DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
As a result of the Amendment filed on RCE, claims 1-13 are pending for examination on the merits. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 14-28 were withdrawn from consideration due to a previous restriction requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 12-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0123528 A1 in view of Kim et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0301649 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a driving signal generator, adapted for a touch display device (Figs. 1-2, generally, Background, Summary, [0004-0010]), comprising:
a window function code generator, generating a first code corresponding to a window of a first sine wave (Figs. 2-3, local oscillator, #108; Detailed Description, [0044-0046]);
a sine wave code generator, generating a second code corresponding to a second sine wave, wherein a frequency of the second sine wave is higher than a frequency of the first sine wave (Figs. 2-3, sensing oscillator, #104; Detailed Description, [0044-0046], showing different frequencies of the SO which include higher than LO); and
an operation circuit, coupled to the window function code generator and the sine wave code generator, and performing an operation on the first code and the second code to generate an output code (Figs. 2-3, mixer #106, LPF, #110; f_offset, #112, Detailed Description, [0044-0046]); and
a signal converter, coupled to the operation circuit, generating a touch driving voltage on a driving signal by converting the output code (Figs. 2-3, TDC, time-to-digital converter, Detailed Description, [0044-0047]; See also Detailed Description, [0063-0066] on output voltages).
Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first sine wave is an envelope of the second sine wave.
However, Hu does provide the suggestion of the first sine wave involves modulating the second sine wave (See Fig. 2, Detailed Description, [0044-0046], “The SO's 104 nominal center frequency, e.g., f.sub.C=5 MHz, e.g., tunable via varactor, is perturbed by an amount Δf due to the sensed capacitance. The SO 104 output is hen fed to a mixer 106, e.g., differential Gilbert mixer, and modulated down using a fixed local oscillator (LO) 108”).
Kim, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a sine wave code generator (Figs . 4-5, Detailed Description, [0050]) wherein the first sine wave is an envelope of the second sine wave (Figs . 4-5, Detailed Description, [0050-0061], “The driving circuit unit 320 may apply predetermined driving signals to the plurality of first electrodes X1 to Xm of the panel unit 310. The driving signals may be square wave signals, sine wave signals, triangle wave signals, or the like, having a predetermined period and amplitude and be sequentially applied to each of the plurality of first electrodes X1 to Xm…The signal converting unit 340 may generate digital signals S.sub.D from the analog signals output from the sensing circuit unit 330. A…According to an example, the edge extracting unit 354 may detect an envelope of the digital signals S.sub.D and may use the detected envelope as the edges of the digital signal S.sub.D.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have modified the window function code generator and the sine wave code generator of Hu to include the teachings of Kim to provide wherein the first sine wave is an envelope of the second sine wave. The motivation to combine these arts is to detect an envelope of the signals to extract the edges (See Kim, Summary, [0011][0018]). The fact that Hu suggests modulating the second sine wave, and the fact that Kim also is in the endeavor of filtering noise from touch sensing signals (See Hu, Summary, [0008-0010]) within display devices, makes this combination more easily implemented.
Regarding claim 2, Hu further discloses wherein the operation circuit comprises:
a multiplier, receiving the first code and the second code, generating a third code by multiplying the first code with the second code (Figs. 2-3, mixer, #106; Deatiled Description, [0044-0045], “The SO's 104 nominal center frequency, e.g., f.sub.C=5 MHz, e.g., tunable via varactor, is perturbed by an amount Δf due to the sensed capacitance. The SO 104 output is hen fed to a mixer 106, e.g., differential Gilbert mixer, and modulated down using a fixed local oscillator (LO) 108”; a mixer is a multiplier of two codes); and
an adder, coupled to the multiplier, generating the output code by adding a shift code with the third code (Fig. 2-3, offset, #112; Detailed Description, [0044-0045], “The nominal SO and LO frequencies are offset by f.sub.OFFSET, e.g., tunable by varactor, to give a minimum f.sub.SENSE, which sets both the maximum output range of the time-to-digital converter (TDC) 118 as well as the maximum scan rate. In this example f.sub.OFFSET can be set from 5 kHz to 20 kHz. f.sub.SENSE is amplified via a preamp 114, e.g., 2-stage preamp and a comparator 116 before being provided to the TDC 118.”; an offset shifts the third code).
Thus, it would have remained obvious to combine Hu and Kim in the manner of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Hu further discloses wherein the window function code generator adjusts a value of the first code in a time sequence correspond to an amplitude of the first sine wave, the sine wave code generator adjusts a value of the second code in the time sequence correspond to an amplitude of the second sine wave (Detailed Description, [0046], “With f.sub.SENSE modulated to a low frequency, amplitude noise with respect to a zero-crossing reference can substantially degrade sensitivity, causing noise in the TDC output. To mitigate amplitude noise, the 2-stage preamp, based on diode-connected PMOS loads, provides a gain of 6 per stage with noise filtering at a cutoff frequency of 200 kHz per stage, set by 5 pF capacitors at each output”; See also [0058], “Frequency down conversion is performed via a differential Gilbert mixer, and frequency-channel isolation is achieved on the down-converted signal by a second-order low-pass filter (LPF). The LPF cutoff frequency is set at 20 kHz, which results a minimum amplitude suppression of 26 dB from adjacent channels. The resulting output is amplified into a frequency-modulated digital signal using a two-stage preamplifier and a continuous-time hysteretic comparator.”).
Thus, it would have remained obvious to combine Hu and Kim in the manner of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Kim, further in view of Park et al., World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No. WO 2013/058446 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Hu in combination with Kim discloses every element of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein a maximum voltage of the touch driving voltage is larger than a display driving voltage of the touch display device, and a minimum voltage is smaller than the display driving voltage of the touch display device.
Park, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a driving signal generator that provide the suggestion of modifying the maximum voltage of the touch driving voltage, the minimum voltage of the touch driving voltage and a display driving voltage of the touch display device (See Figs. 3-4, Fig. 13, Vsrc, [10-17], “Second, the method of increasing the amplitude of the driving signal is a method of increasing the amplitude of the driving signal of the touch sensor panel to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the output signal of the receiving circuit unit to one or more…“In addition, the touch sensor circuit is a touch sensor using a driving clock generator 400 for generating a periodic signal to be applied to the touch sensor panel 200, Vsrc and Vchop which are output signals of the driving signal generator. The driver 300 converts the driving signal Vdrv, which is a signal for driving the panel 200, and the reception circuit unit 500, which processes a signal received from the touch sensor panel 200.”; See next Fig. 15, “However, the waveforms shown in FIG. 15 require an additional logic circuit not shown in FIG. 22 to generate the Vchop signal when k = 2 in FIG. The level converter 410 of FIG. 22 converts the GCLK signal having a large amplitude (e.g., -5V, + 25V) into a GCLKs signal having a small amplitude of a digital level suitable for a touch sensor chip.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the maximum voltage of the touch driving voltage, the minimum voltage of the touch driving voltage and a display driving voltage of the touch display device in such a way wherein a maximum voltage of the touch driving voltage is larger than a display driving voltage of the touch display device, and a minimum voltage is smaller than the display driving voltage of the touch display device, as suggested by Park. The motivation to make this modification of setting driving voltages is a matter of a design choice and would have been pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation, for purposes of reducing noise (See Park, Tech-Problem and Tech-Solution). The fact that Hu, Kim and Park are directed towards solving the same problem of reducing noise within touch driving generators, makes this combination more easily implemented.
Regarding claim 5, Hu in combination with Kim and Park disclose or suggest every element of claim 4 but do not explicitly disclose wherein the first code is varied between a first value and a second value, wherein the second value is half of the first value, the second code is varied between a third value and a fourth value, wherein a summation of the third value and the fourth value is 0.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that varying values of a code sequence is well known in the art of signal generation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first code and second code to provide wherein the first code is varied between a first value and a second value, wherein the second value is half of the first value, the second code is varied between a third value and a fourth value, wherein a summation of the third value and the fourth value is 0. Such a sequencing of codes is a matter of design choice and would have been pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Hu in combination with Kim discloses every element of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein a minimum voltage or a maximum voltage of the touch driving voltage is equal to a display driving voltage of the touch display device.
Park, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a driving signal generator that provide the suggestion of modifying the maximum voltage of the touch driving voltage, the minimum voltage of the touch driving voltage and a display driving voltage of the touch display device e (See Figs. 3-4, Fig. 13, Vsrc, [10-17], “Second, the method of increasing the amplitude of the driving signal is a method of increasing the amplitude of the driving signal of the touch sensor panel to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the output signal of the receiving circuit unit to one or more…“In addition, the touch sensor circuit is a touch sensor using a driving clock generator 400 for generating a periodic signal to be applied to the touch sensor panel 200, Vsrc and Vchop which are output signals of the driving signal generator. The driver 300 converts the driving signal Vdrv, which is a signal for driving the panel 200, and the reception circuit unit 500, which processes a signal received from the touch sensor panel 200.”; See next Fig. 15, “However, the waveforms shown in FIG. 15 require an additional logic circuit not shown in FIG. 22 to generate the Vchop signal when k = 2 in FIG. The level converter 410 of FIG. 22 converts the GCLK signal having a large amplitude (e.g., -5V, + 25V) into a GCLKs signal having a small amplitude of a digital level suitable for a touch sensor chip.”)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the maximum voltage of the touch driving voltage, the minimum voltage of the touch driving voltage and a display driving voltage of the touch display device in such a way wherein a minimum voltage or a maximum voltage of the touch driving voltage is equal to a display driving voltage of the touch display device., as suggested by Park. The motivation to make this modification of setting driving voltages is a matter of a design choice and would have been pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation, for purposes of reducing noise (See Park, Tech-Problem and Tech-Solution). The fact that Hu, Kim and Park are directed towards solving the same problem of reducing noise within touch driving generators, makes this combination more easily implemented.
Regarding claim 7, Hu in combination with Kim and Park disclose or suggest every element of claim 6 but do not explicitly disclose wherein the first code is varied between a first value and 0, the second code is varied between a second value and a third value, wherein a summation of the second value and the third value is 0.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that varying values of a code sequence is well known in the art of signal generation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first code and second code to provide wherein the first code is varied between a first value and 0, the second code is varied between a second value and a third value, wherein a summation of the second value and the third value is 0. Such a sequencing of codes is a matter of design choice and would have been pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Kim, and further in view of Roberson et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0067495 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Hu in combination with Kim discloses every element of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal converter is a digital to analog converter.
Roberson, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a driving signal generator wherein the signal converter is a digital to analog converter (Detailed Description, [0057]; See also Detailed Description. [0075][0113] and claim 4 of Roberson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the signal converter of the combination of Hu-Kim to provide wherein the signal converter is a digital to analog converter, as taught in Roberson. The motivation to combine these arts is to create analog voltage waveforms (See Roberson, Detailed Description, [0057]). The fact that Hu, Kim and Roberson disclose similar types of driving signal generators with interference immunity makes this combination more easily implemented.
Regarding claim 13, Hu in combination with Kim discloses every element of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first code and the second code are digital code.
However, Kim provides the suggestion of a portion of the code being digital code (See Kim, Detailed Description, [0050-0061]).
Roberson, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a driving signal generator wherein the first code and the second code are digital code (Detailed Description, [0056-0057], “Capacitive touch sensing devices, including those incorporating TDDI chips, use a drive signal for capacitive sensing. The processing system 110 can include a waveform generator. In one embodiment, the waveform generator may be a direct digital synthesizer (DDS) circuit. The waveform generator may also be referred to as a digital signal generator or a digital waveform generator. In one embodiment, touch sensing may refer to performing capacitive sensing to detect one or more input objects (e.g., input objects 140) that are positioned within sensing region 120 of the input device 100…. In one or more embodiments, the waveform generator may include synchronous digital circuitry that reads digital data from a RAM table and clocks the data into a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) to create waveforms. For example, the waveform generator may include a digital block that outputs an 8-bit code that drives the DAC”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the signal converter of Hu to provide w wherein the first code and the second code are digital code, as taught in Roberson. The motivation to combine these arts is to create use digital datal circuitry to read digital data to create waveforms (See Roberson, Detailed Description, [0057]). The fact that Hu, Kim and Roberson disclose similar types of driving signal generators with interference immunity makes this combination more easily implemented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 remain 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose the driving signal generator, further comprising:
a voltage shifting code generator, generating a third code corresponding to a ramp wave;
a first switch, coupled between the operation circuit and the signal converter, controlled by a first control signal to provide the output code to the signal converter; and
a second switch, coupled between the voltage shifting code generator and the signal converter, controlled by a second control signal to provide the third code to the signal converter.
The cited references do not teach nor suggest the additional structural, functional, and relational aspects of dependent claim 8, in addition to the base elements of the independent claim.
The remaining claims are dependent off of claim 8 and are allowed as a result of their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWIN XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7812. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/KWIN XIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626