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. The RCE application filed on April 16, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to Final Office Action mailed on January 28, 2026, applicant amended independent claims 1, 14, 21 and dependent claim 13. Claims 2-13, and 15-19 are maintained. Claim 20 is cancelled as before the Final Office Action. NO claim has been added as new claim After the Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-19 and 21 are pending for consideration.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments in "Remarks" submitted on March 18, 2026, with respect to independent claims 1, 14, and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. claims 1-3, 10-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KO et al.(US 2021/0318779 A1) (herein after KO).
Regarding claim 14, KO teaches a display apparatus(display device DD, fig.1A, Para-68) comprising:
a substrate(fis.1B, Para-72)(inherent to have display substrate along with pixels circuit on the substrate);
a display layer(panel unit PNL, display element layer DSL, figs.1A-1B) disposed on the substrate and comprising a light-emitting element(pixels, Para-69, 72); and
a touch sensing unit(touch sensor layer TSL, Para-73) disposed on the display layer(DSL, fig.1B) and comprising touch sensors arranged in first to nth rows and first to mth columns(fig.3, Para-91), each of the touch sensors comprises a touch electrode(Para-94), each of n and m is a natural number each equal to or greater than 3(fig.3),
PNG
media_image1.png
575
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
fig.3
wherein a number of the touch sensors located in an ath column (middle column has the largest number of touch sensors) is greater than a number of the touch sensors located in a bth column (except the middle column(s), all other columns have less number of touch sensors), where a and b are different natural numbers, and greater than 1 or less than m(fig.3)(as the touch sensing area SA is circular, the touch sensing electrode along the diameter of the circle has the maximum number of touch sensors and it is inherent and is not a novel inventive concept), and
wherein an area of the touch electrode of a first touch sensor located in the ath column and a pth row is less than an area of the touch electrode of a second touch sensor located in the b™ column and the pth row, where p is a nature number greater than 1 and less than n(figs.3)(a=2, b=3, p=2).
Regarding claim 15, BANG teaches the display apparatus of claim 14, wherein the touch electrode comprises a driving electrode and a sensing electrode(Para-85), and
wherein an area of the driving electrode of the first touch sensor is less than an area of the driving electrode of the second touch sensor(fig.3).
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 14 since both claims 14 and 21 recite identical claim limitations except preamble of the respective claims.
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 14 since both claims 1 and 14 recite identical claim limitations except broad limitations in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 15 since both claims 2 and 15 recite identical claim limitations except preamble of the respective claim.
Regarding claim 3, KO teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 2, wherein an area of the sensing electrode of the first touch sensor is less than an area of the sensing electrode of the second touch sensor(fig.3).
Regarding claim 10, KO teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 1, wherein a number of the touch sensors located in a cth column is less than a number of the touch sensors located in the bth column, c is a natural number different from a and b and equal to or less than m(fig.1), and
wherein an area of the touch electrode of the second touch sensor located in the bth column is less than an area of the touch electrode of a third touch sensor located in the cth column(fig.3).
Regarding claim 11, KO teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 1, wherein an area of the touch electrode of a fourth touch sensor located in the ath column and located in a different row than the first touch sensor is same as an area of the touch electrode of the first touch sensor(fig.3).
Regarding claim 12, KO teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 1, wherein the first touch sensor and the second touch sensor are located in a same row(fig.3), and
wherein an area of the touch electrode of a fourth touch sensor located in the ath column and located in a different row than the first touch sensor is different from an area of the touch electrode of the first touch sensor(fig.3).
Regarding claim 13, KO teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 12, wherein a number of the touch sensors located in a pth row is greater than a number of the touch sensors located in a qth row, where q is a natural number different from p, and greater than 1 and less than n(fig.3),
wherein the first touch sensor is located in the ath column and pth row, and the fourth touch sensor is located in the ath column and the qth row(fig.3), and
wherein an area of the touch electrode of the first touch sensor is less than an area of the touch electrode of the fourth touch sensor(fig.3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 4, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO et al.(US 2021/0318779 A1) in view of BOK et al.(US 2016/0147375 A1)(herein after BOK).
Regarding claim 16, KO is not found to teach expressly the display apparatus of claim 15, wherein, in a plan view, an interval between the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the first touch sensor is greater than an interval between the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the second touch sensor.
However, BOK teaches a display device including touch sensor, wherein, in a plan view, an interval between the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the first touch sensor is greater than an interval between the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the second touch sensor(d3, d4, fig.11, Para-113, 114, 115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified KO with the teaching of BOK in order to teach the claim limitations. Such modification is desirable, as it provides a display device that could sense a user's touch with uniform touch sensitivity along a curve direction of a display panel of a curved display device including a touch sensor even in a hovering touch mode.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 16 since both claims 4 and 16 recite identical claim limitations except preamble of the respective claim.
10. Claims 5, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO et al.(US 2021/0318779 A1) in view of GOUREVITCH et al.(US 2020/0026393 A1)(herein after GOUREVITCH).
Regarding claim 17, KO is not found to teach expressly the display apparatus of claim 15, wherein the first touch sensor further comprises a first dummy pattern located inside each of the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the first touch sensor.
However, GOUREVITCH teaches a single layer touch sensor panel architecture, wherein the first touch sensor further comprises a first dummy pattern(ground and/or floating electrode) located inside each of the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the first touch sensor(figs.5-8,&10-11, Para-34, 36, 39-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified KO with the teaching of GOUREVITCH in order to improve performance of touch sensor panels.
Claim 5 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 17 since both claims 5 and 17 recite identical claim limitations except preamble of the respective claim.
Regarding claim 7, KO as modified by GOUREVITCH teaches the touch sensing unit of claim 5, wherein, in a plan view, an interval between the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the first touch sensor is same as an interval between the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the second touch sensor(figs.6-10, BANG; figs.5-12, GOUREVITCH).
11. Claims 6, 8, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO et al.(US 2021/0318779 A1) in view of GOUREVITCH et al.(US 2020/0026393 A1) and further in view of CHOI et al.(US 2020/0371644 A1)(herein after CHOI).
Regarding claim 18, KO as modified by GOUREVITCH teaches the display apparatus of claim 17, wherein the second touch sensor further comprises a second dummy pattern located inside each of the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the second touch sensor(figs.5-8,&10-11, Para-34, 36, 39-57, GOUREVITCH), but fails to teach expressly the display apparatus, wherein an area of the first dummy pattern of the first touch sensor is greater than an area of the second dummy pattern of the second touch sensor.
However, CHOI teaches a touch sensing display device, wherein an area of the first dummy pattern(dummy electrodes DME, fig.13A) of the first touch sensor is greater than an area of the second dummy pattern of the second touch sensor(Para-197).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified KO further with the teaching of CHOI to include the feature in order to provide a touch sensing display device capable of preventing damage of bridge patterns when shape of a sensing area is changed.
Regarding claim 19, KO as modified by GOUREVITCH and CHOI teaches the display apparatus of claim 17, wherein, in a plan view, an interval between the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the first touch sensor is less than an interval between the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the second touch sensor(figs.13A&13B and related text, CHOI).
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 18 since both claims 6 and 18 recite identical claim limitations except preamble of the respective claim.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 19 since both claims 8 and 19 recite identical claim limitations except preamble of the respective claim.
12. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO et al.(US 2021/0318779 A1) in view of GOUREVITCH et al.(US 2020/0026393 A1) and further in view of KIM et al.(US 2024/0168583 A1) (herein after KIM).
Regarding claim 9, KO as modified by GOUREVITCH is not found to teach expressly the touch sensing unit of claim 5, wherein each of the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the first touch sensor has a ring shape, and each of the driving electrode and the sensing electrode of the second touch sensor has a non-ring shape.
However, KIM teaches a touch input device, wherein a plurality of driving electrodes and a plurality of receiving electrodes are made of different shape(Para-93, 223). One of ordinary of skill in the art could easily modify the teaching of BANG, using known method and known technology, to replace diamond shape of electrode into one circular shape and another non-circular shape electrodes and the result would be predictable.
Such modification is desirable as it provides a touch input device capable of driving an external stylus pen or detecting a pen signal from the stylus pen.
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
Prosecution Insights