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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-16 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:
The current claim recites, “a first portion”, “a second portion” and “a third portion” of the first wiring; and the current claim further recites, “a fourth portion”, “a fifth portion” and “a sixth portion” of the second wiring. However, no “portions” of the first and second wirings are disclosed/described in the specification. Accordingly, it is not clear exactly what elements map to such portions.
Regarding claim 11:
The current claim recites, “a first portion” and “a second portion included in the first wiring. However, no “portions” of the first wiring are disclosed/described in the specification. Accordingly, it is not clear exactly what elements map to such portions.
Regarding claim 14:
The current claim recites, “a third wiring” and “a fourth wiring”; however, no such wirings are disclosed/described in the specification as originally file.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12, 13, 15 and 16:
These claims are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claim 1 or 11.
For the purpose of examination, the currently claims “portions” will be considered to be any portions of relevant wirings, and if a prior art reference discloses a touch sensor with a structure similar to that of the current invention (e.g., similar to the structure in Fig. 15 of the current drawings), then the current limitations with respect to “portions” will be interpreted as reading on the prior art structure.
Applicant is requested to clarify what elements in the current drawings map to “a first portion”, “a second portion”, “a third portion”, “a fourth portion”, “a fifth portion” and “a sixth portion” in the context of the current claims. After applicant clarifies exactly what elements map to the claimed “portions”, the prior art reference could be mapped with greater specificity.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2018/0032188 A1; hereinafter, “Park”) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0015411 A1; hereinafter, “Park-II”).
Regarding claim 1:
Park discloses (in Figs. 5A, 8B, and 10A-10C) a display device comprising:
a display region DA [0072] including a plurality of pixels PX [0100];
a plurality of first electrodes SP1 (Fig. 8E and [0149]) formed by a first layer, and aligned in a first direction (vertical) above the display region;
a plurality of second electrodes SP2 (Fig. 8E and [0150]) formed by the first layer, and aligned in a second direction (horizontal) intersecting the first direction (vertical);
a connection wiring CP1 (Fig. 10A, 10C and [0146]) formed by a second layer, and electrically connecting each of the plurality of second electrodes SP2 (Fig. 10A);
Note: With regard to the following limitations that are italicized and underlined, these limitations are deemed to be disclosed by Park because the connection wiring structure disclosed by Park in Fig. 10A is essentially the same as the connection structure in Fig. 15 of the current application (see Exhibit A below).
wherein
the connection wiring includes a first wiring and a second wiring,
the first wiring includes a first portion, a second portion and a third portion,
the first portion of the first wiring is connected to one of the plurality of second electrodes and extends in a third direction crossing the first direction and the second direction,
the second portion of the first wiring is connected to the first portion of the first wiring and extends in a fourth direction crossing the first direction, the second direction and the third direction,
the third portion of the first wiring is connected to the second portion of the first wiring and another one of the plurality of second electrodes and extends in the third direction,
the second wiring includes a fourth portion, a fifth portion and a sixth portion,
the fourth portion of the second wiring is connected to the one of the plurality of second electrodes and extends in the fourth direction,
the fifth portion of the second wiring is connected to the fourth portion of the second wiring and extends in the third direction, and
the sixth portion of the second wiring is connected to the fifth portion of the
second wiring and the another one of the plurality of second electrodes and extends in
the fourth direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park does not explicitly disclose an insulating layer separating the first layer and the second layer; however, it is noted that Park discloses insulation patterns may overlap the first and second connection parts CP1, CP2 [0146].
Park-II teaches, in a device similar to Park, an insulating layer IL2 (Fig. 8) separating a first layer CNP2 and a second layer CNP1. Furthermore, see Exhibit B below, which compares Park-II (Fig. 8) to Fig. 6A of the current application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park by incorporating an insulating layer as taught by Park-II because Park-II teaches/shows such a connection structure is well suited for providing connections between touch electrodes of a display device.
PNG
media_image2.png
393
973
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3-10:
These claims include limitations that require a clear disclosure of “portions” that are not disclosed/described in the current specification; accordingly, because Park discloses a connection wiring structure (in Fig. 10A, see Exhibit A) that is essentially the same as that in Fig. 15 of the current invention, these claims are deemed to be elaborate descriptions of the connection structure disclosed by Park in Fig. 10A. Therefore, claims 3-10 are deemed obvious over Park (in view of Park-II) until applicant clarifies exactly what elements map to the various “portions” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 11 and 13-16:
These claims are similar to claims 1 and 3-10 because they contain limitations reciting “portions”, “third wiring” and/or “fourth wiring” that are not disclosed/described in the current specification. Specifically, regarding claim 11, all pertinent limitations in this claim are recited in claim 1; accordingly, claim 11 is deemed obvious over Park (in view of Park-II) for reasons similar to those provided above with respect to claim 1. With regard to claims 13-16, this claims a deemed to be drawn to a connecting wiring structure shown in Fig. 15 of the current application; accordingly, these claims are deemed obvious because Park, Fig. 10A discloses a connecting wiring structure that is essentially the same as that shown in Fig. 15 of the current application. Therefore, claims 13-16 are deemed obvious over Park (in view of Park-II) until applicant clarifies exactly what elements map to the various “portions” recited in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claims 2 and 12 would be allowable because the prior art cannot anticipate or render obvious the limitations for first and second light shielding layers in combination with all other limitations (and in combination with claim 1 and 11, respectively).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights