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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 December 2025 has been entered.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
It recites:
“a compensation capacitance disposed in the non-pad portion,
“wherein the compensation capacitance comprises a compensation pattern and the common electrode layer”
This language does not distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. The reason is the compensation capacitance is not a physical object. It is an electrical field between two parts of the display. It does not comprise a compensation pattern and a common electrode layer – it is an electrical potential between them.
This is like claiming “a beam of light” and then saying “wherein the beam of light comprises a flashlight.” The beam of light is not the flashlight. It is produced by it. Similarly the compensation capacitance is between the compensation pattern and the common electrode layer, but the compensation capacitance does not comprise those.
The specification does disclose all of these elements – the compensation capacitance, the compensation pattern, and the common electrode layer. But the language of the claim needs to reflect what these elements are and are not.
It would probably be clearer if it stated something like:
“a compensation pattern disposed in the non-pad portion;
“a compensation capacitance between the compensation pattern and the common electrode layer.”
That would make it clear that the compensation pattern and common electrode layer are part of the structure of the display device, and the capacitance is between these elements. Note that new claim 21 contains language along these lines already.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 21:
They are dependent on claim 1
Regarding claim 19:
This contains similar language where it recites “a compensation capacitance disposed in the non-pad portion”….”wherein the compensation capacitance comprises the extension portion and the common electrode layer.” The compensation capacitance may be between these elements but it cannot really be said to “comprise” them.
Regarding claims 20 and 22:
They are dependent on claim 19.
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) 1-2, 10-11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0167037)
Claim 1
1. (Currently Amended) A display device, comprising:
Abstract: "touch display device"
a substrate including a display area and a non-display area surrounding the display area;
Fig. 2, paragraph 88: "active area AA" and "nonactive area NA"
a plurality of sub pixels disposed in the display area, and including a cathode electrode in a common electrode layer;
Paragraph 89: multiple subpixels," paragraph 104: "cathode electrode"
a plurality of touch lines in the display area;
Paragraph 144
a pad portion connected to the plurality of touch lines;
Fig. 8: X-TP, Y-TP
a non-pad portion provided over the substrate and disposed in the non-display area facing the pad portion, the display area between the non-pad portion and the pad portion; and
As seen in, e.g., Fig. 12, where the compensation patterns CPTN are displayed in the non-display area, and the display area is between them and the pad area as seen in the figure
a compensation capacitance disposed in the non-pad portion,
As per, e.g., Fig. 15, capacitance Cpb
wherein the compensation capacitance comprises a compensation pattern and the common electrode layer,
It is between the compensation pattern CPTN1 and CPTN2, which is connected to the cathode electrode E2
wherein the compensation pattern is disposed in the non-pad portion and is connected with at least one of the plurality of touch lines,
Paragraph 263, where it is the non-display area NA as seen in Fig. 15
wherein the common electrode layer overlaps with the display area and partially overlaps with the non-display area,
Fig. 15: E2
wherein the compensation pattern overlaps with the common electrode layer, and
As seen in Fig. 15
wherein the common electrode layer functions as the cathode electrode of the plurality of sub pixels.
Paragraph 104
Regarding claim 2:
Lee discloses:
a plurality of signal lines in the display area; a plurality of signal link lines in the non-display area, each connected between a signal line of the plurality of signal lines of the display area and the pad portion (paragraph 91); and a plurality of touch link lines in the non-display area, each connected between a touch line of the plurality of touch lines and the pad portion (shown in, e.g., Fig. 12), wherein the plurality of signal link lines are disposed in a different layer from the plurality of touch link lines (paragraph 277 discloses the signal lines are on the TFT layer, and as can be seen in Fig. 13 this is different than the touch link lines).
Regarding claim 10:
Lee discloses:
wherein the non-pad portion is opposite to where the pad portion is disposed in the non-display area of the substrate, with the display area between the non-pad portion and the pad portion (true of at least some of the compensation patterns CPTN in Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 11:
Lee discloses:
wherein the display area further includes:
a plurality of transmission areas; and a non-transmission area disposed between the plurality of transmission areas (shown in, e.g., Fig. 10, where the black matrix BM is a non-transmission area and the areas between are transmission areas).
Regarding claim 21:
Lee discloses:
wherein the compensation pattern is at a level different from the common electrode layer and is configured to form the compensation capacitance between the compensation pattern and the common electrode layer (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 19:
Most elements of this claim have already been discussed with respect to claim 1.
Lee discloses:
wherein at least one touch line of the plurality of touch lines includes an extension portion that extends into the non-pad portion (since the compensation capacitance is connected to the touch lines, they can be considered “extension portions” and are arranged in the non-pad portion as already discussed).
Regarding claim 22:
Lee discloses:
wherein the extension portion is at a level different from the common electrode layer and is configured to form the compensation capacitance between the extension portion and the common electrode layer (as seen in Fig. 15).
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.
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park et al. (US 2020/02101468)
Regarding claim 3:
Lee discloses a display device as discussed above.
Lee does not disclose:
“wherein a touch link line of the plurality of touch link lines overlaps a signal link line of the plurality of signal link lines.”
Park discloses:
wherein a touch link line of the plurality of touch link lines overlaps a signal link line of the plurality of signal link lines (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Lee the elements taught by Park.
The rationale is as follows:
Lee and Park are directed to the same field of art.
Although Lee mentions the signal link lines, it is directed to the touch lines and never describes the signal link lines in detail. Park shows how they could be implemented. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Regarding claim 4:
Lee in view of Park discloses:
wherein an interval between each two immediately adjacent ones of the plurality of signal link lines and an interval between each two immediately adjacent ones of the plurality of touch link lines increase as they become closer to the display area from the pad portion (this can be seen in, e.g., Park Fig. 11A, where the lines begin to slant).
Regarding claim 5:
Lee in view of Park discloses:
comprising a touch link area and a signal link area in a portion between the display area and the pad portion in the non-display area, wherein the plurality of touch link lines are disposed in the touch link area and the plurality of signal link lines are disposed in the signal link area, and wherein the touch link area and the signal link area are partially overlapped with each other (follows from, e.g., Park Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6:
Lee in view of Park discloses:
wherein a dimension of each of the touch link area and the signal link area increases along a direction moving from the pad portion to the display area (shown in, e.g., Park Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7:
Lee in view of Park discloses:
wherein an overlap area between the touch link area and the signal link area increases along a direction moving from the pad portion to the display area (as seen in Park Fig. 8 they are almost completely overlapped at the top).
Regarding claim 8:
Lee in view of Park discloses:
wherein a touch link line and a signal link line disposed in an overlap area between the touch link area and the signal link area overlap one another (shown in , e.g., Park Fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 9:
Lee in view of Park discloses:
wherein the touch link line disposed in the overlap area between the touch link area and the signal link area overlaps with a number of signal link lines, the number of signal lines varying according to a size of the overlap area (follows from, e.g., Park Fig. 11A, for two reasons: first each of the data lines shown here are actually two lines DLL1 and DLL2, so every touch line TLL overlaps with at least two; also, as can be seen at the bottom, if the area is just a little larger the touch lines will cross a second set of data lines in some cases).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 17-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
These claims were discussed in the Office Action mailed 10 September 2025. The newly cited Lee also does not disclose every element of the claims, including a dummy compensation pattern overlapping with the compensation pattern in the non-pad portion, and in a different layer from the compensation pattern, the dummy compensation pattern being an electrically floated island electrode pattern, wherein the dummy compensation pattern is at a level between the compensation pattern and the common electrode layer. Note that Lee does have a dummy compensation pattern overlapping with the compensation pattern (see, e.g., Fig. 13, CPTN2) but it is not an electrically floated island electrode pattern. This element in combination with the other elements of the claim renders it allowable over Lee.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (pages 7-8) that the new language renders the claims allowable over Park and (page 9) Saito in view of Park, respectively.
Although the Examiner doesn’t necessarily agree with every part of these arguments, it is agreed that Park and/or Saito in view of Park do not disclose the new language of the claims in their entirety.
However, Lee is now relied upon for some of these claims.
Note too that the new language of the claims has some 112 issues (noted above). For this reason, although claim 20 contains the same subject matter that made claim 12 allowable, it has not been indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622