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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If Applicant fails to provide a sufficiently descriptive title, Examiner will do so upon allowance of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 2/21/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there is no serious burden to examine the claims of all Species A-G” because “a complete and thorough search for the subject matter of the Species A would require searching the art areas appropriate to the subject matter of the other Species B-G” (Remarks filed 2/21/26, p. 3). This is not found persuasive because the different features of the various species are classified differently and require different search strategies and different search queries to encompass all the varying subject matter (e.g., the different planar structures of figs. 3-5 [classified in G06F], the various layered arrangements of the electrodes, antireflection layer, black matrix of figs. 6-8 [classified in G02F], etc.).
Applicant further argues that “Species A share[s] some features with the other Species B-G” and “therefore these Species could be considered to belong to a single general inventive concept” (ibid. p. 3). Examiner disagrees. As explicitly discussed in the Restriction/Election requirement mailed 12/22/25, these species lack unity of invention because they are not so linked to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 in view of the cited Chen reference (see Restriction/Election requirement mailed 12/22/25, pp. 2-4). Further, Examiner notes that whether or not the species share some features, different subcombinations usable together can be species themselves (see MPEP 806.04(b)).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the fees for divisional applications are not germane, as this is not a consideration when determining independence and/or distinctness within a single application (see MPEP 802).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Note that claims 5-12, 15, and 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-4, 13, and 16 are examined on the merits below.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “at least two non-visible light sensor electrically connected”. Examiner assumes this is a typographical error and Applicant intended to claim “at least two non-visible light sensors electrically connected”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al. (US 2010/0128004).
Regarding claim 1, Harada discloses a touch substrate, comprising: a base substrate comprising a photosensitive region (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 80-81, ¶ 87-92, sensor area for touch sensing disclosed, see also fig. 5);
and a plurality of photosensitive pixels arranged in an array in the photosensitive region (figs. 1-3, ¶ 91-92, image pickup pixels 33; see also fig. 5, fig. 15),
wherein each photosensitive pixel comprises a plurality of non-visible light sensors and at least one transistor, and each transistor is connected to at least two non-visible light sensors of the plurality of non-visible light sensors (fig. 15, see ¶ 91-92, ¶ 124-130, e.g., photodiodes PD21 and PD22, transistors Tr1-Tr3; see also ¶ 87, infrared disclosed).
Regarding claim 2, Harada discloses a plurality of gate lines and a plurality of data lines, wherein the plurality of gate lines extend in a first direction, and the plurality of data lines extend in a second direction (figs. 1-3, fig. 5, see ¶ 91-92, see also fig. 15, ¶ 124-130, read lines and readout lines 41);
and each photosensitive pixel is divided into four regions by one gate line and one data line intersecting with each other, and at least one region of the four regions each is provided with one transistor and at least two non-visible light sensor electrically connected to the transistor (fig. 3, fig. 15, see ¶ 91-92, ¶ 124-130, e.g., photodiodes PD21 and PD22, transistors Tr1-Tr3; see also ¶ 87, infrared disclosed).
Regarding claim 13, Harada discloses wherein in each of the at least one region, in the first direction, a distance between an orthographic projection of the transistor on the base substrate and an orthographic projection of the data line on the base substrate is less than a distance between an orthographic projection of each non-visible light sensor on the base substrate and the orthographic projection of the data line on the base substrate (fig. 15, transistors between photodiodes and readout line 41, see ¶ 91-92, ¶ 124-130).
Regarding claim 16, Harada discloses a display apparatus, comprising: a backlight source (fig. 1, backlight 15, ¶ 80-81, ¶ 87; see also fig. 13);
a liquid crystal display module on a light outgoing side of the backlight source (fig. 1, LCD 20, ¶ 80-81, ¶ 87; see also fig. 13);
and a touch substrate on a side of the liquid crystal display module opposite to a display surface of the liquid crystal display module (figs. 1-3, ¶ 80-81, ¶ 87-92; see also fig. 13, light is reflected to sensor between display panel and backlight).
The remaining limitations of claim 16 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Uehata et al. (US 2011/0012879).
Regarding claim 3, Harada discloses wherein each photosensitive pixel comprises two transistors (fig. 15, see ¶ 91-92, ¶ 124-130, e.g., transistors Tr1-Tr3).
Harada fails to explicitly disclose one transistor and at least two non-visible light sensors electrically connected to the transistor are in each of two regions in a diagonal direction.
Uehata teaches one transistor and at least two non-visible light sensors electrically connected to the transistor are in each of two regions in a diagonal direction (fig. 2, ¶ 70-74, see also fig. 15, ¶ 105, optical sensors in a checkerboard pattern).
Harada and Uehata are both directed to liquid crystal displays with optical sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Harada with the device of Uehata since such a modification increases detection accuracy, suppresses noise, and reduces the amount of circuitry (Uehata, ¶ 106).
Regarding claim 4, Uehata further teaches wherein two non-visible light sensors in each of the two regions are arranged along the diagonal direction (fig. 2, ¶ 70-74, see also fig. 15, ¶ 105, optical sensors in a checkerboard pattern).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626