DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for Application No. 18634082 on April 12, 2024. Please note claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “control unit” in claims 1, 2 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): control unit (Figs. 5, 8 and 15-29, [0042] whereby the control unit 300 may include a comparator and an ADC; [0043] discloses that the control unit 300 may be integrated as a control chip; [0039]-[0043], [0074], [0084], [0092]-[0093], [0097], ...[0167]-[0168] disclose that the control unit 300 provides functionalities including driving timing, outputting differential signals by subtracting/differentiating to detect touch position, analog-to-digital converting, etc., which is understood by one skilled in the art that these functionalities could be mapped into software code to be executed by general purpose processing/control chip as structure for the control unit 300). The prior art consideration of the claims below will interpret “control unit” accordingly.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 20230152924 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20160370940 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses: A touch input device (see Fig. 1, display device DD comprising display panel DP and input sensing unit ISU) comprising:
a display panel having a plurality of scan lines (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, display panel DP comprising plurality of scan lines GL);
a touch sensor (see Fig. 3, input sensing unit ISU) comprising a plurality of driving electrodes arranged in the same direction as the scan line and a plurality of receiving electrodes arranged in a direction different from the scan line (see Figs. 1-3, Fig. 6, first sensing electrodes IE1-1 to IE1-5 are arranged in the same direction as the scan lines GL and plurality of second sensing electrodes IE2-1 to IE2-4 are arranged in a direction different from the scan lines as illustrated in figures); and
a control unit (see Fig. 6A, [0142], input sensing circuit IS-C) configured to perform a touch scan so that driving signals are applied to two or more driving electrodes of the plurality of driving electrodes (see Fig. 6A, [0145], discloses driving signals may be simultaneously or sequentially provided to the first sensing electrodes IE1-1 to IE1-5),
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit controls a driving timing of the touch scan so that the scan line to which a display scan signal is applied of the plurality of scan lines and the driving electrodes to which the driving signals are applied are not in overlap with each other in terms of time and space.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the touch panel display device, Zhao teaches wherein the control unit controls a driving timing of the touch scan so that the scan line to which a display scan signal is applied of the plurality of scan lines and the driving electrodes to which the driving signals are applied are not in overlap with each other in terms of time and space (see Figs.1, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0038]-[0040], discloses during the first touch frame and the second touch frame, when there is an overlap between the touch scanning region corresponding to the current touch driving line and the display scanning region corresponding to the last display scanning line on which a display scanning operation is implemented, with the touch display driving method for reducing a touch noise according to the embodiment of the present disclosure, the display scanning operation is implemented normally, and the touch scanning operation skips the touch scanning region corresponding to the touch driving line Tx X which overlaps with the display scanning region, to scan a touch scanning region corresponding to a touch driving line Tx X+i behind the touch driving line Tx X, as shown in FIG. 5d, and then returns to scan the touch scanning region corresponding to the touch driving line Tx X in a next touch scanning period. As shown in FIG. 5e, this effectively avoids an overlap between a touch scanning region and a display scanning region at a certain time, so as to thoroughly solve the problem that a touch noise occurs due to the overlap between the touch scanning region and the display scanning region at a certain time, thereby largely improving the sensitivity of a touch operation).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Jeong and Jhao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touch and display driving method of the touch input device as taught by Jeong with Jhao’s teachings of the control unit controls a driving timing of the touch scan so that the scan line to which a display scan signal is applied of the plurality of scan lines and the driving electrodes to which the driving signals are applied are not in overlap with each other in terms of time and space in order to effectively avoids an overlap between a touch scanning region and a display scanning region at a certain time, so as to thoroughly solve the problem that a touch noise occurs due to the overlap between the touch scanning region and the display scanning region at a certain time, thereby largely improving the sensitivity of a touch operation (Jhao, [0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong in view of Jhao The touch input device of claim 1, wherein the control unit sequentially performs the touch scan a plurality of times on all of the plurality of driving electrodes (see Fig. 6A, [0145], discloses the driving signals may be sequentially provided to the first sensing electrodes IE1-1 to IE1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong in view of Jhao The touch input device of claim 1, Jeong further teaches wherein the touch sensor is disposed in the display panel (see Fig. 1, input sensing unit ISU is disposed in the display panel DP).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong in view of Jhao The touch input device of claim 1, Jeong further teaches wherein the touch sensor is disposed on or below the display panel (see Fig. 1, input sensing unit ISU is disposed in the display panel DP).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong in view of Jhao The touch input device of claim 1, Jeong further teaches wherein each of the plurality of receiving electrodes comprises a first receiving electrode and a second receiving electrode, and the control unit detects a touch position of an object based on a differential signal obtained by differentiating a first sensing signal from the first receiving electrode and a second sensing signal from the second receiving electrode (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6, [0147], [0154], discloses second sensing electrodes IE2-1 to IE2-4 comprises plurality of second sensor units SP2, and input sensing circuit IS-C detects a touch position of an object based on differential signal of the driving signals and sensing signal of the touch sensors).
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 20230152924 A1) in view of Zhao (US 20160370940 A1), further in view of Jo et al. (US 20220155937 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Jeong in view of Jhao teaches the limitations of parent claim 3. Jeong in view of Jhao does not explicitly teach wherein each of the driving signals is obtained by continuing a code expressed as either 1 or -1 for each predetermined time period as many as the number of the driving electrodes, and a code value of a sum of the codes of the driving signals for each time period is 4 or 0.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the touch input device and driving method, Jo teaches wherein each of the driving signals is obtained by continuing a code expressed as either 1 or -1 for each predetermined time period as many as the number of the driving electrodes, and a code value of a sum of the codes of the driving signals for each time period is 4 or 0 (see Fig. 2, Figs. 5, Fig. 10, discloses touch panel display device and driving method in which each of the driving signals is obtained by continuing a code expressed as either 1 or -1 for each predetermined time period as many as the number of the driving electrodes and a code value of a sum of the codes of the driving signals for each time period is 4 or 0 as shown in timing diagram).
Therefore, in view of teachings of Jeong in view of Jhao and Jo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touch driving method of touch input device as taught by Jeong and Jhao with Jo’s teachings of wherein each of the driving signals is obtained by continuing a code expressed as either 1 or -1 for each predetermined time period as many as the number of the driving electrodes, and a code value of a sum of the codes of the driving signals for each time period is 4 or 0 in order to reduce the signal interference/noise due to parasitic capacitance and improve the touch sensitivity of the touch input device (Jo, [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 7-20 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.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takagi et al (US 20150193053 A1) discloses similar disclosure of touch input display device and driving method without overlapping the touch driving area and display scanning area (see Figs. 5-7 and corresponding descriptions).
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA P. NEUPANE whose telephone number is (571)270-7291. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISHNA P NEUPANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629