Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
2. RCE application filed on January 05, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to Final Office Action mailed on October 28, 2025, applicant amended independent claims 1, 11 and 15. Claims 2-10, 12-14, and 16-20 have been maintained. NO claim has been cancelled and/or added as new claim after the Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Response to Argument
3. Applicant’s arguments in “REMARKS” filed on November 26, 2025, with respect to independent claims 1, and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 2, 7-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al.(US 2014/0132556 A1)(herein after HUANG) in view of CHRISTIANSSON et al.(US 2021/0026587 A1) (herein after CHRISTIANSSON) and further in view of Lee(US 2022/031 7854 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HUANG teaches an electronic device (capacitive multi-touch panel 400, fig.4, Para-43) comprising
a sensor layer(capacitive touch panel 410, fig.4) including a plurality of sensing electrodes(conductor lines 411 or 413, fig.4, Para-44); and
a sensor driving unit(driving device 420, sensing device 430, figs.4&5) configured to drive the sensor layer in units of sensing frame(Para-43, 45, 52, 53),
wherein the sensing frame includes:
a first sensing frame(first time interval, fig.4, Para-52) including a first scan section(420, 430, first switch 440, second switch 450, figs.4&5) and a first processing section(controller 460, figs.4&5, Para-50), and
a second sensing frame(second time interval, fig.5, Para-53) following the first sensing frame(first time interval) and including a second scan section(420, 430, first switch 440, second switch 450, figs.4&5) and a second processing section (controller 460, figs.4&5, Para-50), and
wherein the sensor driving unit(420, 430) is configured to:
generate first coordinate information during the first scan section(fig.4, Para-52, 54),
store the first coordinate information during the first processing section(figs.3&7, Para-60),
generate second coordinate information during the second scan section(figs.5-7, Para-53, 55),
store the second coordinate information during the second processing section(Para-60), and
determine touch position using the first coordinate information and the second coordinate information(Para-58) (also steps B, C, & D, fig.9 and related text),
wherein, during the first scan section, the sensor driving unit applies driving signals to the plurality of sensing electrodes arranged on an active area of the sensor layer (obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the sensor driving unit supplies drive signal to sensor electrode placed on the active area of the touch sensing display panel, otherwise the display device would be non-functional, no touch detection).
Nevertheless, HUANG is not found to teach expressly the electronic device, wherein the sensor driving unit is configured to determine whether the first coordinate information and the second coordinate information coincide with each other by comparing the first coordinate information and the second coordinate information.
However, CHRISTIANSSON teaches a touch apparatus(laptop computers, mobile telephones), wherein the sensor driving unit is configured to
determine whether the first coordinate information and the second coordinate information coincide(same touch event) with each other by comparing the first coordinate information and the second coordinate information(step 470, fig.4, Para-38).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified HUANG with the teaching of CHRISTIANSSON to include the feature in order to provide a touch sensing apparatus capable of providing touch smoothing, improved touch accuracy, or other features that are difficult or impossible to implement using the operating system's standard protocol alone.
Neither HUANG nor CHRISTIANSSON teaches the electronic device, wherein, when the sensor driving unit determines that a touch input is received during the first sensing frame, the sensor driving unit changes a number of times of applying driving signals to the plurality of sensing electrodes.
However, Lee teaches a display device and its driving method, wherein, when the sensor driving unit determines that a touch input is received during the first sensing frame(figs.7A-8B, and related text), the sensor driving unit changes a number of times of applying driving signals to the plurality of sensing electrodes(Para-127: the touch driver 300 may decrease the number of times driving pulses of the touch driving signal Std supplied in the noise period NP to be half of the number of times driving pulses of the touch driving signal Std supplied in the sensing period SP except the noise period NP are supplied).
The prior art, as embodied in the teachings of HUANG, CHRISTIANSSON and Lee, included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and in that combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination is desirable as it provides a display device with increased touch recognition sensitivity by minimizing an influence of noise caused by a parasitic capacitance generated between a touch sensor and a display panel.
Regarding claim 2, HUANG as modified by CHRISTIANSSON and Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first coordinate information includes a first coordinate value, and wherein the second coordinate information includes a second coordinate value(Para-19, 25, HUANG; Para-25, CHRISTIANSSON).
Regarding claim 7, HUANG as modified by CHRISTIANSSON and Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the sensor driving unit applies more driving signals to the plurality of sensing electrodes in the second scan section than those in the first scan section(it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the depending on the functionality as desired by a designer, plurality of sensing electrodes could be smaller or bigger one scan time than the other/second scan time).
Regarding claim 8, HUANG as modified by CHRISTIANSSON and Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the sensor driving unit receives sensing signals respectively corresponding to the driving signals from the plurality of sensing electrodes(figs.4-6, HUANG).
Regarding claim 9, HUANG as modified by CHRISTIANSSON and Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensing electrodes include:
a plurality of first sensing electrodes each extending in a first direction(fig.4-6, HUANG); and
a plurality of second sensing electrodes each extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction(figs.4-6, HUANG).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, both claims 1 and 15 recite identical claim limitations but in different formats. The additional claim limitations, “wherein the sensor driving unit applies driving signals to the plurality of sensing electrodes, which is arranged on an active area of the sensor layer(touch active area 101, fig.2, Lee), by a first number of times during the first scan section, and applies the driving signals to the plurality of sensing electrodes by a second number of times, which is different from the first number of times, during the second scan section” are also taught by Lee in Para-127 and figs.7A-8B and related text(the touch driver 300 decreases a number of times driving pulses of the touch driving signal Std supplied in the noise period NP are supplied, as compared with a number of times driving pulses of the touch driving signal Std supplied in the sensing period SP except the noise period NP are supplied).
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as HUANG et al.(US 2014/0132556 A1), CHRISTIANSSON et al.(US 2021/0026587 A1), Lee(US 2022/0317854 A1) and further in view of SHEPELEV et al.(US 2015/009 1587 A1)(herein after SHEPELEV).
Regarding claim 10, HUANG as modified by CHRISTIANSSON and Lee is not found to teach expressly the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the first coordinate information includes (1-1)-th information about one selected from the plurality of first sensing electrodes and (1-2)-th information about one selected from the plurality of second sensing electrodes, and wherein the second coordinate information includes a (2-1)-th information about one selected from the plurality of first sensing electrodes and (2-2)-th information about one selected from the plurality of second sensing electrodes.
However, SHEPELEV teaches matrix sensor, wherein the first coordinate information includes (1-1)-th information about one selected from the plurality of first sensing electrodes and (1-2)-th information about one selected from the plurality of second sensing electrodes(fig.8 and related text), and
wherein the second coordinate information includes a (2-1)-th information about one selected from the plurality of first sensing electrodes and (2-2)-th information about one selected from the plurality of second sensing electrodes(fig.9 and related text).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified HUANG further with the teaching of SHEPELEV to include the feature in order to provide a system of accurate multi-touch finger tracking capability without blurring the object across multiple sensor electrodes since the dimensions of the sensor electrodes be reduced.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. claims 3-6 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claimed invention, “the electronic device of claim 2, further comprising: a processor configured to drive the sensor driving unit, wherein, when the first coordinate value and the second coordinate value coincide with each other, the sensor driving unit is configured to transmit an activated start signal and the second coordinate information after the second sensing frame to the processor”.
Claims 4-6 are also objected to because of their dependency on the objected base claims respectively.
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as in recited in claim 3, therefore claim 16 is also objected to.
Claims 17-20 are also objected to because of their dependency on the objected base claims respectively.
11. Claims 11-14 are allowed.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 11: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claimed invention, “an electronic device comprising: -----------, and wherein the sensor driving unit is configured to: determine whether the (1-1)-th information and the (2-1)-th information coincide with each other by comparing the (1-1)-th information and the (2-1)-th information during the second sensing frame; and determine whether the (1-2)-th information and the (2-2)-th information coincide with each other by comparing the (1-2)-th information and the (2-2)-th information during the second sensing frame(figs.2,7,11A-11B and related text of the specification submitted on September 25, 2025)” with all other limitations cited in claim 11.
claims 12-14 are also allowed because of their dependency on the allowed base claims respectively.
Examiner Note
13. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (571) 272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626