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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 1-10, 12, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owaki (US 2021/0407454) in view of Yamazaki (US 2011/0149185).
In regard to claim 1, Owaki teaches an electronic apparatus, comprising: a substrate (element 21); a plurality of scan lines (GCL), disposed on the substrate (paragraph 44); and a plurality of first switching units (fig. 6A element SW5), wherein each of the scan lines is coupled to a driver device (fig. 6A element 12 and paragraph 32. Owaki teaches the scan driver including shift registers) through one of the plurality of first switching units (figs. 6A-C) but does not teach the switching units disposed on the substrate, wherein during a touch sensing period, the plurality of first switching units are controlled to be non-conducting so that the scan lines are disconnected from the driver device, to maintain the scan lines in a high-impedance state (fig. 6C and paragraph 60, Owaki teaches setting the scanning lines into a high-impedance state by putting them into a floating state) and reduce an equivalent capacitance effect between the scan lines and the driver device (The device of Owaki has the same structure and carries out the same operation of the claimed invention. Putting the line into a high-impedance state, as shown in paragraph 60 of Owaki, would reduce the capacitance between the scan line and driver).
Yamazaki teaches teach the switching units disposed on the substrate (fig. 5B and paragraph 117).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Owaki with the single substrate of Yamazaki. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Owaki with the single substrate of Yamazaki because it would reduce the size of the device.
In regard to claim 2, Yamazaki teaches wherein the substrate comprises a peripheral area and an active area, and the plurality of first switching units are disposed in the peripheral area (fig. 5B the scan driver 508 is on the periphery)
In regard to claim 3, Yamazaki teaches wherein the driver device is disposed in a peripheral area (fig. 5B element 508).
In regard to claims 4 and 9, Owaki teaches a plurality of data lines (fig. 1 element 13 and SIG), disposed on the substrate (signal lines on element 10); and a plurality of second switching units (fig. 6A element SW2), wherein each of the data lines is coupled to one of the plurality of second switching units (figs. 1 and 6A. Each signal line is connected to a single column. Each column is connected to a switch SW2).
Yamazaki teaches the switching units disposed on a substrate (fig. 5B, all pixels and drivers on the same substrate).
In regard to claim 5, Yamazaki teaches wherein the substrate comprises a peripheral area and an active area, and the plurality of second switching units are disposed in the peripheral area (fig. 5B, all pixels and drivers on the same substrate. The drivers are in the peripheral area).
In regard to claim 6, Owaki teaches a control element, wherein the driver device is coupled to the control element (element 12, the entire device is coupled together).
In regard to claim 7, Owaki teaches at least one touch electrode, disposed on the substrate, wherein the at least one touch electrode is coupled to the control element (COML).
In regard to claim 8, Owaki teaches wherein when the electronic apparatus operates during a touch sensing period, the plurality of first switching units are non-conducting (fig. 6C and paragraph 60, scan lines brought into floating state).
In regard to claim 10, Owaki teaches wherein when the electronic apparatus operates during a touch sensing period, the plurality of first switching units and the plurality of second switching units are non-conducting (fig. 6C SW2 and SW5 are all in a floating state).
In regard to claim 12, Owaki teaches wherein the driver device is disposed outside the substrate and coupled to the substrate (fig. 6A element 12 is disposed outside the substrate 10).
In regard to claim 14, Owaki teaches wherein the control element scans from above to below the substrate at a first frequency (paragraph 55, above and below are arbitrary. The control element of Owaki sequentially scans the rows in a vertical direction).
In regard to claim 19, Owaki teaches wherein the electronic apparatus has a frame period, and the frame period comprises a touch sensing period and a display update period (fig. 5 Pd and Pt).
In regard to claim 20, Owaki teaches wherein when the electronic apparatus operates during the display update period, display screen data is updated by region (paragraph 55, each line is a region), and when the electronic apparatus operates during the touch sensing period, a touch sensing function is performed by region (paragraph 38, sequentially applying drive signal).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owaki in view of Yamazaki further considered with Seo (US 2021/0097912).
In regard to claims 11 and 13, Owaki and Yamazaki teach all the elements of claim 11 except wherein the control element is an integrated circuit chip.
Seo teaches wherein the control element and driver device are an integrated circuit chip (fig. 1 and paragraph 83, Seo teaches the controller, data driver and scan driver all on a IC chip).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Owaki and Yamazaki with the IC chip of Seo. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Owaki and Yamazaki with the IC chip of Seo because it would minimize manufacturing complexity.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owaki in view of Yamazaki further considered with Xing et al. (US 2019/0025966).
In regard to claim 15, Owaki and Yamazaki teach all the elements of claim 15 except wherein the control element scans from two outer sides to an inner side of the substrate at a second frequency.
Xing et al. teach wherein the control element scans from two outer sides to an inner side of the substrate at a second frequency (column 3, “the scanning is column by column inwardly from the outermost two columns of touch sensing electrodes 110’ simultaneously, until the scanning of all the touch sensing electrodes 110’ is completed.”).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Owaki and Yamazaki with the simultaneous scanning of Xing et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Owaki and Yamazaki with the simultaneous scanning of Xing et al. because it would reduce scanning time.
In regard to claim 16, Owaki, Yamazaki and Xing et al. teach all the elements of claim 16 except wherein the first frequency is less than the second frequency.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Owaki, Yamazaki and Xing et al. with the claimed separate first and second scan frequencies. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date the claimed sequential row scanning was widely known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Row by row progressive scanning (which scans the columns row-by-row thus the two are scanned at different frequencies) provides predictable results and would allow for accurate touch detection.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owaki in view of Yamazaki further considered with Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0135132).
In regard to claim 17, Owaki and Yamazaki teach all the elements of claim 17 except wherein the driver device comprises a plurality of driving units, and the plurality of driving units are each coupled to the corresponding scan line (Owaki teaches a shift register in paragraph 32 but does not specifically state the structure of the shift register).
Tanaka et al. teach wherein the driver device comprises a plurality of driving units (fig. 3 shift register units SR), and the plurality of driving units are each coupled to the corresponding scan line (fig. 3).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Owaki and Yamazaki with the shift register of Tanaka et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Owaki and Yamazaki with the shift register of Tanaka et al. because the shift register of Tanaka et al. would allow the device to control the scan timing ensuring accurate display reproduction.
In regard to claim 18, Tanaka et al. teach wherein the plurality of driving units are divided into a plurality of groups (fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 6 and 7 that Owaki fails to address the problem of capacitance effect variation. Owaki shows putting the scan lines into a high-z state during touch detection. Although Owaki does not specifically state anything about a capacitance effect, Owaki shows the same circuit carrying out the same process as applicant’s claimed invention. Since the two are the same they must have the same characteristics (See MPEP 2112.01).
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 JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621