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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 27 January 2026, in which:
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending.
Claims 2 and 17 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 Office acknowledges the amendment to Claims 3 and 17. The rejections to claims 2 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are WITHDRAWN.
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 of this title, 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 1, 3, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt et al. (US 2013/0176251, hereinafter “Wyatt”) in view of Shaw (US 2019/0317630).
With respect to Claim 1, Wyatt teaches a touch control display apparatus, comprising a touch control display panel; and a display and touch control driver connected to the touch control display panel (Wyatt: Para. [0025], Fig. 2, display 215 and a touch sensor 220 overlaid on the display, display control module 225 and a touch sensor control module 230);
wherein the display and touch control driver comprises one or more touch integrated circuits, an oscillator, and a timing controller chip (Wyatt: Para. [0027], Fig. 2, display control module 225 and touch control module 230 are the claimed timing controller and touch IC. The synch module 235 is the oscillator.); and
the oscillator is configured to provide a same clock signal to the one or more touch integrated circuits and the timing controller chip (Wyatt: Para. [0034], Wyatt discloses that the display and touch control modules share a common clock, thus this limitation is fully met).
Wyatt teaches that its "synchronizer module 235 is adapted to interleave the touch sensor scan cycles with the blanking periods of the video display signal" (Wyatt: Para. [0024], Wyatt discloses synchronizing touch scanning with the display's vertical and horizontal blanking intervals, which are defined by Hsync and Vsync signals). Wyatt fails to expressly disclose the timing controller chip is configured to provide a horizontal synchronization signal and a vertical synchronization signal to the one or more touch integrated circuits.
However, Shaw teaches the timing controller chip is configured to provide a horizontal synchronization signal and a vertical synchronization signal to the one or more touch integrated circuits (Shaw: Para. [0004], [0024], Fig. 1, explicitly teaches that in a TDDI circuit, the “display circuit should transmit at least one signal to the touch circuit, such as touch scanning frame synchronization signal (TSVD) and touch scanning line synchronization signal (TSHD).” These function as the claimed vertical and horizontal synchronization signals for the touch circuit, thus this limitation is fully met).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the touch control display apparatus, as taught by Wyatt, to incorporate a transmission path where the display driver circuit transmits at least one signal (such as a touch scanning frame synchronization signal (TSVD) and a touch scanning line synchronization signal (TSHD)) to the touch circuit, as taught by Shaw, in order to coordinate the display timing and the touch timing efficiently (Shaw: Para. [0024] – [0025]).
Claim 3 is obvious over the combination of Wyatt as modified by Shaw, as Wyatt's primary embodiment in FIG. 2 discloses a single touch sensor control module (230), teaching the limitation of a single touch integrated circuit.
Claim 15 is the method equivalent of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 21 is obvious over Wyatt as modified by Shaw. The addition of a "clock buffer" would have been an obvious design choice to a POSITA to ensure signal integrity when distributing the "common clock" of Wyatt to the different modules, as clock buffers are standard components for this purpose. See the supporting product documentation of Microchip Technology Inc. attached herewith.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view of Shaw, and further in view of General Knowledge.
With respect to Claim 2 (Currently Amended), the combination of Wyatt in view of Shaw and POSITA discloses the touch control display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a load capacity of the oscillator is greater than a sum of a first total load and a second total load;
the first total load includes a first internal load associated with the one or more touch integrated circuits and a load on a signal line connecting the oscillator and the one or more touch integrated circuits; and
the second total load includes a second internal load associated with the timing controller chip's internal oscillator and a load on a signal line connecting the oscillator and the timing controller chip (This limitation recites a fundamental principle of electrical engineering. A POSITA designing the circuit of Wyatt would inherently select an oscillator with sufficient drive strength (load capacity) to power all connected components (the loads) as a matter of routine design consideration to ensure proper operation.).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view Shaw, as applied above, and further in view of “Synchronization Technique of Multi-Chip Cascade Architecture for Automotive TDDI," attached herewith, hereinafter “SID Paper”.
With respect to Claim 4, Wyatt as modified by Shaw provides the base TDDI architecture.
The combination of Wyatt as modified by Shaw fails to expressly disclose multiple TDDI chips.
However, the SID Paper teaches that for "scaling to larger screen sizes for automotive applications with a TDDI architecture, multiple TDDI chips are needed. See Abstract, the SID Paper explicitly discloses using multiple touch/display chips to create larger screens.
Additionally, the regarding limitation, “the timing controller chip is configured to provide a horizontal synchronization signal and a vertical synchronization signal to the first touch integrated circuit and the second touch integrated circuit; and the oscillator is configured to provide a same clock signal to the first touch integrated circuit, the second touch integrated circuit, and the timing controller chip”:
These are obvious extensions of the base system of Wyatt as modified by Shaw and the SID Paper. If multiple touch ICs are used, they must all be synchronized to the same display signals and share the same clock reference to function correctly as a single, larger touch surface. The SID Paper's central theme is that "synchronization among the plurality of chips becomes the key factor." See Abstract, the SID Paper teaches that all chips in a multi-chip system must be synchronized, rendering this limitation obvious.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of the SID Paper with the system of Wyatt as modified by Shaw for the predictable purpose of creating a larger touch-screen display. The SID Paper explicitly addresses the problem of scaling TDDI architectures, making its teachings directly applicable to Wyatt's base system.
Claim 16 is the method equivalent of claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view Shaw and the SID Paper, as applied above, and further in view General Knowledge.
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of Wyatt as modified by Shaw and the SID Paper discloses the touch control display apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the display and touch control driver further comprises a clock buffer configured to receive an input clock signal generated by the oscillator, generate multiple output clock signals that have the same frequency and phase as the input signal, and output the output clock signals to the timing controller chip and at least one of the one or more touch integrated circuits, respectively”:
A POSITA implementing the multi-chip system taught by the SID Paper on Wyatt's shared-clock architecture would encounter the known engineering problem of "fan-out," where a single clock source may not have sufficient drive strength to provide a clean signal to multiple destinations. It would have been obvious to use a clock buffer, a standard, commercially available component designed for this exact purpose, to regenerate and distribute the clock signal (see attached supporting document to Microchip Technology Inc., which states, "We offer one of the most extensive selections of clock buffers with two to 22 outputs," which demonstrates that multi-output clock buffers are well-known solutions for signal distribution).
Claim 6 is obvious over the combination for claim 5. It recites a routine implementation of a standard multi-output clock buffer to connect the components of the combined Wyatt and SID Paper system. Such buffers are commercially available with numerous outputs, making a 3-output configuration for a 3-chip system a simple design choice (see attached supporting document to Microchip Technology Inc., that states, "Our clock buffer family includes fanout buffers... with two to 22 outputs").
Claim 17 is the method equivalent of claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view of Shaw and the SID Paper.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the first touch integrated circuit and the second touch integrated circuit are cascaded; the first touch integrated circuit and the second touch integrated circuit are further configured to transmit a clock synchronization signal between each other; and the clock synchronization signal is configured for clock signal synchronization between the first touch integrated circuit and the second touch integrated circuit.”
Claim 7 is an fundamental and necessary implementation detail of the “cascaded” architecture recited in claim 8. As such the two claims are inextricably linked.
The SID Paper explicitly teaches this architecture: "...we have successfully achieved a cascaded TDDI architecture by this technique" and introduces "techniques for synchronization... among a plurality of chips" (Abstract, the SID Paper discloses a cascaded architecture with inter-chip synchronization, thus these limitations are fully met).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of the SID Paper with the system of Wyatt as modified by Shaw for the predictable purpose of creating a larger touch-screen display. The SID Paper provides a specific, known method (cascading) for implementing the multi-chip system taught to be desirable for larger screens.
Rejection of Claims 9, 10, 11 and 18 over Wyatt in view of Shaw, as applied above, and further in view of Falkenburg et al. (US 2012/0331546, hereafter “Falkenburg”).
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of Wyatt in view of Shaw teaches the touch control display apparatus of claim 1.
Wyatt as modified by Shaw fail to expressly disclose multiple TDDI chips.
However, the SID Paper teaches that for "scaling to larger screen sizes for automotive applications with a TDDI architecture, multiple TDDI chips are needed. See Abstract, the SID Paper explicitly discloses using multiple touch/display chips to create larger screens.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of the SID Paper with the system of Wyatt as modified by Shaw for the predictable purpose of creating a larger touch-screen display. The SID Paper explicitly addresses the problem of scaling TDDI architectures, making its teachings directly applicable to Wyatt's base system.
The combination of Wyatt in view of Shaw and the SID paper fails to expressly disclose:
the first touch integrated circuit is configured to process touch signals generated in a first mode, and the second touch integrated circuit is configured to process touch signals generated in a second mode.
However, Falkenburg teaches a system that transitions between a "low power mode" and a "full power mode" based on stylus activity (Falkenburg, Para. [0039], discloses switching power modes based on stylus use).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA, motivated by the goal of maximizing power savings as taught by Falkenburg, to implement these modes using two specialized ICs. This is a common design pattern in SoC design where a simple, low-power block handles baseline functions, and a complex, high-power block is activated only when needed, allowing it to be completely power-gated for maximum efficiency.
Claims 10 and 11 are obvious over the combination for claim 9. Falkenburg's "low power mode" would logically correspond to a finger-only detection mode (Claim 10), while the "full power mode" activated by the stylus would correspond to a combined finger and stylus detection mode (Claim 11). The prior art teaches systems capable of detecting both fingers and a stylus (Falkenburg, Para. [0002]).
Claim 18 is the method equivalent of claims 9, 10, and 11, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt in view of Shaw, Falkenburg, as applied above, and further in view of Hou et al. (2018/0024650, hereinafter “Hou”).
With respect to Claim 12, the combination of Wyatt as modified by Shaw and Falkenburg teach the touch control display apparatus of claim 9.
Falkenburg teaches an "intelligent stylus" with "multiple sensors," a "microcontroller" (stylus driving chip), and a "transmitter" (wireless communication module) (Abstract; FIG. 2, 5, Falkenburg discloses a stylus with sensors and wireless communication).
The combination fails to expressly disclose:
one or more sensors including at least one of a grip sensor and an acceleration sensor.
However Hou further teaches a stylus that may have "grip sensors" and an "accelerometer to determine its orientation" (Hou: Abstract, discloses a stylus with grip and motion sensors, thus this limitation is fully met).
Falkenburg teaches a stylus with sensors to determine its condition. Hou teaches specific types of sensors (grip, accelerometer) that are well-suited for this purpose. A POSITA would have found it obvious to use the specific sensors of Hou in the intelligent stylus system of Falkenburg to reliably detect user interaction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14 and 19 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.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-19 and 21 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
On the Remarks page 10, Applicants argue that Wyatt never discloses an oscillator and that a "common clock" can arise from any internal timing generator. The Office respectfully disagrees. Wyatt explicitly teaches that modules "share a common clock". In the field of digital integrated circuit design, a "clock signal" is the functional output of an oscillator circuit (e.g., a crystal oscillator, RC oscillator, or PLL driven by an oscillator). To a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), generating or sharing a clock signal inherently requires an oscillator as the root source. Thus, the shared-oscillator architecture is at least an obvious implementation of Wyatt's shared clock.
On the Remarks page 10, Applicants argue that Shaw's signals (TSVD/TSHD) are for touch timing only and do not indicate display frame/line starts. The Office respectfully disagrees. In the context of Touch and Display Driver Integration (TDDI), synchronization is required to align touch scanning within the display's blanking intervals to avoid noise. Shaw’s signals—TSVD (Touch Scanning Vertical Definition) and TSHD (Touch Scanning Horizontal Definition)—function precisely as synchronization signals provided from the display driver to the touch circuit to align its operations with the display frame. Labeling these signals based on their destination (touch) rather than their source (display timing) is a difference in terminology, not functional timing control.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625