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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are on the substrate in the transistor formation layer, and are disposed in a same layer as the gate electrode or in a same layer as the source electrode or the drain electrode” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Note that Fig. 11, which shows the transistor formation layer, the touch electrode is on a different layer than the gate or drain electrode. Applicant’s specification does briefly mention the possibility that the touch electrode could instead be on the same layer as the source or drain electrode (paragraph 131) but this is not shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 8, 10, and 20 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 8:
It recites “wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are on the substrate in the transistor formation layer, are disposed on same layer as the gate electrode or on same layer as the source electrode and the drain electrode.”
But it is dependent on claim 1, which recites “wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are on the substrate in the transistor formation layer, and are disposed in a same layer as the gate electrode or in a same layer as the source electrode or the drain electrode.”
Is “on same layer” the same thing as “in a same layer?” If so, this language is duplicative. If not, it is contradictory. Either way it is unclear.
Regarding claim 10:
It recites “wherein the touch line is formed on the same layer the source electrode and the drain electrode of the transistor formation layer.” Although this is shown in the specification, this touch line is connected to the touch electrode through a contact hole, and the touch electrode is on a different layer. But this claim is dependent on claim 1, which recites “wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are on the substrate in the transistor formation layer, and are disposed in a same layer as the gate electrode or in a same layer as the source electrode or the drain electrode.” If the touch line and the touch electrodes are on the same layer as the source and drain electrodes, how are they connected?
It appears here that applicant is trying to claim components of two different embodiments that aren’t intended to be combined in this way.
Regarding claim 20:
It has language similar to claim 8.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0209950) in view of Bok et al. (US 2017/0269749).
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 that collectively form a coupling capacitor with the cathode electrode of the light emitting element layer are in the transistor formation layer.
Paragraph 84: "may be formed in the transistor forming layer," as per paragraph 85: "formed to form capacitance with the common electrode"
wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are on the substrate in the transistor formation layer, and are disposed in a same layer as the gate electrode or in a same layer as the source electrode or the drain electrode.
Kim does not show the details of the transistor forming layer.
Therefore Kim does not disclose:
“wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are on the substrate in the transistor formation layer, and are disposed in a same layer as the gate electrode or in a same layer as the source electrode or the drain electrode.”
(While Kim does disclose they can be in the transistor formation layer in paragraph 84, Kim does not show this level of detail).
Bok discloses:
wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are on the substrate in the transistor formation layer, and are disposed in a same layer as the gate electrode or in a same layer as the source electrode or the drain electrode (paragraph 133).
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 Bok.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim and Bok are directed to the same field of art.
Bok discloses this allows them to be made of the same material and by the same process, simplifying manufacture (paragraph 133). 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 Bok discloses:
wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are on the substrate in the transistor formation layer, are disposed on same layer as the gate electrode or on same layer as the source electrode and the drain electrode (taught by Bok as discussed above), wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are formed as a transparent electrode (Kim paragraph 74).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bok and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2018/0108716)
Regarding claim 2:
Kim in view of Bok discloses an in-cell touch display device as discussed above.
Kim in view of Bok 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.”1
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, Bok, 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 sense 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 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bok, 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, Bok, 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 18-20:
These claims are dependent on claim 13, which is rejected as unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee below. But these claims contain the additional subject matter taught by Xu in the rejection of claims 2-3 above, and therefore these claims are rejected the same way as claims 4-6 above. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bok, and further in view of Duan et al. (US 2021/0373689)
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”
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 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.
Regarding claim 10:
Kim in view of Duan discloses:
wherein the touch line is formed on the same layer the source electrode and the drain electrode of the transistor formation layer (Duan paragraph 41).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bok, 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bok, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0102825; hereafter Kim ‘825)
Regarding claim 12:
Kim in view of Bok 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 (it could be as per the square wave of Kim paragraph 120).
Kim does not disclose:
The voltage applied to the cathode electrode “having a same cycle and amplitude as the touch drive signal.”
Kim ‘825 discloses:
Voltages should have the same cycle and amplitude (paragraphs 150-151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Kim in view of Bok the elements taught by Kim ‘825.
The rationale is as follows:
Kim, Bok, and Kim ‘825 are directed to the same field of art.
Kim ‘825 discloses that if the cycle and amplitude are the same there is a consistent different between signals (e.g., paragraph 151) and this helps prevent parasitic capacitances (paragraph 147). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bok, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claims 13:
This claim contain the elements of claim 1, rejected as unpatentable over Kim in view of Bok, 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, Bok, and Lee is the same as claim 4 above.
Kim, etc., discloses:
An in-cell touch display device comprising:
a display panel including a plurality of sub-pixels having a light emitting element and a thin film transistor, and a plurality of touch electrodes in a transistor formation layer that includes the thin film transistor and form a coupling capacitor with a cathode electrode of the light emitting element (Kim paragraphs 76-79 as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above), the cathode electrode being disposed above the plurality of touch electrodes (follows from Kim paragraph 84); and
a sensing circuit configured to sense a touch signal by primarily integrating a signal output from a touch electrode from the plurality of touch electrodes and secondarily integrating the integrated signal (Lee Fig. 8),
wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are on the substrate in the transistor formation layer, and are disposed in a same layer as a gate electrode or in a same layer as a source electrode or a drain electrode of the thin film transistor (taught by Bok as discussed 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bok, and further in view of Xu, and further in view of Lee, and further in view of Kim ‘824, 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. The teaching of Kim ‘824 is equally applicable to Kim in view of Bok, Xu and Lee, and therefore teaches:
wherein during a touch time, a touch drive signal having a predetermined cycle and amplitude is applied to the touch electrode, a low potential modulation voltage having a same cycle and amplitude as the touch drive signal is applied to the cathode electrode (as discussed in the rejection of claim 12 above).
Kim, etc., oes 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bok, 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 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new language of the claim directed to the touch electrodes being in the same layer as the gate, source, or drain electrode renders it allowable over the prior art, and in particular the teaching of Duan, which was relied upon for the prior language that it was “on” the same layer as the gate, source, or drain electrode.
It’s true that Duan doesn’t disclose this. Duan is actually similar to applicant’s Fig. 11, where it is the touch wiring that is in this layer. But applicant is now claiming something other than this figure – a possibility briefly mentioned in the specification -- and so it is true that Duan does not show the new language.
For this reason Bok has been relied upon as per the rejections above. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 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. Note also that Bok shows a cover, e.g., Fig. 13: 1303.
Prosecution Insights