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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 July 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0209950) in view of Chiang et al. (US 2016/0328061)
Regarding claim 1:
Kim discloses:
Claim 1
Kim
1. An in-cell touch display device comprising:
a substrate;
Fig. 2: "FIRST SUBSTRATE"
a transistor formation layer on the substrate, the transistor formation layer including a semiconductor, a source electrode, a drain electrode, and a gate electrode; and
Fig. 2: "TRANSISTOR FORMING LAYER," as per paragraph 76
a light emitting element layer on the transistor formation layer, the light emitting element layer including an anode electrode, an emission layer, and a cathode electrode,
Fig. 2: 630, 640, and 650, as per paragraph 77-79
wherein a plurality of touch electrodes collectively form a coupling capacitor with the cathode electrode
Paragraph 85: "formed to form capacitance with the common electrode"
Wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are disposed in the transistor formation layer.
Paragraph 84: "may be formed in the transistor forming layer,"
wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are physically separated from the cathode electrode,
In Fig. 2, the touch electrodes 650 (which may be in the transistor forming layer as per paragraph 85) are separate from the common electrode 650.
wherein the plurality of touch electrodes overlap the cathode electrode in a cross- sectional view of the in-cell touch display device with one or more insulating layers therebetween, and
As per paragraph 76 there may be insulation layers in the transistor forming layer, and in paragraph 83 Kim discloses the touch and cathode electrode should be insulated from each other.1
wherein during a touch time, a touch drive signal having a predetermined cycle and amplitude is applied to a touch electrode of the plurality of touch electrodes, a low potential modulation voltage having a same cycle and amplitude as the touch drive signal is applied to the cathode electrode.
Paragraph 114; where there might be a voltage supplied to the cathode electrode as per paragraph 112, but it does not disclose it has "a same cycle and amplitude as the touch drive signal"
Therefore Kim does not disclose:
"a low potential modulation voltage having a same cycle and amplitude as the touch drive signal is applied to the cathode electrode"
Chiang discloses:
a low potential modulation voltage having a same cycle and amplitude as the touch drive signal is applied to the cathode electrode (paragraph 71)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kim the elements taught by Chiang.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim and Chiang are directed to the same field of art.
Chiang discloses this can reduce the entire RC loading of the panel (paragraph 38). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8:
Kim in view of Chiang discloses:
wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are formed as transparent electrodes (Kim paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 12:
Kim in view of Chiang discloses:
wherein during a touch time, a touch drive signal having a predetermined cycle and amplitude is applied to a touch electrode from the plurality of touch electrodes (Kim paragraph 55, as per paragraph 117), and a low potential modulation voltage is applied to the cathode electrode having a same cycle and amplitude as the touch drive signal is applied to the cathode electrode (taught by Chiang as discussed above).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chiang and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2018/0108716)
Regarding claim 2:
Kim in view of Chiang discloses an in-cell touch display device as discussed above.
Kim in view of Chiang does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein a cover layer is on the light emitting element layer, and when a touch object touches the cover layer, an object capacitor is formed between the touch object and the cathode electrode.”2
Xu discloses:
wherein a cover layer is on the light emitting element layer (paragraph 19), and when a touch object touches the cover layer, an object capacitor is formed between the touch object and the cathode electrode (paragraph 22: “form a capacitance in response to a tactile stimulation”; paragraph 26: “the capacitive layer may comprise the common electrode,” where this is another name for the cathode electrode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Kim the elements taught by Xu.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim, Chiang, and Xu are directed to the same field of art.
These elements are almost certainly present in Kim, but Kim never explicitly discusses the cover layer or that the touch is detected due to contact with the cover layer. In almost identical circumstances Xu explains these details, and indicates that a cover layer can protect the device. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 3:
Kim, etc., discloses:
a sensing circuit configured to changes in capacitances of the object capacitor and the coupling capacitor through a touch electrode from the plurality of touch electrodes when the touch object touches the cover layer (e.g., Kim Fig. 1: 200, where the details of the capacitances are as already discussed).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chiang, and further in view of Xu, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0003780)
Regarding claim 4:
Kim, etc., discloses an in-cell touch display panel as discussed above.
Kim, etc., does not disclose:
“wherein the sensing circuit includes: a first integrator configured to primarily integrate a signal output from the touch electrode; and a second integrator configured to secondarily integrate the signal integrated by the first integrator.”
Lee discloses:
wherein the sensing circuit includes: a first integrator configured to primarily integrate a signal output from the touch electrode (Fig. 8: e.g., op-amp 121) and a second integrator configured to secondarily integrate the signal integrated by the first integrator (Fig. 8: 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Kim, etc., the elements taught by Lee.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim, Chiang, Xu, and Lee are directed to the same field of art.
Lee discloses this has improved performance (paragraph 65). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 5:
Kim, etc., discloses:
wherein the first integrator includes: a first operational amplifier having a first input terminal configured to receive an output signal of the touch electrode and a second input terminal to which a reference voltage is applied; and a first feedback capacitor connected between the first input terminal and an output terminal of the first operational amplifier. (Lee Fig. 6, where the reference voltage here is ground).
Regarding claim 6:
Kim, etc., discloses:
wherein the second integrator includes: a second operational amplifier having a third input terminal electrically connected to the output terminal of the first operational amplifier and a fourth input terminal to which the reference voltage is applied; and a second feedback capacitor connected between the third input terminal and an outer terminal of the second operational amplifier (Lee Fig. 6, where the reference voltage here is ground).
Regarding claim 18-19:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chiang, and further in view of Xu, and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Jo et al. (US 2015/0184989)
Regarding claim 7:
Kim, etc., discloses an in-cell touch display device as discussed above. T
Kim, etc., does not disclose:
“the reference voltage having the same cycle and amplitude as the touch drive signal is applied to the second input terminal of the first operational amplifier and the fourth input terminal of the second operational amplifier.”
Jo discloses:
That the same signal should be applied to the common electrode and the reference voltage of the operational amplifier (seen in, e.g., Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kim, etc., the elements taught by Jo.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim, etc., and Jo are directed to the same field of art.
Lee taught the first and second operational amplifiers. In Lee this second and fourth input terminals are connected to ground, but actually this is only because in Lee the common voltage is grounded. Jo shows that these inputs should actually be the same as the common voltage. This is necessary for the integrator to function. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chiang, and further in view of Duan et al. (US 2021/0373689)
Regarding claim 9:
Kim in view of Chiang discloses an in-cell touch display device as discussed above.
Kim in view of Chiang does not disclose:
“a touch line in the transistor formation layer, the touch line electrically connected to a touch electrode from the plurality of touch electrodes”
Duan discloses:
a touch line in the transistor formation layer, the touch line electrically connected to a touch electrode from the plurality of touch electrodes (Duan paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kim the elements taught by Duan.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim, Chiang and Duan are directed to the same field of art.
Although Kim discloses the touch electrodes are formed in the transistor formation layer, Kim does not show any details. Duan discloses how this could be implemented. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chiang, and further in view of Yao et al. (US 2017/0090644).
Regarding claim 9:
Kim in view of Bok discloses an in-cell touch display device as discussed above.
Kim in view of Bok does not disclose:
“a touch line in the transistor formation layer, the touch line electrically connected to a touch electrode from the plurality of touch electrodes”
Yao discloses:
a touch line in the transistor formation layer, the touch line electrically connected to a touch electrode from the plurality of touch electrodes (paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kim the elements taught by Yao.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim, Bok, and Yao are directed to the same field of art.
Although Kim discloses the touch electrodes are formed in the transistor formation layer, Kim does not show any details. Yao discloses how this could be implemented. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 11:
Kim, etc., discloses:
wherein the touch line is disposed in a direction parallel to a data line (these lines are shown in, e.g., Yao Fig. 6A) and is on a different layer from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the transistor formation layer (Yao paragraph 35).
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chiang, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claims 13:
This claim contains the elements of claim 1, rejected as unpatentable over Kim in view of Chiang, and claims 4-6, where the additional elements were taught by Lee. The analysis here is the same as for the claims except that the elements of claims 2-3 are not included and therefore the teaching of Xu is not required. But the reasoning for the combination of Kim, Chiang, and Lee is the same as claim 4 above.
Regarding claims 14-16:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chiang, and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Kim ‘824, and further in view of Jo.
Regarding claim 17:
The analysis here is the same as for claim 7 above except the teaching of Xu is not necessary. Otherwise the rejection is the same. No further elaboration is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the object to the drawings, this objection is moot because the claimed subject matter has been cancelled from the claims.
With respect to the 112 rejection, applicant has cancelled two of the claims it applied to and amended the other. This has overcome this rejection.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, applicant argues (starting page 11) that Kim in view of Bok does not disclose the amended language of the claim. The Examiner agrees with this. The new language is directed to the amplitude and cycle of the signal applied to the cathode electrode. While Kim does disclose a signal might be applied to this electrode, Kim does not disclose that it has the same amplitude and cycle as the touch signal.
However, Chiang has now been relied upon to teach this. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant next argues (page 12) that Kim ‘825 does not teach the newly claimed language. Kim ‘825 is no longer relied upon, as it is clearly taught by Chiang.
From here applicant applies the same argument to the other claims. It is no more persuasive there.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al. (US 2016/0334660) and Chou (US 2021/0065627) both disclose applying the same signal to the touch and cathode electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
1 Note that if this is not sufficient Chiang also discloses (e.g., paragraph 63) that these two layers should be separated by an inulating layer.
2 This is almost certainly true in Kim – there has to be some kind of cover, and although Kim never directly discusses the capacitance between the touch object and the cathode, it detects this touch object using the capacitance so it must exist.
Prosecution Insights