defect detection method therethrough”, and FIGs 2,3, with [0043]: “impedance measurement is performed on a first mux 70 for inputting an AC waveform generated by the waveform generator 20 to a conductive film of a touch screen panel for each sensing cell and a signal waveform output for each sensing cell from the conductive film”; and FIG2, with [0044]: “communication module 50 for transmitting the result of the determination or the impedance value measured by the impedance measuring unit 30” (i.e., “communicate with impedance measuring device”))
transmit a control signal requesting the MUX of the impedance measuring device to apply a first signal to each of a plurality of lines included in a transparent electrode sheet connected to the impedance measuring device, to the impedance measuring device, (LEE, [0016]: “mux for inputting the AC waveform generated by the
waveform generator to the conductive film of the touch screen panel for each sensing cell (i.e., “plurality of lines”)”; Examiner interprets “plurality of lines” using BRI and plain language to mean generally a conductive path for sending an input signal to a testing point, and is analogous to reference of “cells”, where cell are defined by LEE, [0006] The touch sensor is composed of a plurality of sensing cells (pixels), and each sensing cell is composed of an ITO input electrode and an output electrode, [0017]: “waveform generator comprises an oscillator for generating a reference waveform, a mux for adding the frequency and voltage set by the signal processing processor to the reference waveform generated by the oscillator, and outputting the signal with the reference waveform output from the mux (i.e., “signal requesting MUX to apply a fist signal”). [0035]: “waveform generator 20 generates an AC waveform and outputs the AC waveform to the conductive film of the touch screen panel… waveform generator 20 varies the frequency and voltage of the AC waveform under the control of the signal processor 40 (i.e., “transmit a control signal”) and applies the alternating AC waveform to the input electrode…outputs the sinusoidal wave by varying frequency and voltage under the control of the signal processor 40”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the capacitive-based method system for defect detection in an electrical rid of a transparent electrode sheet as disclosed by SHEN with the electronic apparatus comprising communication interface configured to communicate with an impedance measuring device, the impedance measuring device including a multiplexer (MUX) circuit as taught by LEE because it would allow for a more informed analysis of electrical phenomenon. One of ordinary skill would understand that incorporation of a MUX for impedance measurement would improve the ability of the diagnostic system taught by SHEN by allowing for multi-frequency scanning, with rapid switching between conductive pathways for a comprehensive analysis of grid points, cells, or pixel, functionality. Use of a MUX as the impedance measurement tool also allows for complex analysis of impedance that could reveal subtle electrical defects not possible with other tools, which would be known and understood by one of ordinary skill. Lastly, one of ordinary skill would understand the multiplexer as a way to manage improved speed and spatial resolution that would allow for even larger gridded areas (i.e., larger electrode areas) to be scanned accurately, such that the method taught by LEE would be understood as an improvement to the basic capacitive value-based system of SHEN .
SHEN as modified by LEE and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
receive, from the impedance measuring device, a first time point at which the first signal is applied to a corresponding line, a second time point at which a second signal, reflected from the corresponding line as a response to the first signal, is acquired by the impedance measuring device, and a waveform of the second signal,
identify whether a defect exists in the transparent electrode sheet based on an elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point and based on an elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point being less than a predetermined time and a voltage magnitude of the second signal being less than a predetermined value,
JOHNSON teaches:
receive, from the impedance measuring device, a first time point at which the first signal is applied to a corresponding line, a second time point at which a second signal, reflected from the corresponding line as a response to the first signal, is acquired by the impedance measuring device, and a waveform of the second signal (JOHNSON is in same technical field, [0002]: “system and method for performing electronic testing on a set of electric cables…invention provides a testing platform for automated quality testing of a complex electric wire harness assembly”; and FIGs1, 5, with [0009]: “Time Domain Reflectometry (“TDR”)…voltage pulse or step is launched into the cable or wire pair (i.e., “corresponding line”)…pulse or step travels down the wire pair, carried in the electromagnetic field between the wire pair, and bounces off of a major discontinuity, such as an open or a short, and is reflected back to the TDR device…TDR precisely measures the reflected pulse amplitude and round trip time producing waveform data that represents time verses impedance”’; Examiner interprets “first time point” and “second time point” using BRI to be analogous to reference reciting a “round trip time”, which one of ordinary skill would understand as the difference between two time points.; and [0105]: “Each wire pair has a TDR stimulation signal applied 418 (i.e., “signal is applied to a corresponding line”), and the resulting time/impedance waveform is collected”; and see FIG3, element 152 “Controller Memory”; and see [0009]: “TDR precisely measures the reflected pulse amplitude and round trip time producing waveform data that represents time verses impedance”; Examiner asserts JOHNSON as pertinent prior art analogous to claim limitation, based on being “reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor” (MPEP 2141.01(a)). related to detection of abnormalities in wiring, specifically in a wiring harness, analogous to grid as taught by SHEN, above, and recited in claimed invention in at least [0120]. Examiner notes that the reference field of endeavor may be considered as different from the claimed invention. However, applying guidance found in MPEP 2141.01(a) I: “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” Examiner has considered the problem faced by the inventor, based on reading of claim limitations with guidance from specification and views JOHNSON as pertinent and relevant to instant application.)
identify whether a defect exists based on time (JOHNSON, [0105]: “Each wire pair has a TDR stimulation signal applied 418, and the resulting time/impedance waveform is collected 421. For each wire pair, the resulting waveform is compared 425 to the standard waveform test limits…simple comparison can be made to see if the measured result waveform is within the test limits defined for the standard waveform. According, a pass/fail indication 427 can be made (i.e., “identify whether a defect exists”)”; and see [0106]: “Test process 400 is able to detect several different types of defects or faults in the wires…[0107] short…where two or more wires are electrically shorted or improperly connected…[0108] open... where a wire has a complete discontinuity in the conductor which does not allow electrical current to flow”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SHEN, as modified by LEE and taught above, to include the steps of receiving from the impedance measuring device, a first time point at which the first signal is applied to a corresponding line, a second time point at which a second signal, reflected from the corresponding line as a response to the first signal, is acquired by the impedance measuring device, and a waveform of the second signal using evaluation of elapsed time between a first and second signal, and the waveform of the second signal and to identify whether a defect exists based on an elapsed time, as taught by JOHNSON because incorporation of the TDR technique as taught by JOHNSON, using time-dependent waveform signals to probe conductive paths in a gridded structure, and relying on analysis of the resulted reflections of time-dependent impedance vs. time waveforms would result in an improve method for identification of electrical anomalies, which could then be located and even classified as to the nature (i.e., short, open, etc.) as disclosed by JOHNSON. As discussed above, though JOHNSON does not disclose the method as applied specifically to a conductive electrode sheet, one of ordinary skill would understand the similarity between the wire grid of JOHNSON and the pixel/cell structure and gridded conductive lines used as the basis for the functionality of a transparent electrode sheet, particularly since the basic physics of the electrical anomalies which may be present in either structure would be the same. One of ordinary skill would see the value of implementing the repetitive TDR measurements taught by JOHNSON, which also discloses how the technique may be customized for specific applications, into the impedance-based measurement as taught above with the obvious combination of the capacitive-based defect detection method/system of SHEN as modified using the MUX taught by LEE.
SHEN, as modified by LEE and JOHNSON and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
identify whether a defect exists based on an elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point, and the waveform of the second signal, and based on an elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point being less than a predetermined time;
SHI teaches:
identify whether a defect exists based on an elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point, and the waveform of the second signal, (SHI is in related technical field, Abstract: “domain reflectometry (TDR) attenuation and dispersion of the reflected signal limit the reachable accuracy for wire faults location”; and see Pg.1175, Col.1, “wave can be reflected whenever a signal traveling in a cable line encounters an impedance discontinuity”, with Eq. (20); Examiner interprets “defect” using BRI and plain meaning as analogous to reference term “impedance continuity”, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.; SHI teaches time between first and second signal for locating defect, Pg. 1175, Col1, “distance d between a reflection and injection points can be calculated by d = v·t/2, where υ is the velocity of the signal propagation into the cable and t is the time interval (i.e., “elapsed time”) between the incident and reflected signals (time of flight)”; SHI teaches evaluation of waveforms, Pg. 1175, FIGs 3-7. ; Using similar rationale discussed above in regard to pertinence of JOHNSON to instant application, Examiner notes SHI is directed to a related technology of determination of the presence and location of a defect along a conductive path using TDR and measurement of impedance and time signals, where reflected waveforms play an essential role determination and location of defect presence. Examiner asserts that the reference is analogous, as “reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor” (See MPEP 2141.01(a)). Because instant application recites use of conductive grid, one of ordinary skill would view SHI as a relevant resource to solve a problem of determining defect/fault such a structure. Examiner finds the reference to be reasonably pertinent to the problem being addressed by Applicant, supported by specification in at least [0057].)
and based on an elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point being less than a predetermined time; (SHI teaches comparison to an expected value for time and voltage, Pg. 1174, Col 1-2 § IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP, where incident parameters are set for comparison with reflected signal; SHI teaches use of a transfer function for comparative analysis based on expected values, PG. 1175, Col.2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SHEN, as modified by LEE and JOHNSON as taught above, to include, using evaluation of elapsed time between a first and second signal, and the waveform of the second signal, including comparison with an expected value for evaluation of the time difference and voltage difference, as taught by SHI, because the implementation of TDR in a defect determination method/system would be understood as a way to increase precision and make measurements more reliable. One of ordinary skill would understand the value of the rapidly accomplished and repeated measurements and analysis as detailed by SHI as a logical way to solve the problem of accurate and fast defect location in a conductive grid, such as a transparent electrode sheet. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the TDR techniques as disclosed by SHI and JOHNSON with the method and system of SHEN, which is directed specifically to a transparent electrode diagnostic method/system, as modified by LEE to incorporate a multiplexer (MUX) to rely on impedance measurements, which would be readily possible in the capacitive-based system taught by SHI, because as taught by both JOHNSON and SHI, the TDR technique provided improved sensitivity in identifying electrical phenomenon. One of ordinary skill would understand the known method of TDR and its ability to improve accuracy and reliability for detection and location of electrical anomalies by doing waveform and time difference analysis as taught for general applications by both JOHNSON and SHI, and forming an obvious combination to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to Claims 2 and 10, SHEN, in view of LEE and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, teaches limitations of claims 1 and 9.
SHEN further teaches
wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to, based the first time point and the second time point, identify that a defect exists in the transparent electrode sheet. (SHEN teaches execution of instruction, sending drive signal, and connection to measurement device, as above, FIGs.1, 8, with [0053]; SHEN teaches comparison of time of first signal and time of second signal for detection of short, as above, Claims 13 and 20)
SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON, and SHI as taught above, does not teach:
based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point being outside a predetermined time range, identify that a defect exists.
SHI further teaches:
based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point being outside a predetermined time range, identify that a defect exists. (SHI, as above, Pg.1175, Col.1, and Eq. (20); SHI teaches evaluation of time difference to determine defect using optimization methods, including predetermined values, Pg1173, Col2 – 1174, Col1, Eq. (12)-(13).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention further modify SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI as taught above, to include evaluation of elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point being outside a predetermined time range to identify that a defect exists, such as further taught by SHI because this adds another way to identify any electrical anomaly in an electrode system, in a non-destructive way, using impedance measuring instruments connected externally to a transparent electrode structure, as taught by SHEN modified by JOHNSON. One of ordinary skill would understand that combining the general method as taught by SHI with the methos and system of SHEN as modified by JOHNSON to use impedance measurements would result with a reasonable expectation of success in a more robust, accurate and efficient evaluation of the transparent electrode without added cost or time.
With regard to Claims 3 and 11, SHEN, in view of LEE and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, teaches limitations of claims 1 and 9.
SHEN further teaches:
wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to, based on a voltage magnitude of the second signal being outside a predetermined voltage range, identify that a defect exists in the transparent electrode sheet. (SHEN, as above, teaches voltage detection, [0023] and comparison with reference voltage, FIG4, with [0041])
With respect to Claims 6 and 14, SHEN, in view of LEE and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, teaches limitations of claims 1 and 9.
SHEN further teaches:
wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to obtain a location of the defect existing in the transparent electrode sheet based on the first time point and the second time point. (SHEN, as above, Claim 1, measurement of a signal at two different, known points identified by location on a line grid, FIG1 with [0029] and FIG3 with [0021]; and signal detection, FIG2A with [0031]; SHEN teaches a test signal applied to identified intersections of grid lines to determine presence of fault in a touch screen. Details in “Example Implementation” beginning at [0023].)
SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI as taught above, does not teach:
obtain a location of the defect based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point.
SHI further teaches:
obtain a location of the defect based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point. (SHI, as above, time between injected and reflected waveforms for defect identification, Pg.1175, Col.1, with Eq. (20); SHI teaches evaluation of time difference to determine defect using optimization methods, including predetermined values, Pg. 1173, Cols.2 – 1174, Col1, Eq. (12)-(13).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SHEN as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI, as taught above, to include obtaining a location of the defect based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point, such as that further disclosed by SHI because using the evaluative methods of SHI, based in TDR technique would improve the reliability, precision and efficiency of the capacitive-based of the method and system of SHEN with modifications to use impedance-based measurement as taught by LEE, with timing methods of JOHNSON and SHI above. The method taught by SHI provides additional sensitivity and accuracy using impedance based measurements of LEE and JOHNSON as combined with the method and system of SHEN to evaluate a transparent electrode, and would be seen as a useful and logical combination for arriving at the claimed invention by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claims 7 and 15, SHEN, in view of LEE and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, teaches limitations of claims 1 and 9.
SHEN further teaches:
wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to: acquire a similarity between the waveform of the second signal and a predetermined waveform; (SHEN, as above FIG8, “processor 810”, and FIG1 with [0050]: “test system 100 and may include any number of processors”; and [0021]: “techniques may be implemented as a test having two or more test stages (e.g., a first test stage and a second stage)…first stage of the test, some drive lines…sequentially driven…while the other drive lines are floated…resulting signals on the sense lines are acquired to indicate whether the driven drive line is shorted to an adjacent drive line, is an open circuit, is coupled to a sense line that is an open circuit, or has neither shorts nor opens” (i.e., “waveform” evaluation); refer to FIG2A and [0031]: “circuit model 200 of the drive line 110B drive voltage into the drive element 115B is V (e.g., where V represents the amplitude of the voltage waveform)” and [0032]: “testing process…compares signal values (i.e., “acquire a similarity”) to first, second, and third predetermined ranges, instead of to exact values”)
based on the similarity being less than the predetermined value, identify that a defect exists in the transparent electrode sheet; (SHEN teaches comparison with expected value, see above [0032]: “comparison with predetermined ranges”; SHEN teaches as above, )
and based on the similarity being greater than or equal to the predetermined value, identify that there is no defect in the transparent electrode sheet. (As above, [0053]: “test system 800 is coupled to the touch panel 100 (i.e. “transparent electrode sheet”); and SHEN teaches comparison with expected value, see above [0032]: “comparison with predetermined ranges”)
With respect to Claim 17, SHEN, in view of LEE and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, teaches limitations of claim 9.
SHEN further teaches:
the transparent electrode sheet includes an upper electrode sheet and a lower electrode sheet. (SHEN teaches a capacitive touch screen layered structure, [0003]: “touch screen is an electronic visual display that incorporates a touch panel overlying a display…common in devices such as all-in-one computers, tablet computers, satellite navigation devices, gaming devices, and smartphones…capacitive touch panel generally includes an insulator, such as glass, coated with a transparent conductor (i.e., “transparent electrode sheet”), such as indium tin oxide (ITO)”; and [0026] “One or more capacitive touch panels 100 can be included with a touch screen assembly…may include a display screen, such as an LCD screen, where the sensor layer and the drive layer are sandwiched between the LCD screen and a bonding layer, e.g., with a protective cover such as glass”; Examiner interprets “electrode sheet” as analogous to reference “sensor layer”.)
With respect to Claims 18, SHEN, in view of LEE and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, teaches limitations of claim 9.
SHEN further teaches:
identifying a type of the defect based on the waveform of the second signal. (SHEN teaches, as above, waveform analysis for fault determination, [0023], and FIG2A with [0031]; Examiner interprets “based on waveform of second signal” to be analogous to SHEN using time dependent voltage test signals, i.e., “waveforms” in comparative analysis of a test signal and a received signal for defect detection. Examiner further notes SHI also teaches defect type based on TDR analysis of waveform, Pg. 1175, FIGs 3-4, traces of open and short circuit waveforms. )
With respect to Claims 19, SHEN, in view of LEE and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, teaches limitations of claim 6.
SHEN further teaches:
the location of the defect existing in the transparent electrode sheet is based on a line of the transparent electrode sheet (SHEN teaches location of fault in transparent sheet, based on analysis of electrical behavior or electrode grid in sheet, [0021]: “first stage of the test, some drive lines (i.e., “line”)…sequentially driven…while the other drive lines are floated…resulting signals on the sense lines are acquired to indicate whether the driven drive line is shorted to an adjacent drive line, is an open circuit, is coupled to a sense line that is an open circuit, or has neither shorts nor opens”; Examiner interprets line to mean a conductive path.)
SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON, and SHI as taught above, does not teach:
the location of the defect is based on a calculated impedance of a line based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point and a length of the line based on the calculated impedance.
SHI further teaches:
the location of the defect is based on a calculated impedance of a line based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point and a length of the line based on the calculated impedance. (SHI teaches defect location based on impedance measurements and time difference between incident and reflected waveform, as above, using general implementation of TDR with impedance measurements to determine abnormalities in conductive materials, Abstract, and Pg.1175, Col.1, “wave can be reflected whenever a signal traveling in a cable line encounters an impedance discontinuity”, with Eq. (20)); Examiner interprets “defect” as analogous to presence of “impedance discontinuity”, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.; SHI teaches analysis of time between first and second signal for locating defect, Pg. 1175, Col1, “distance d between a reflection and injection points can be calculated by d = v·t/2, where υ is the velocity of the signal propagation into the cable and t is the time interval between the incident and reflected signals (time of flight)”; SHI teaches evaluation of waveforms, Pg. 1175, FIGs3-7.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON, and SHI as taught above SHI, as taught above, to include the process of finding the location of the defect based on a calculated impedance of a line based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point and a length of the line based on the calculated impedance, such as that further disclosed by SHI because this would be a way to effectively and efficiently implement the TDR method to improve the method and system of SHEN as modified by LEE to include an impedance-based measurement, with time-dependent modifications taught by JOHNSON and SHI with increased sensitivity. Combining technique explicitly taught by SHI for location determination, with a system outfitted to measure impedance, waveform and time, would improve overall ability to accurately detect and precisely locate an electrical abnormality in a transparent electrode structure without additional connections using a non-destructive measurement allowing for one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to Claims 20, SHEN, in view of LEE and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, teaches limitations of claim 14,
SHEN further teaches:
the location of the defect existing in the transparent electrode sheet is based on a line of the transparent electrode sheet based on first time point and the second time point (SHEN teaches detection of defect in transparent electrode students using analysis of conductive lines in the sheet, as above, Claims 13 and 20.)
SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI as taught above, does not teach:
the location of the defect is based on a calculated impedance of a line based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point and a length of the line based on the calculated impedance.
JOHNSON further teaches:
the location of the defect is based on a calculated impedance of a line based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point and a length of the line based on the calculated impedance. (JOHNSON, as above, teaches use of time between first and second waveform to determine distance to or location of a defect, as above [0009] and [0011], equation therein, with [0014])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SHEN as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI, as taught above, to include locating a defect based on a calculated impedance of a line based on the elapsed time between the first time point and the second time point and a length of the line based on the calculated impedance, such as that further disclosed by JOHNSON because this is a way to implement the reliability of the TDR technique into the system and method as taught by SHEN with modifications for impedance measurement as taught by LEE and time-dependent methods as disclosed by JOHNSON and SHI to improve the overall precision and efficiency of the invention disclosed by SHEN. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of using the known and proven TDR technique produce a sensitive and accurate method and system to determine type and location of defects or electrical anomaly in a transparent electrode sheet.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN, in view of LEE, JOHNSON and SHI, and further in view of CHEN (US 20210247634 A1) and KAMI (JP 2005208345 A).
With respect to Claims 5 and 13, in view of LEE and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, teaches limitations of claim 1 and 9,
SHEN further teaches:
instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to identify a defect is present in the transparent electrode sheet (SHEN teaches, as above, FIG8 “processor 810”, and FIG1 with [0050]: “processor 810 may execute one or more software programs that implement the techniques”; and comparison of time of first signal and time of second signal for detection of short, Claims 20, as above; and see [0019]: “significant difference between the measured and expected values indicates a defect in the touch panel”)
SHEN, as modified by SHEN as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI, as taught above, does not teach:
based on a rise time of the second signal being greater than a predetermined time, identify that a foreign material is present in the transparent electrode sheet or a degree of compression between the transparent electrode sheet and another transparent electrode sheet is outside a predetermined range.
CHEN teaches:
based on a rise time of the second signal being greater than a predetermined time, identify that defect is present in the transparent electrode sheet (CHEN is in same technical field, directed to transparent electrode of display device, Abstract: “a display device and a test method of the display substrate are disclosed”; CHEN teaches standard components for control operational instruction for testing, FIG9 with [0159]: “display substrate 100 is tested under the control of the main control circuit 200…a central processor unit.”; CHEN teaches detection using rise time at voltage measurement points, FIG2A-B, and FIG3 with [0069]: “steepness of the rising edge of a voltage signal 571 extracted from the first position 5121 of the second test wire 512 is greater than the steepness of the rising edge of a voltage signal 572 extracted from the third position 5123 of the second test wire 512…as shown in FIG3, the rise time of the voltage signal extracted from the first position 5121 of the second test wire 512 is about 162 microseconds, the rise time of the voltage signal extracted from the third position 5123 of the second test wire 512 is about 224 microseconds”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system and apparatus of SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI, as taught above, to include wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to, based on a rise time of the second signal being greater than a predetermined time, identify that [measurement] is outside a predetermined range, such as that of CHEN it would be an effective way to use the capacitive measurement-based system and method disclosed by SHEN with modification of LEE to include impedance-based methods, and JOHNSON and SHI to include time and reflectance techniques, and which uses time-dependent voltage probes to determine the existence of various defect types, to provide additional verification of disfunction in a circuitry for a transparent electrode. One of ordinary skill would understand that using comparative analysis of both timing and voltage values, including specifically comparative evaluation of rise time of voltage signals and received signals between two different points on a transparent screen electrode would provide a more reliable and accurate means for determining defect location and type.
SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI, and further modified by CHEN, as taught above, does not teach:
identify that a foreign material is present in the transparent electrode sheet or a degree of compression between the transparent electrode sheet and another transparent electrode sheet is outside a predetermined range.
KAMI teaches:
identify that a foreign material is present in the transparent electrode sheet or a degree of compression between the transparent electrode sheet and another transparent electrode sheet is outside a predetermined range. (Translated copy provided with previous office action.; KAMI is in same technical field, [0001]: “electro-optical device, a method for manufacturing the electro-optical device, and an electronic apparatus” and [0003]: “an inspection is performed to determine whether there is a formation defect or a short circuit due to contact with foreign matter in each of the electrode pattern and the wiring pattern”; KAMI teaches detection of foreign object in layered material, see [0049]: “the formation of defects between adjacent scanning electrodes can be reduced by performing an electrical property inspection in the display area. The occurrence of a short circuit due to the contact of a foreign object can be easily detected”; Examiner interprets “identifying that a foreign material is present” as analogous to reference language of “occurrence of a short circuit due to the contact of a foreign object”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI, and further modified by CHEN, as taught above, to include identifying that a foreign material is present in the transparent electrode sheet or a degree of compression between the transparent electrode sheet and another transparent electrode sheet, such as that of KAMI because this would be understood as an important characterization for ensuring function and quality in a layered transparent electrode structure. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantage of using key electrical metrics that would indicate a foreign object or foreign matter in a layered transparent electrode structure in order to prevent poor performance or lack of function. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantageous addition taught by KAMI to result in a more rigorous quality analysis of a transparent screen electrode structure.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN, in view of LEE, and further in view of JOHNSON and SHI, and further in view of YANG (US 20180188186 A1).
With respect to Claims 8 and 16, SHEN, in view of JOHNSON and further in view of SHI, teaches limitations of claims 1 and 9.
SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI as taught above, does not teach:
a display, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to, based on a defect being identified to exist in the transparent electrode sheet, control the display to display information on the defect.
YANG teaches:
further comprising: a display, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to, based on a defect being identified to exist in the transparent electrode sheet, control the display to display information on the defect. (YANG is in same technical field, [0002]: “relates to an inspection apparatus and an inspection method…for inspecting a defect in an encapsulation layer included in an organic light-emitting display apparatus”; YANG teaches defect detection using executed instructions and processor, FIG4 and [0015]: “detecting a defect of the inspection object”; YANG teaches display of detection process outcome on display, [0097]: “detection unit 248 may include a display unit that displays determination results”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify SHEN, as modified by LEE, JOHNSON and SHI as taught above, to include a display, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic apparatus to, based on a defect being identified to exist in the transparent electrode sheet, control the display to display information on the defect, such as that of YANG because this would be understood as an efficient way package a system and method for defect determination in a transparent electrode and quickly provide feedback to a user or other system for making decisions regarding next steps to address the defect. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantage of integrating a defect detection system and displaying the results on a display of a transparent electrode itself (as in a touch screen or display panel), particularly during manufacturing and quality testing as an efficient way to be informed in real time about any quality issues, and to have information about in-situ defect mapping on the apparatus under test. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of combining this step as taught by YANG to improve the system as taught by SHEN, as modified by JOHNSON and SHI as taught above, as a logical and practical way to efficiently be informed about potential defect/faulty in a transparent layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure was included in previous office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights