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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 (Species I, Invention I) in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “a second for publications relating to one of the groups of claims would reveal publications relating to the other group and, thus, would not impose a serious burden on the Examiner”. This is not found persuasive because the arguments give no reasons why or how there would not be a serious burden, but rather allege that related publications would be found with a search for one group. However, in this case, the electrostatic discharge protection element has a materially different design in the elected species/invention than in the unelected species invention and would require a different field of search/different search strategies and queries to find proper prior art and/or form a complete search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. U.S. Patent Application 2013/0154979 (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a modulation device (refer to figs.1A and 5C), comprising: a substrate (i.e. substrate 110)(fig.1A) having an active region (i.e. active region 112)(fig.1A); an electrostatic discharge protection element (i.e. electrostatic protection structure 140)(fig.1A) arranged around the active region (implicit); an electronic element (i.e. sensing region A and sensing electrodes 120)(fig.1A) disposed in the active region (implicit); and a driving element (refer to “driver chip” [0025) electrically connected to the electronic element (refer to [0025]).
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electronic element comprises a capacitor (i.e. capacitive touch sensing element 72)(fig.6A).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrostatic discharge protection element comprises a first frame-shaped conductive pattern (i.e. conductive ring 141)(fig.5C), and the first frame-shaped conductive pattern surrounds the active region (implicit).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the first frame-shaped conductive pattern is formed by arranging a plurality of conductive patterns with spacings (refer to pointed ends S)(fig.5C), and each of the plurality of conductive patterns has two opposite pointed terminals (i.e. pointed ends S)(fig.5C).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. U.S. Patent Application 2015/0083569 (hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a modulation device (refer to figs.1A-F and 2), comprising: a substrate (i.e. substrate 110)(fig.1A) having an active region (i.e. light transmitting area 102)(fig.1A); an electrostatic discharge protection element (i.e. first electrode layer 150a, second electrode layer 170a, and ground electrode 140)(fig.1A)(refer also to [0036]) arranged around the active region (implicit); an electronic element (i.e. touch-sensing element 120a)(fig.1A) disposed in the active region (implicit); and a driving element (i.e. driving element in the figure below)(fig.1A) electrically connected to the electronic element (implicit).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Chang teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrostatic discharge protection element comprises a first frame-shaped conductive pattern (i.e. first electrode layer 150a)(fig.1A), and the first frame-shaped conductive pattern surrounds the active region (implicit).
Regarding claim 5, Chang teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the electrostatic discharge protection element further comprises a second frame-shaped conductive pattern (i.e. second electrode layer 170a)(fig.1A), and the second frame-shaped conductive pattern overlaps with the first frame-shaped conductive pattern (implicit)(refer to fig.1B).
Regarding claim 7, Chang teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the electrostatic discharge protection element further comprises a second frame-shaped conductive pattern (i.e. ground electrode 140)(Fig.1A), wherein the second frame-shaped conductive pattern surrounds the active region (implicit) and is positioned between the first frame-shaped conductive pattern and the active region (implicit).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claims 5 or 7 above, and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 6, Chang teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 5; however, Chang does not teach wherein each of the first frame- shaped conductive pattern and the second frame-shaped conductive pattern is formed by arranging a plurality of conductive patterns with spacings, each of the plurality of conductive patterns has two opposite pointed terminals, and the plurality of conductive patterns of the second frame-shaped conductive pattern overlap the plurality of conductive patterns of the first frame-shaped conductive pattern respectively. However, Li teaches a frame-shaped pattern formed by arranging a plurality of conductive patterns (i.e. protruding portions 141b)(fig.5C) with spacings (refer to pointed ends S)(fig.5C), each of the plurality of conductive patterns has two opposite pointed terminals (i.e. pointed ends S)(fig.5C). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulation device of Chang to include the plurality of conductive patterns for each of the frame-shaped conductive patterns to provide the advantage of preventing electrostatic energy from jumping towards the active region (refer to Li [0033]). Therefore, Chang and Li teach wherein each of the first frame- shaped conductive pattern and the second frame-shaped conductive pattern is formed by arranging a plurality of conductive patterns with spacings (i.e. Li protruding portions 141b)(fig.5C), each of the plurality of conductive patterns has two opposite pointed terminals (refer to Li pointed ends S)(fig.5C), and the plurality of conductive patterns of the second frame-shaped conductive pattern overlap the plurality of conductive patterns of the first frame-shaped conductive pattern respectively (refer to Chang first and second electrode layers 150a and 170a)(fig.1A)(refer also to Li pointed ends S)(fig.5C).
Regarding claim 8, Chang teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 7; however, Chang does not teach wherein each of the first frame- shaped conductive pattern and the second frame-shaped conductive pattern is formed by arranging a plurality of conductive patterns with spacings, and each of the plurality of conductive patterns has two opposite pointed terminals. However, Li teaches a frame-shaped pattern formed by arranging a plurality of conductive patterns (i.e. protruding portions 141b)(fig.5C) with spacings (refer to pointed ends S)(fig.5C), each of the plurality of conductive patterns has two opposite pointed terminals (i.e. pointed ends S)(fig.5C). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulation device of Chang to include the plurality of conductive patterns for each of the frame-shaped conductive patterns to provide the advantage of preventing electrostatic energy from jumping towards the active region (refer to Li [0033]). Therefore, Chang and Li teach wherein each of the first frame- shaped conductive pattern and the second frame-shaped conductive pattern (refer to Chang first electrode layer 150a and ground electrode 140) is formed by arranging a plurality of conductive patterns with spacings (i.e. Li protruding portions 141b)(fig.5C), and each of the plurality of conductive patterns has two opposite pointed terminals (refer to Li pointed ends S)(fig.5C).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim U.S. Patent Application 2019/0189075 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 10, Chang teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 1, however, Chang does not teach wherein the electronic element and the driving element are disposed on the substrate through a bonding process. However, Kim teaches wherein the electronic element and the driving element are disposed on the substrate through a bonding process (refer to [0057]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chang to include the bonding process of Kim to provide the advantage of using a common method of securing the components of a device to a substrate.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baba et al. U.S. Patent Application 2019/0346726 (hereinafter “Baba”).
Regarding claim 11, Chang teaches the modulation device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrostatic discharge protection element comprises a plurality of conductive patterns (i.e. first and second electrode layers 150a and 170a and grounding electrode 140)(fig.1A), and the plurality of conductive patterns are separated from each other (implicit); however, Chang does not teach the device further comprising: a plurality of first signal lines extending in the active region along a first direction; and a plurality of second signal lines extending in the active region along a second direction different from the first direction, and at least one of the plurality of conductive patterns is traversed by one of the plurality of first signal lines or is traversed by one of the plurality of second signal lines. However, Baba teaches the device further comprising: a plurality of first signal lines (i.e. gate wires 1)(fig.1) extending in the active region (i.e. display region 50)(fig.1) along a first direction (implicit); and a plurality of second signal lines (i.e. source wires 2)(fig.1) extending in the active region (implicit) along a second direction different from the first direction (implicit), and at least one of the plurality of conductive patterns (i.e. common wire 63) is traversed by one of the plurality of first signal lines or is traversed by one of the plurality of second signal lines (implicit)(refer to fig.1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chang to include the signal lines of Baba to provide the advantage of using a common method of connection for the electronic elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 9, especially wherein the electrostatic discharge protection element comprises a plurality of first conductive patterns, a plurality of second conductive patterns, and a plurality of conductive vias, in which the plurality of first conductive patterns and the plurality of second conductive patterns surround alternately to form a frame-shaped pattern surrounding the active region, and the plurality of first conductive patterns and the plurality of second conductive patterns are electrically connected to each other through the plurality of conductive vias. Claim 12 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 12, especially wherein the plurality of first signal lines belong to a first patterned conductive layer, the plurality of second signal lines belong to a second patterned conductive layer, and the plurality of conductive patterns belong to a third patterned conductive layer.
Claim 13 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 13, especially wherein a portion of the plurality of conductive patterns and the plurality of first signal lines belong to the first patterned conductive layer, and another portion of the plurality of conductive patterns and the plurality of second signal lines belong to the second patterned conductive layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838