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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18 contains new matter.
Regarding claim 18, the original specification does not teach that the first touch pixel and second touch pixel are directly adjacent while also having a ground bar directly between them and that the second touch pixel and third touch pixel are directly adjacent while also having a ground bar directly between them. The original specification teaches that if the ground bars are considered part of the touch pixels (i.e. not between the touch pixels), the touch pixels are directly adjacent, or, if the touch pixels are considered to extend to a higher surface level (for user interaction) than the ground bars, the touch pixels may be considered directly adjacent on a touch surface level with the ground bars between the touch pixels from plan view. See Figs. 6G, 6I.
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, 4-6, 10, and 14 are rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2015/0002752 A1 (“Shepelev”)
Regarding claim 1, Shepelev teaches a mutual capacitance touch sensor panel ([77], [81]), comprising:
a plurality of drive electrodes formed in a first layer, each drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes extending along a first direction ([79], [81]);
a plurality of sense electrodes formed in a second layer different from the first layer, each sense electrode of the plurality of sense electrodes extending along a second direction different from the first direction ([43]; Fig. 7 at 304); and
a plurality of first ground bars formed in the first layer ([79], [81]), wherein the plurality of drive electrodes, the plurality of sense electrodes, and the plurality of first ground bars are included in an array of touch pixels, each touch pixel in the array of touch pixels including one drive electrode and one sense electrode ([44]; Fig. 7), the array of touch pixels including:
a first touch pixel (Fig. 7 at area corresponding to intersection of top 706 & left 304) adjacent to a second touch pixel (Fig. 7 at second 706 & left 304), and a third touch pixel (Fig. 7 at fourth 706 & left 304) adjacent to the second touch pixel disposed with a first ground bar (Fig. 7 at top 708) of the plurality of ground bars between the first touch pixel and the second touch pixel (Fig. 7) and a second ground bar (Fig. 7 at second 708) of the plurality of ground bars between the second touch pixel and the third touch pixel, wherein the first ground bar extends along the first direction and the second ground bar extends along the second direction (Fig. 7 at 708).
Regarding claim 4, Shepelev teaches wherein the plurality of drive electrodes and the plurality of ground bars are disposed in an alternating pattern ([81]).
Regarding claim 5, Shepelev teaches a mutual capacitance touch pixel of the touch pixels included in the array including: an active mutual capacitance sensing area including: a portion of a drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes ([81]); and a portion of a sense electrode of the plurality of sense electrodes (Fig. 7 at 304); and a portion of one or more ground bars of the plurality of ground bars along a portion of a perimeter of the active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]).
Regarding claim 6, Shepelev teaches wherein the one or more ground bars of each mutual capacitance touch pixel are routed along a top and bottom side of the active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]) and electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent mutual capacitance touch pixel ([81]; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Shepelev teaches a mutual capacitance touch sensor panel ([77], [81]), comprising:
one or more ground bars (Fig. 7 at 708); and
a plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels ([81]), each mutual capacitance touch pixel including:
an active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]) including:
a drive electrode formed in a first layer ([79], [81]); and
a sense electrode formed in a second layer different from the first layer ([43]; Fig. 7 at 304), wherein:
each mutual capacitance touch pixel includes one drive electrode and one sense electrode (Fig. 7 at 706, 304),
the one or more ground bars are formed in the first layer along a portion of a perimeter of the active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]), and
the plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels includes a first touch pixel (Fig. 7 at area corresponding to intersection of top 706 & left 304) adjacent to a second touch pixel (Fig. 7 at second 706 & left 304), and a third touch pixel (Fig. 7 at fourth 706 & left 304) adjacent to the second touch pixel disposed with a first ground bar (Fig. 7 at top 708) of the plurality of ground bars between the first touch pixel and the second touch pixel (Fig. 7) and a second ground bar (Fig. 7 at second 708) of the plurality of ground bars between the second touch pixel and the third touch pixel (Fig. 7), wherein the first ground bar extends along the first direction (Fig. 7 at top 708) and the second ground bar extends along the second direction (Fig. 7 at second 708).
Note that if the touch pixels are considered to extend to a higher surface level (for user interaction) than the ground bars, the touch pixels may be considered directly adjacent on a touch surface level with the ground bars between the touch pixels from plan view)
Regarding claim 11, Shepelev teaches wherein the drive electrode is formed along a first direction and the sense electrode is formed along a second direction different from the first direction ([81], [43]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Shepelev teaches wherein the one or more ground bars are formed in the first direction ([81]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Shepelev teaches wherein the one or more ground bars of each mutual capacitance touch pixel are routed along a top and bottom side of the active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]) and electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent mutual capacitance touch pixel ([81]; Fig. 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
If a rationale for combination of references for a dependent claim is not expressly stated, it should be presumed to be the same as that stated earlier for the same combination of references.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0002752 A1 (“Shepelev”) as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above, and further in view of US 2015/0002752 A1 (“Shepelev”).
Regarding claim 7, Shepelev teaches wherein the ground bar extends along a width of the touch sensor panel (Fig. 7 at 708). Shepelev does not expressly teach in the embodiment of Fig. 7 the array of touch pixels having their first ground bars electrically coupled together to form a continuous ground bar. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 3, electrodes are shown be electrically coupled together via a common transmitter electrode, which makes them electrically continuous. The suggestion to apply this teaching to the embodiment of Fig. 7 is present as the ground electrodes are each shown to have a ground potential. The motivation is to ensure that each ground electrode has the same voltage. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because in the embodiment of Fig. 3, electrodes are shown be electrically coupled together via a common transmitter electrode, and in Fig. 7 the ground electrodes are each shown to have a ground potential. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of embodiments of Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 of Shepelev would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the portion of the one or more ground bars of the mutual capacitance touch pixel and the ground bar of the adjacent touch pixel are electrically coupled to together to form a continuous ground bar that extends along a width of the touch sensor panel.
Regarding claim 15, Shepelev teaches wherein the ground bar extends along a width of the touch sensor panel (Fig. 7 at 708). Shepelev does not expressly teach in the embodiment of Fig. 7 the array of touch pixels having their first ground bars electrically coupled together to form a continuous ground bar. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 3, electrodes are shown be electrically coupled together via a common transmitter electrode, which makes them electrically continuous. The suggestion to apply this teaching to the embodiment of Fig. 7 is present as the ground electrodes are each shown to have a ground potential. The motivation is to ensure that each ground electrode has the same voltage. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because in the embodiment of Fig. 3, electrodes are shown be electrically coupled together via a common transmitter electrode, and in Fig. 7 the ground electrodes are each shown to have a ground potential. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of embodiments of Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 of Shepelev would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein one or more ground bars of adjacent mutual capacitance touch pixels are electrically coupled together to form a continuous ground bar that extends along a width of the touch sensor panel.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 14-15, 18, and 20 are rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over different teachings of US 2015/0002752 A1 (“Shepelev”).
Regarding claim 1, Shepelev teaches a mutual capacitance touch sensor panel ([77], [81]), comprising:
a plurality of drive electrodes formed in a first layer each drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes extending along a first direction ([79], [81]);
a plurality of sense electrodes formed in a second layer different from the first layer, each sense electrode of the plurality of sense electrodes extending along a second direction different from the first direction ([43]; Fig. 7 at 304); and
a plurality of first ground bars formed in the first layer ([79], [81]), wherein the plurality of drive electrodes, the plurality of sense electrodes, and the plurality of first ground bars are included in an array of touch pixels, each touch pixel in the array of touch pixels including one drive electrode and one sense electrode ([44]; Fig. 7).
Shepelev does not expressly teach that the pattern of Fig. 7 is repeated through a larger display. However, Shepelev does teach that the touch pixel array of Fig. 3 is repeated through a larger display. The motivation to apply the technique of repetition of a pattern to the embodiment of Fig. 7 is to implement a larger touch screen. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because the embodiment of Fig. 7 is of a similar type as the embodiment of Fig. 3. Thus, Shepelev renders obvious the array of touch pixels including: a first touch pixel (Fig. 7 at area corresponding to intersection of second 706 and third 706 with left 304) adjacent to a second touch pixel (Fig. 7 at fourth 706 and fifth 706 with left 304), and a third touch pixel (Fig. 7 at sixth 706 and 706 in a repeated pattern below sixth 706 with left 304 extended) adjacent to the second touch pixel disposed with a first ground bar (Fig. 7 at second 708) of the plurality of ground bars between the first touch pixel and the second touch pixel (Fig. 7) and a second ground bar (Fig. 7 at third 708) of the plurality of ground bars between the second touch pixel and the third touch pixel (Fig. 7), wherein the first ground bar extends along the first direction (Fig. 7 at top 708) and the second ground bar extends along the second direction (Fig. 7 at second 708).
Regarding claim 4, Shepelev teaches wherein the plurality of drive electrodes and the plurality of ground bars are disposed in an alternating pattern ([81]).
Regarding claim 5, Shepelev teaches a mutual capacitance touch pixel of the touch pixels included in the array including: an active mutual capacitance sensing area including: a portion of a drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes ([81]); and a portion of a sense electrode of the plurality of sense electrodes (Fig. 7 at 304); and a portion of one or more ground bars of the plurality of ground bars along a portion of a perimeter of the active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]).
Regarding claim 6, Shepelev teaches wherein the one or more ground bars of each mutual capacitance touch pixel are routed along a top and bottom side of the active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]) and electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent mutual capacitance touch pixel ([81]; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Shepelev teaches wherein the ground bar extends along a width of the touch sensor panel (Fig. 7 at 708). Shepelev does not expressly teach in the embodiment of Fig. 7 the array of touch pixels having their first ground bars electrically coupled together to form a continuous ground bar. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 3, electrodes are shown be electrically coupled together via a common transmitter electrode, which makes them electrically continuous. The suggestion to apply this teaching to the embodiment of Fig. 7 is present as the ground electrodes are each shown to have a ground potential. The motivation is to ensure that each ground electrode has the same voltage. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because in the embodiment of Fig. 3, electrodes are shown be electrically coupled together via a common transmitter electrode, and in Fig. 7 the ground electrodes are each shown to have a ground potential. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of embodiments of Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 of Shepelev would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the portion of the one or more ground bars of the mutual capacitance touch pixel and the ground bar of the adjacent touch pixel are electrically coupled to together to form a continuous ground bar that extends along a width of the touch sensor panel.
Regarding claim 10, Shepelev teaches a mutual capacitance touch sensor panel ([77], [81]), comprising:
one or more ground bars (Fig. 7 at 708); and
a plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels ([81]), each mutual capacitance touch pixel including:
an active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]) including:
a drive electrode formed in a first layer ([79], [81]); and
a sense electrode formed in a second layer different from the first layer ([43]; Fig. 7 at 304); wherein:
each mutual capacitance touch pixel includes one drive electrode and one sense electrode (Fig. 7 at 706, 304),
the one or more ground bars are formed in the first layer along a portion of a perimeter of the active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]).
Shepelev does not expressly teach that the pattern of Fig. 7 is repeated through a larger display. However, Shepelev does teach that the touch pixel array of Fig. 3 is repeated through a larger display. The motivation to apply the technique of repetition of a pattern to the embodiment of Fig. 7 is to implement a larger touch screen. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because the embodiment of Fig. 7 is of a similar type as the embodiment of Fig. 3. Thus, Shepelev renders obvious wherein the plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels includes a first touch pixel (Fig. 7 at area corresponding to intersection of second 706 and third 706 with left 304) adjacent to a second touch pixel (Fig. 7 at fourth 706 and fifth 706 with left 304), and a third touch pixel (Fig. 7 at sixth 706 and 706 in a repeated pattern below sixth 706 with left 304 extended) adjacent to the second touch pixel disposed with a first ground bar (Fig. 7 at second 708) of the plurality of ground bars between the first touch pixel and the second touch pixel (Fig. 7) and a second ground bar (Fig. 7 at third 708) of the plurality of ground bars between the second touch pixel and the third touch pixel (Fig. 7), wherein the first ground bar extends along the first direction (Fig. 7 at top 708) and the second ground bar extends along the second direction (Fig. 7 at second 708).
Note that if the touch pixels are considered to extend to a higher surface level (for user interaction) than the ground bars, the touch pixels may be considered directly adjacent on a touch surface level with the ground bars between the touch pixels from plan view)
Regarding claim 14, Shepelev teaches wherein the one or more ground bars of each mutual capacitance touch pixel are routed along a top and bottom side of the active mutual capacitance sensing area ([81]) and electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent mutual capacitance touch pixel ([81]; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Shepelev teaches wherein the ground bar extends along a width of the touch sensor panel (Fig. 7 at 708). Shepelev does not expressly teach in the embodiment of Fig. 7 the array of touch pixels having their first ground bars electrically coupled together to form a continuous ground bar. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 3, electrodes are shown be electrically coupled together via a common transmitter electrode, which makes them electrically continuous. The suggestion to apply this teaching to the embodiment of Fig. 7 is present as the ground electrodes are each shown to have a ground potential. The motivation is to ensure that each ground electrode has the same voltage. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because in the embodiment of Fig. 3, electrodes are shown be electrically coupled together via a common transmitter electrode, and in Fig. 7 the ground electrodes are each shown to have a ground potential. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of embodiments of Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 of Shepelev would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein one or more ground bars of adjacent mutual capacitance touch pixels are electrically coupled together to form a continuous ground bar that extends along a width of the touch sensor panel.
Regarding claim 18, Shepelev further renders obvious, for the rationale explained regarding claim 1, wherein the first touch pixel (Fig. 7 at area corresponding to intersection of second 706 and third 706 with left 304) is directly adjacent to the second touch pixel (Fig. 7 at fourth 706 and fifth 706 with left 304), and the third touch pixel (Fig. 7 at sixth 706 and 706 in a repeated pattern below sixth 706 with left 304 extended) is directly adjacent to the second touch pixel (Fig. 7 at fourth 706 and fifth 706 with left 304). From a plan view, the ground bars may be between the touch pixels, while the touch pixels are directly adjacent to each other.
Regarding claim 20, Shepelev further renders obvious, for the rationale explained regarding claim 1, wherein the first touch pixel (Fig. 7 at area corresponding to intersection of second 706 and third 706 with left 304) and the second touch pixel (Fig. 7 at fourth 706 and fifth 706 with left 304) are disposed without any touch pixels in between, and the third touch pixel (Fig. 7 at sixth 706 and 706 in a repeated pattern below sixth 706 with left 304 extended) and the second touch pixel (Fig. 7 at fourth 706 and fifth 706 with left 304) are disposed without any touch pixels in between.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, 18, and 20 are rejected, claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, and 20 in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0003774 A1 (“Iwata”) in view of US 2020/0110493 A1 (“Ron”).
Regarding claim 1, Iwata teaches a mutual capacitance touch sensor unit (Figs. 17, 19, 21), comprising:
a plurality of drive electrodes formed in a first layer, each drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes extending along a first direction ([101]; Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 3);
a plurality of sense electrodes, formed in a second layer different from the first layer, each sense electrode of the plurality of sense electrodes extending along a second direction different from the first direction (Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 4);
the touch unit (pixel) including one drive electrode and one sense electrode (Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 3, 4); and
a plurality of ground bars formed in the first layer, wherein the first ground bar extends along the first direction and the second ground bar extends along the second direction ([101]; Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 6).
Iwata does not expressly teach a plurality of first ground bars formed in the first layer, wherein the plurality of drive electrodes, the plurality of sense electrodes, and the plurality of first ground bars are included in an array of touch pixels including: a first touch pixel adjacent to a second touch pixel, and a third touch pixel adjacent to the second touch pixel disposed with a first ground bar of the plurality of ground bars between the first touch pixel and the second touch pixel and a second ground bar of the plurality of ground bars between the second touch pixel and the third touch pixel. However, Ron teaches that an array of touch displays may form a combined touch display (Abstract, [39]; Fig. 6A, esp. Fig. 6B). The suggestion to combine the teachings of Iwata and Ron is present as Iwata teaches a touch display and Ron teaches that multiple touch displays may be combined to form a single touch display. The motivation is to increase the size of the touch display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Iwata teaches a touch display and Ron teaches that multiple touch displays may be combined to form a single touch display. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Iwata and Ron would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art (by combining the touch pixel shown in Figs. 17, 19, 21 of Iwata in a three row arrangement such as that shown in Fig. 6B of Ron), a mutual capacitance touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of first ground bars formed in the first layer, wherein the plurality of drive electrodes, the plurality of sense electrodes, and the plurality of ground bars are included in an array of touch pixels, each touch pixel in the array of touch pixels including one drive electrode and one sense electrode, the array of touch pixels including: a first touch pixel adjacent to a second touch pixel, and a third touch pixel adjacent to the second touch pixel disposed with a first ground bar of the plurality of ground bars between the first touch pixel and the second touch pixel and a second ground bar of the plurality of ground bars between the second touch pixel and the third touch pixel, wherein the first ground bar extends along the first direction and the second ground bar extends along the second direction.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Iwata and Ron renders obvious an array (e.g. Ron Fig. 6A, 6B) of touch displays (such as Iwata Figs. 17, 19, or 21), as explained regarding claim 1. Ron does not expressly teach a two-dimensional array having three rows, however because Ron teaches an array with two columns and two rows (Fig. 6A) and an array with three rows (Fig. 6B), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to form an array with three rows and two columns. The suggestion is present as both embodiments use a plurality of the same touch display unit to expand the touch display region available to a user. Furthermore, official notice is taken that it was well known in the art to form arrays of display panels with multiple rows and columns. Therefore the combination of Iwata and Ron further renders obvious wherein the plurality of drive electrodes and the plurality of ground bars are disposed in an alternating pattern.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Iwata and Ron renders obvious an array (e.g. Ron Fig. 6B) of touch displays (such as Iwata Figs. 17, 19, or 21), as explained regarding claim 1, and within this combination Iwata teaches a mutual capacitance touch pixel (Figs. 17, 19, 21) of the touch pixels included in the array (see combination of Iwata, Ron, and Adler) including: an active mutual capacitance sensing area (Figs. 17, 19, 21) including: a portion of a drive electrode of the plurality of drive electrodes (Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 3); and a portion of a sense electrode of the plurality of sense electrodes (Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 4); and a portion of one or more ground bars of the plurality of ground bars along a portion of a perimeter of the active mutual capacitance sensing area (Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 6).
Regarding claim 8, Iwata and Ron further renders obvious a mutual capacitance touch panel further including one or more second ground bars formed in the first layer and coupled to the one or more ground bars (Iwata [101]; Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 6). The combination of Iwata and Ron, renders obvious an array (e.g. Ron Fig. 6A, 6B) of touch displays (such as Iwata Figs. 17, 19, or 21), as explained regarding claim 1. Ron does not expressly teach a two-dimensional array having three rows, however because Ron teaches an array with two columns and two rows (Fig. 6A) and an array with three rows (Fig. 6B), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to form an array with three rows and two columns. The suggestion is present as both embodiments use a plurality of the same touch display unit to expand the touch display region available to a user. Furthermore, official notice is taken that it was well known in the art to form arrays of display panels with multiple rows and columns. Therefore the combination of Iwata and Ron further renders obvious wherein the one or more ground bars are formed in the second direction and the mutual capacitance touch pixel further includes one or more second ground bars formed in the first layer in the first direction and coupled to the one or more ground bars. Note that in the array formed by the combination of Iwata and Ron the second ground bars repeat in both the first and second directions.
Regarding claim 9, Iwata teaches wherein the one or more second ground bars within each mutual capacitance touch panel are routed along a left and right side of the active mutual capacitance sensing area (Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 6 right). The combination of Iwata and Ron renders obvious an array of touch displays (such as Iwata Figs. 17, 19, or 21), as explained regarding claims 1 and 8, and therefore further renders obvious wherein the one or more second ground are routed along a left and right side of the active mutual capacitance sensing area and electrically coupled to a second ground bar of an adjacent touch pixel.
Regarding claim 10, Iwata teaches a mutual capacitance touch unit (Figs. 17, 19, 21) including:
one or more ground bars (Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 6); and
an active mutual capacitance sensing area (Figs. 17, 19, 21) including:
a drive electrode formed in a first layer ([101]; Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 3); and
a sense electrode formed in a second layer different from the first layer (Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 4);
the mutual capacitance touch unit (pixel) includes one drive electrode and one sense electrode (Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 3, 4); and
the one or more ground bars are formed in the first layer along a portion of a perimeter of the active mutual capacitance sensing area, wherein the first ground bar extends along the first direction and the second ground bar extends along the second direction ([101]; Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 6).
Iwata does not expressly teach a mutual capacitance touch sensor panel, comprising: a plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels, wherein the plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels includes a first touch pixel adjacent to a second touch pixel, and a third touch pixel adjacent to the second touch pixel disposed with a first ground bar between the first touch pixel and the second touch pixel and a second ground bar between the second touch pixel and the third touch pixel. However, Ron teaches that an array of touch displays may form a combined touch display (Abstract, [39]; Fig. 6A, esp. Fig. 6B). The suggestion to combine the teachings of Iwata and Ron is present as Iwata teaches a touch display and Ron teaches that multiple touch displays may be combined to form a single touch display. The motivation is to increase the size of the touch display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Iwata teaches a touch display and Ron teaches that multiple touch displays may be combined to form a single touch display. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Iwata and Ron would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art (by combining the touch pixel shown in Figs. 17, 19, 21 of Iwata in a three row arrangement such as that shown in Fig. 6B of Ron), a mutual capacitance touch sensor panel, comprising: one or more ground bars; and a plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels, each mutual capacitance touch pixel including an active mutual capacitance sensing area, wherein each mutual capacitance touch pixel includes one drive electrode and one sense electrode, wherein the plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels includes a first touch pixel adjacent to a second touch pixel, and a third touch pixel adjacent to the second touch pixel disposed with a first ground bar between the first touch pixel and the second touch pixel and a second ground bar between the second touch pixel and the third touch pixel, wherein the first ground bar extends along the first direction and the second ground bar extends along the second direction. Note that if the touch pixels are considered to extend to a higher surface level (for user interaction) than the ground bars, the touch pixels may be considered directly adjacent on a touch surface level with the ground bars between the touch pixels from plan view)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Iwata (Figs. 17, 19, or 21) and Ron (Fig. 6B), for reasons explained regarding claim 1, further renders obvious wherein the first touch pixel is directly adjacent to the second touch pixel, and the third touch pixel is directly adjacent to the second touch pixel. From a plan view, the ground bars may be between the touch pixels, while the touch pixels are directly adjacent to each other, as the touch pixels may be considered to extend to a touch surface above the ground bar layer.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Iwata and Ron, renders obvious an array (e.g. Ron Fig. 6B) of touch displays (such as Iwata Figs. 17, 19, or 21), as explained regarding claim 10. Thus, Iwata and Ron render obvious wherein the first touch pixel and the second touch pixel are disposed without any touch pixels in between, and the third touch pixel and the second touch pixel are disposed without any touch pixels in between.
Claims 6-7 and 14-17 are rejected, claims 6-7 and 14-15 in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0003774 A1 (“Iwata”) in view of US 2020/0110493 A1 (“Ron”) as applied to claims 1, 1, 10, 10, 10, and 10, respectively, above, and further in view of US 6340957 B1 (“Adler”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Iwata and Ron, for the rationale explained above, further renders obvious wherein the portion of one or more ground bars of the mutual capacitance touch pixel is routed along a top and bottom side of the active mutual capacitance sensing area. See Iwata Figs. 17, 19, 21 at 6, repeated vertically according to Ron, as explained above. Iwata and Ron do not expressly teach that the portion of one or more ground bars is electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent touch pixel. Adler teaches that different tiles in a tiled display may share a common ground connection (24:41-45). The suggestion to modify the combination of Iwata and Ron by the teaching of Adler is present as Ron teaches a tiled display and Adler teaches a tiled display. The motivation is to implement a common ground so that the ground potential may be consistent across the display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Ron teaches a tiled display and Adler teaches a tiled display. Note that sharing a common ground makes the connected electrodes electrically continuous. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Iwata, Ron, and Adler would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the portion of one or more ground bars is electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent touch pixel.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Iwata, Ron, and Adler further renders obvious wherein the portion of the one or more ground bars of the mutual capacitance touch pixel and the ground bar of the adjacent touch pixel are electrically coupled to together to form a continuous ground bar that extends along a width of the touch sensor panel. See Iwata Figs. 17, 19, 21 at upper 6, in combination with Ron as explained above.
Regarding claim 14, Iwata and Ron renders obvious an array (e.g. Ron Fig. 6A) of touch displays (such as Iwata Figs. 17, 19, or 21), as explained regarding claim 10, and therefore further renders obvious wherein the one or more ground bars of each mutual capacitance touch pixel are routed along a top and bottom side of the active mutual capacitance sensing area. Note that the plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels may be interpreted to refer to upper units in an array (excluding the bottom row), as “comprising” means including but not necessarily limited to. Iwata and Ron do not expressly teach that the one or more ground bars is electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent touch pixel. Adler teaches that different tiles in a tiled display may share a common ground connection (24:41-45). The suggestion to modify the combination of Iwata and Ron by the teaching of Adler is present as Ron teaches a tiled display and Adler teaches a tiled display. The motivation is to implement a common ground so that the ground potential may be consistent across the display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Ron teaches a tiled display and Adler teaches a tiled display. Note that sharing a common ground makes the connected electrodes electrically continuous. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Iwata, Ron, and Adler would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the one or more ground bars of each mutual capacitance touch pixel are electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent mutual capacitance touch pixel.
Regarding claim 15, Iwata and Ron do not expressly teach that the portion of one or more ground bars is electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent touch pixel. Adler teaches that different tiles in a tiled display may share a common ground connection (24:41-45). The suggestion to modify the combination of Iwata and Ron by the teaching of Adler is present as Ron teaches a tiled display and Adler teaches a tiled display. The motivation is to implement a common ground so that the ground potential may be consistent across the display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Ron teaches a tiled display and Adler teaches a tiled display. Note that sharing a common ground makes the connected electrodes electrically continuous. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Iwata, Ron, and Adler would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein one or more ground bars of adjacent mutual capacitance touch pixels are electrically coupled together to form a continuous ground bar that extends along a width of the touch sensor panel.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Iwata and Ron, renders obvious an array (e.g. Ron Fig. 6A, esp. 6B) of touch displays (such as Iwata Figs. 17, 19, or 21), as explained regarding claim 10. Thus, Iwata and Ron render obvious wherein the one or more ground bars are formed along the first direction (the one or more first ground bars have dimension along the first direction) and each mutual capacitance touch pixel further includes one or more second ground bars formed in the first layer in a second direction (the one or more second ground bars have dimension along the second direction). Alternatively, Ron does not expressly teach a two-dimensional array having three rows, however because Ron teaches an array with two columns and two rows (Fig. 6A) and an array with three rows (Fig. 6B), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to form an array with three rows and two columns. The suggestion is present as both embodiments use a plurality of the same touch display unit to expand the touch display region available to a user. Furthermore, official notice is taken that it was well known in the art to form arrays of display panels with multiple rows and columns. Therefore the combination of Iwata and Ron further renders obvious wherein the one or more ground bars are formed along the first direction (repeated in the array along the first direction) and each mutual capacitance touch pixel further includes one or more second ground bars formed in the first layer in a second direction (repeated in the array along the second direction). Iwata and Ron do not expressly teach that the one or more ground bars is electrically coupled to a ground bar of an adjacent touch pixel. Adler teaches that different tiles in a tiled display may share a common ground connection (24:41-45). The suggestion to modify the combination of Iwata and Ron by the teaching of Adler is present as Ron teaches a tiled display and Adler teaches a tiled display. The motivation is to implement a common ground so that the ground potential may be consistent across the display. The combination would have been unsurprising and had a reasonable expectation of success because Ron teaches a tiled display and Adler teaches a tiled display. Note that sharing a common ground makes the connected electrodes electrically continuous. Thus, before the effective filing date of the current application, the combination of Iwata, Ron, and Adler would have rendered obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein the one or more second ground bars are coupled to the one or more ground bars.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Iwata, Ron, and Adler renders obvious an array (e.g. Ron Fig. 6A) of touch displays (such as Iwata Figs. 17, 19, or 21), as explained regarding claim 1, and therefore further renders obvious wherein the one or more second ground bars within each mutual capacitance touch pixel are routed along a left and right side of the active mutual capacitance sensing area and electrically coupled to a second ground bar of an adjacent mutual capacitance touch pixel. Note that, for example, the plurality of mutual capacitance touch pixels may be interpreted to refer to the right column of three units in a 3x2 array, as “comprising” means including but not necessarily limited to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is subject to objection 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.
Claim 21, subject to objection as being dependent upon a rejected claim, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art cited to reject the aforementioned base and intervening claims does not subsequently teach or render obvious the dependent claims indicated as otherwise allowable in the full context of the claims. Nor does any observed additional prior art in combination with the cited prior art render obvious the dependent claims indicated as being allowable in the full context of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have successfully addressed the rejections of claims 10-17 under 35 USC 112(a). Those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Shepelev does not teach that the first ground bar extends along the first direction and the second ground bar extends along the second direction. Response at 6-7. Applicant appears to be relying on an overly narrow interpretation of “extends”. Extends simply means to increase in extent. The ground bars taught by Shepelev are physical bars, and therefore each at least extends along the first direction and extends along the second direction. If Applicant wishes to distinguish between the ground bars, Applicant may wish to use claim language that clarifies which aspect of a ground bar is extended along a particular direction. For example, an object may extend longitudinally (along the longest axis of the object). (Note that the latter comment is intended merely as a helpful discussion and is not a formal agreement.)
Applicant argues that the combination of Iwata and Ron does not render obvious a touch pixel including one drive electrode and one sense electrode. Response at 8. Applicant appears to be relying on an overly narrow interpretation of “includes”. The term “includes” is interpreted similarly to “comprises”, as an open-ended term. Thus, a statement that the touch pixel “includes” one drive and one sense electrode does not exclude the existence of other drive and sense electrodes within the touch pixel. If Applicant wishes to limit the touch pixel to only one drive and only one sense electrode, Applicant may wish to use claim language that clearly so indicates, such as using adjectives like “only” or “no more than” or using closed-ended verbs such as “consists of”. (Note that the latter comment is intended merely as a helpful discussion and is not a formal agreement.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENE W LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/Gene W Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624