Reissue Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed ing in which Patent No. 11,086,426 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04. Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC , 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith , 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc. , 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc. , 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc. , 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement , 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States , 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application. It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02(I)): “(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.” (Step 1: MPEP 1412.02(A)) In the instant case, the Applicant seeks to broaden original independent claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 19 and 26 by deleting/omitting at least the patent claim language requiring, “ analyze the first touch information and the second touch information using same parameters ” emphasis added. In addition with regards to the independent claims 19 and 26, it appears that the Patent Owner entirely omitted a limitation “ wherein the first device comprises a timing controller coupled to the display driving channels of the first device and configured to output the first image data to the display driving channels of the first device, and the second device comprises a timing controller coupled to the display driving channels of the second device and configured to output the second image data to the display driving channels of the second device ” , which was added in the amendment filed April 12 th , 2021 . (Step 2: MPEP 1412.02(B )) The record of the prior 16/384,925 application prosecution history indicates that in a Response filed on April 12 th , 2021 , the Applicant amended the claims in such a manner as to incorporate additional limitations to previously rejected claims. Accordingly, the newly amended claims recited the allowable subject matter as explained in the step 1 above, hence they overcame the cited prior art of Nurmi in view of Choe et al . Subject matter is previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application by reliance by Applicant to define the original patent claims over the art by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. It is noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. More specifically, the Examiner refers to the arguments on pages 10 and 11, stating that “ Nurmi’s FIG. 2 shows that the master touch screen controller 124’ and slave touch screen controller 124’’ are disposed in the display modules 120’ and 120’’, respectively. However, the applicant respectfully submits that Nurmi does not teach a single touch screen controller with separate timing controllers respectively disposed in first and second devices as required by the above-mentioned feature in claim 1 ” and “ Nurmi is silent about a concept of analyzing the first touch information and the second touch information using same parameters to determine a touch event of the touch display panel. As such, Nurmi does not teach the feature of “the single touch controller is further configured to analyze the first touch information and the second touch information using same parameters to determine a touch event of the touch display panel” in claim 1 ” Therefore, in the instant case the claim limitations of “ analyze the first touch information and the second touch information using same parameters ” emphasis added and “ wherein the first device comprises a timing controller coupled to the display driving channels of the first device and configured to output the first image data to the display driving channels of the first device, and the second device comprises a timing controller coupled to the display driving channels of the second device and configured to output the second image data to the display driving channels of the second device ” are surrendered subject matter and some of the broadening of the reissue claims, as noted above, are clearly in the area of the surrendered subject matter. (Step 3: MPEP 1412.02(C )) It is noted that the reissue claims were not materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. When analyzing a reissue claim for the possibility of impermissible recapture, there are two different types of analysis that must be performed. If the reissue claim “fails” either analysis, recapture exists. First, claim scope that was canceled or amended is deemed surrendered and therefore barred from reissue. Clement , 131 F.3d at 1470, 45 USPQ2d at 1165. Second, it must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added or argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it is accompanied by other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu , 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. The first surrendered subject matter, noted above, has been partially eliminated from new independent reissue claims 1, 7, 11 and 15 and the first and second surrendered subject matter has been eliminated from independent claims 19 and 26 . It is noted that the added limitations do not materially narrow the patent claims to avoid recapture. Therefore, broadened independent reissue claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 19 and 26 attempt impermissible recapture of subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the 16/384,925 application. Dependent reissue claims dependent upon the independent claims mentioned above are rejected for similar rationale. Oath/Declaration The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. MPEP § 1414 “… (C) It is not sufficient for an oath/declaration to merely state “this application is being filed to correct errors in the patent which may be noted from the changes made in the disclosure.” Rather, the oath/declaration must specifically identify an error . In addition, it is not sufficient to merely reproduce the claims with brackets and underlining and state that such will identify the error. See In re Constant, 827 F.2d 728, 729, 3 USPQ2d 1479 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 894 (1987). Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error …” The Examiner has considered the Attachment A furnished along with the Oath/Declaration filed on July 11 th , 2023, however the Applicant recites nearly entire content of the amended claim 1, without specifying which limitation has been eliminated. In other words, statement clarifying which limitation was present in the original patented claims and is no longer part of the newly amended claims, is missing. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251 Claims 1-30 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue Oath/Declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect in the Oath/Declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action. Claim Interpretation The examiner finds several instances where the claim term explicitly includes functional language which would invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The following claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifier: Claim 1: “single touch controller … is further configured to process [analyze] the first touch information and the second touch information [using same parameters] to determine a touch event of the touch display panel”. This structure has been described in the original disclosure in figure 11 wherein the touch controller (600) comprises first and second input ports, front-end circuit and core circuit. The controller is further described in column 8, line 39 – column 9, line 3. Claims 2, 7, 11 and 15 : “core circuit … configured to process [analyze] the first touch information and the second touch information [using same parameters] to determine the touch event”. This structure has been described in the original disclosure in figure 11 , element 630 . Beyond that, there does not appear to be any teaching clarifying an algorithm or physical structure for processing touch information. Claim 19: “touch controller … is further configured to process the first touch information and the second touch information to determine a touch event of the touch display panel”. This structure has been described in the original disclosure in figure 11 wherein the touch controller (600) comprises first and second input ports, front-end circuit and core circuit. The controller is further described in column 8, line 39 – column 9, line 3. Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1- 30 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof as discussed above . If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP §§ 2173 and 2181 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications , 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 11-18 and 24 are rejected. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim limitation “ a core circuit … configured to process the touch information and the second touch information to determine the touch event ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As explained above, the core circuit is mentioned in the original disclosure and denoted as element 630, however the Examiner was unable to locate the algorithm or specific structure which would explain what “processing” of touch information entails. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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 19 -30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurmi (US 2011/0069015) in view of Choe et al (US 2015/0301580) . With respect to claim s 19 and 26 , Nurmi teaches a method and a n apparatus for driving a touch display panel having a plurality of data lines and a plurality of sensing lines, comprising: a first device comprising a plurality of display driving channels coupled to a first portion of the data lines to drive a first image data to the first portion of the data lines, and a plurality of touch sensing channels coupled to a first portion of the sensing lines to sense the first portion of the sensing lines ( Figure 2, element 120 and [0031], wherein driving and sensing lines is discussed in [0037] and illustrated in Figure 3 ) ; a second device comprising a plurality of display driving channels coupled to a second portion of the data lines to drive a second image data to the second portion of the data lines, and a plurality of touch sensing channels coupled to a second portion of the sensing lines to sense the second portion of the sensing lines ( Figure 2, element 120 ) ; a timing controller, coupled to the first device and the second device and configured to output the first image data to the first device and output the second image data to the second device ( Figure 3, element 316, [0041]-[0043], wherein “ the timing controller 316 of the master touch screen is connected to the row lines of two touch screens 123” ) ; and a touch controller, disposed outside the first device, configured to receive respective touch information from the first device and the second device, wherein the respective touch information comprises a first touch information corresponding to the first portion of the sensing lines and a second touch information corresponding to the second portion of the sensing lines, and the touch controller is further configured to process the first touch information and the second touch information to determine a touch event of the touch display panel ( Nurmi teaches one master controller and one slave controller, but Nurmi also discloses in [0049] that device s may s hare controller ) . Nurmi, however does not explicitly teach wherein the first device is implemented in a first integrated-circuit chip, the touch controller is implemented in a second integrated-circuit chip, and the first device and the second device are configured to drive the same touch display panel. On the other hand, Choe teaches wherein the first device is implemented in a first integrated-circuit chip, the touch controller is implemented in a second integrated-circuit chip, and the first device and the second device are configured to drive the same touch display panel ( [0071] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement Nurmi’s first device and touch controller as two separate integrated circuits as taught nu Choe, as using integrated circuits was well known in the art at the time the invention was made and having them implemented separately, would allow for easier troubleshooting and cost-effective replacement. With respect to claim s 20 and 27 , Nurmi does not explicitly discuss image data being displayed but Choe further teaches t he apparatus as claimed in claim 19, wherein the first image data and the second image data are a first portion and a second portion of an image frame or from different image frames ( [0060] and [0080] -[ 0081] ) . With respect to claim s 21 , 22 , 23 , 28, 29 and 30 , Choe teaches implementing electrical circuit components as separate integrated circuit s ( [0070] ) and since this method was well known at the time the invention was made and widely utilized, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to implement respective devices in a form of an integrated circuit wherein the second device is implemented in the second integrated-circuit chip or wherein the timing controller is implemented in the second integrated-circuit chip or wherein the timing controller is implemented in a third integrated-circuit chip. Whether those elements would be implemented as a single integrated circuit or separate integrated circuits is often dictated by the design choice. One main advantage would be decreased complexity and cost effective in case replacement of any of the devices would be necessary. With respect to claim 24 , Nurmi taches t he apparatus, wherein the touch controller comprises: a first input port, configured to receive the first touch information from the first device; a second input port, configured to receive the second touch information from the second device; and a core circuit, coupled to the first input port and the second input port, and configured to determine the touch event according to the first touch information and the second touch information ( the inputs from the circuits 120’ and 120’’ to the processor are illustrated in Figure 2 and discussed in [0049] ) . With respect to claim 25. Nurmi teaches t he apparatus as claimed in claim 24, wherein the touch controller further comprises: a front-end circuit, coupled to the first input port and the second input port and configured to receive the respective touch information from the first input port and the second input port and transmit the respective touch information to the core circuit ( [0049] ) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1- 18 would be allowed contingent upon overcoming rejections/objections as indicated above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious a combination of subject matter as disclosed in the independent claims 1, 7, 11 and 15, including a single touch controller outside of the first device, but separate timing controllers in each device and further comprising a single touch display panel . Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANGELA M LIE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8445 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 5:30 am - 2:00 pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. All correspondence relating to this reissue proceeding should be directed: Patent Center Patent Center ( https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center ) to file and manage your applications and requests. Visit the EFS-Web and Private PAIR Retirement ( https://www.uspto.gov/patents/efs-web-and-private-pair-be-retired ) and Patent Center Information pages for more information. By Mail to: Mail Stop Reissue Central Reexamination Unit Commissioner for Patents United States Patent & Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 By FAX to: ( 571) 273-9900 Central Reexamination Unit By hand: Customer Service Window Knox Bulding 501 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Patent Center has 100% of the functionality of EFS-Web and Private PAIR, and is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. Attend a transition to Patent Center Training session ( https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/patent-center ) to learn more about filing and managing patent applications. /ANGELA M LIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 Conferees: /LUKE S WASSUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /ANDREW J. FISCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992