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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 07/15/2026. Claims 15, 16, 22-25 and 27-30 are currently pending in this application. The previously withdrawn claim 28 amended to be read in the elected species IV is no longer withdrawn. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/13/2026. Claims 15, 16, 22-25 and 27-30 read in the elected species IV indicated by the Applicant on page 12 of the amendment are considered below.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objection and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the previous Office action dated 04/20/2026 have been withdrawn in light of replacement sheets of drawings, the amendment to claims and the cancellation of claim 26. However, see a new ground(s) of rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 15, 16, 22-25 and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) necessitated by the amendment.
In response to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon, Applicant has amended claim 1 to include new limitations and provided on pages 14-15 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered, but it is not persuasive. In order to best respond, Examiner respectfully directs the Applicant to the below rejection necessitated by the amended claim 1.
In response to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li, Applicant has amended claim 1 to include new limitations and provided on pages 15-16 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered, but it is not persuasive. In order to best respond, Examiner respectfully directs the Applicant to the below rejection necessitated by the amended claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: -- and not contacting – should be inserted immediately after “crossing” in line 6 and line 10, so as to be consistent with the disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Note that if claim 16 is not appropriately amended, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) will be issued because the term, “crossing” can be construed as “intersecting and [[physically/ electrically]] contacting”.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 25, this claim recites a limitation, “wherein number of electrode pieces per unit area of the first touch electrode or the second touch electrode decreases as it moves away from a center line of the first touch electrode or the second touch electrode.” Since it is unclear whether “it” of the above underlined limitation is referred to, it is considered that the invention is not clearly defined.
Further, as best understood, since most or all of all elements of a touch panel are substantially fixed, it is unclear which element of the touch panel of this application is capable moving aways from a center line of the first touch electrode or the second touch electrode.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 15, 16, 22-25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”).
As per claim 15, this claim recites a limitation, “wherein the pattern includes a plurality of electrode pieces spaced apart from each other with the gap interposed therebetween in each of the first direction and the second direction” in lines 8-10. The original disclosure, specifically at least Fig. 29 and ¶ 163 of the corresponding US 2025/0199648 A1, discloses the pattern 571 of the first electrode 57 including a plurality of electrode pieces 571a electrically connected to each other and each of the plurality of electrode pieces 571a directly connected to an adjacent one of the plurality of electrode pieces, i.e., two adjacent electrode pieces 571a not spaced apart from each other with the gap interposed therebetween in each of the first direction and the second direction. Similarly for the second electrode 58, the original disclosure, specifically at least Fig. 30, and ¶ 163 of the corresponding US 2025/0199648 A1, discloses two adjacent electrode pieces 581a not spaced apart from each other with the gap interposed therebetween in each of the first direction and the second direction. Further, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 16, 22-25 and 27-30, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 15 above.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Examiner notes that the specification is not the measure of invention. Therefore, limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. See In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968).
Further, the names/ terms of the features/elements used in the pending application or pending claims may be different from the names/terms of the matching features/ elements of the prior arts; however, the matching features/ elements of the prior arts contain all characteristics/ functions of the features/elements DEFINED by the pending claims.
Note that in order to avoid confusion, the below citations in the below rejection(s) are mere one or more places in the reference to disclose the "claimed" limitation(s) and/or are directed to one or more of embodiments disclosed by the cited reference(s). In other words, the “claimed” features/limitations may be read in other places in the reference or other embodiments of the reference. In order to better understand how the claimed limitations are taught by the reference(s), a review of the entire reference(s) is suggested by the examiner. Applicant is reminded a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention as not all relevant paragraphs may have been cited in the rejection. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 of this title, 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.
FIRST SET OF REJECTIONS:
Claims 15, 16, 22-24, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon (KR 2012-0100488 A, see English Translation cited in the previous Office action dated 04/20/2026 for the following citations.)
As per claim 15, Yoon discloses a touch panel (see at least Fig. 8) comprising:
a plurality of first touch electrodes, each of the plurality of first touch electrodes extending in a first direction (see at least Figs. 7-8, disclosing each of the plurality of first touch electrodes comprising a pattern including at least two zigzag electrode pattern lines; and gaps in a plan view of the touch panel and extending in a first/horizontal direction, wherein each zigzag electrode pattern line includes at least 2 rows of elements [10, 20], and each gap is interposed between two adjacent electrode pieces [10] in the first/horizontal direction and/or between two adjacent electrode pieces [10] in the second/vertical direction;) and
a plurality of second touch electrodes, each of the plurality of second touch electrodes extending in a second direction that intersects the first direction (see at least Figs. 7-8, disclosing each of the plurality of second touch electrodes comprising a pattern including at least two zigzag electrode pattern lines; and gaps in a plan view of the touch panel and extending in the second/vertical direction, wherein each zigzag electrode pattern line includes at least 2 rows of elements [40, 50] and each gap is interposed between two adjacent electrode pieces [40] in the second/vertical direction and/or between two adjacent electrode pieces [40] in the first/horizontal direction,)
wherein each of a first touch electrode and a second touch electrode includes a pattern having a gap in a plan view of the touch panel (see the above discussion,) and
wherein the pattern includes a plurality of electrode pieces spaced apart from each other with the gap interposed therebetween in each of the first direction and the second direction (see the above discussion for the pattern and electrode pieces of the first and second touch electrodes; or see at least Figs. 7-8, disclosing the pattern of the first touch electrode including a plurality of electrode pieces [10] spaced apart from each other with the gap interposed therebetween in each of the first/horizontal direction and the second/vertical direction and the pattern of the second touch electrode including a plurality of electrode pieces [40] spaced apart from each other with the gap interposed therebetween in each of the first/horizontal direction and the second/vertical direction.)
As per claim 16, Yoon discloses:
wherein a part of the pattern of another first touch electrode from the plurality of first touch electrodes that is adjacent to the first touch electrode and a part of the pattern of the second touch electrode crossing the first touch electrode are disposed in the gap of the first touch electrode (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the mapped first and second touch electrodes and the pattern of the second touch electrode; further see at least Figs. 8-10, disclosing the element [20] of the pattern of another first touch electrode from the plurality of first touch electrodes that is adjacent to the first touch electrode and the element [50] of the pattern of the second touch electrode crossing the first touch electrode are in the gap of the first touch electrode,) and
wherein a part of the pattern of another second touch electrode from the plurality of second touch electrodes that is adjacent to the second touch electrode and a part of the pattern of the first touch electrode intersecting the second touch electrode are in the gap of the second touch electrode (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the mapped first and second touch electrodes and the pattern of the first touch electrode; further see at least Figs. 8-10, disclosing the element [50] of the pattern of another second touch electrode from the plurality of second touch electrodes that is adjacent to the second touch electrode and the element [20] of the pattern of the first touch electrode intersecting the second touch electrode are in the gap of the second touch electrode.)
As per claim 22, Yoon discloses: wherein the pattern is a mosaic pattern including the plurality of electrode pieces having a predetermined [[squared]] shape (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the patterns of the first and second touch electrodes and the plurality of electrode pieces; further see at least Fig. 7 or 8, disclosing the plurality of electrode pieces having a predetermined squared shape.)
As per claim 23, Yoon discloses: wherein at least one of the plurality of electrode pieces of another adjacent first touch electrode immediately adjacent to the first touch electrode and another adjacent at least one of the plurality of electrode pieces of the second touch electrode crossing the first touch electrode are disposed in the gap of the mosaic pattern of the first touch electrode (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the electrode pieces of patterns of the first and second touch electrodes and gaps of the mosaic pattern of the first touch electrode; further see at least Fig. 7 or 8.)
As per claim 24, Yoon discloses: wherein a plurality of adjacent electrode pieces of the mosaic pattern of the second touch electrode are connected to each other via a line in a layer that is different from a layer of the plurality of adjacent electrode pieces of the second touch electrode (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the electrode pieces of patterns of the second touch electrode; further see at least Fig. 7 or 8.)
As per claim 27, Yoon disclose the touch panel further comprising: a detection circuit configured to detect a change in capacitance between the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode (see the attached English Translation; at least Abstract; page 2:5-7; page 4:8-13, disclosing the touch panel comprising and inherent detection circuit configured to apply a driving signal and detect a change in capacitance between the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode.)
As per claim 28, Yoon discloses a display device comprising: the touch panel according to claim 15; and a display panel on a rear surface side of the touch panel (see page 3 of the translation “… The capacitive touch panel … formed on a substrate of a display device or a liquid crystal display …”.)
SECOND SET OF REJECTIONS:
Claims 15, 16, 22, 24, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2013/0201348 A1; hereinafter Li.)
As per claim 15, Li discloses a touch panel (see at least Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of first touch electrodes [110], each of the plurality of first touch electrodes extending in a first/ horizontal X direction (see at least Fig. 1;) and
a plurality of second touch electrodes [120], each of the plurality of second touch electrodes extending in a second/ vertical Y direction that intersects the first direction (see at least Fig. 1,)
wherein each of a first touch electrode and a second touch electrode includes a pattern having a gap in a plan view of the touch panel (see at least Fig. 1, disclosing each of a first touch electrode [110] and a second touch electrode [120] comprising a pattern having a plurality of electrode pieces/stripes of the stripe pattern S; and a plurality of openings/gaps , wherein each gap is between two adjacent electrode pieces/stripes in a plan view of the touch panel,) and
wherein the pattern includes a plurality of electrode pieces spaced apart from each other with the gap interposed therebetween in each of the first direction and the second direction (see the above discussion, further see at least Fig. 1, disclosing wherein: the plurality of electrode pieces/stripes are spaced apart from each other with the gap interposed between two adjacent electrode pieces/stripes in each of the first direction and the second direction.)
As per claim 16, Li discloses:
wherein a part of the pattern of another first touch electrode from the plurality of first touch electrodes that is adjacent to the first touch electrode and a part of the pattern of the second touch electrode crossing the first touch electrode are disposed in the gap of the first touch electrode (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the pattern; further see at least Figs. 1-2, disclosing the element [150] of the pattern of another first touch electrode from the plurality of first touch electrodes that is adjacent to the first touch electrode and the element [160] of the pattern of the second touch electrode crossing the first touch electrode are disposed in the gap of the first touch electrode,) and
wherein a part of the pattern of another second touch electrode from the plurality of second touch electrodes that is adjacent to the second touch electrode and a part of the pattern of the first touch electrode crossing the second touch electrode are disposed in the gap of the second touch electrode ((see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the pattern; further see at least Figs. 1-2, disclosing the element [160] of the pattern of another second touch electrode from the plurality of second touch electrodes that is adjacent to the second touch electrode and the element [150] of the pattern of the first touch electrode intersecting the second touch electrode are in the gap of the second touch electrode.)
As per claim 22, Li discloses: wherein the pattern is a mosaic pattern including the plurality of electrode pieces having a predetermined shape (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the pattern; further see at least Figs. 1-2.)
As per claim 24, Li discloses wherein a plurality of adjacent electrode pieces of the mosaic pattern of the second touch electrode [120] are connected to each other via a line in a layer that is different from a layer of the plurality of adjacent electrode pieces of the second touch electrode (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the electrode pieces of the mosaic pattern of the second touch electrode 120; further see at least Figs. 2-3.)
As per claim 27, Li discloses the touch panel further comprising: a detection circuit configured to detect a change in capacitance between the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode (see at least Figs. 6-9 and the corresponding description, disclosing the touch panel comprising and inherent detection circuit configured to apply a driving signal and detect a change in capacitance between the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode.)
As per claim 29, Li discloses wherein each of the first touch electrode [110] and the second touch electrode [120] includes a plurality of gaps having different areas (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 15 for the gaps of the first touch electrode [110] and the second touch electrode [120].)
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
As per claim 28, Li discloses an electronic device, which comprising a touch panel, being mobile phone, laptop PC, PDA, tablet PC and more (see at least ¶ 4.) Further, the electronic device, such as mobile phone, laptop PC, PDA, or tablet PC, comprises an inherent display panel for displaying at least image. In other word, Li discloses an electronic device including or being a display device and comprising a display panel and the touch panel (discussed in the rejection of claim 15), but is silent to “the display panel on a rear surface side of the touch panel”, as claimed. Official Notice is taken that both the concept and the advantages of providing “a touch panel disposed on a display device” or “a display panel on a rear surface side of a touch panel” in the display device are well-known and expected in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to implement the display/electronic device of Li to have the display panel on the rear surface side of the touch panel, as this arrangement of the display device is well-known in the display art.
Note that the Yoon reference cited in the first set of rejections is one of plural available prior arts disclosing “a display panel on a rear surface side of a touch panel in the display device.” See the rejection of claim 28 in the first set of rejections.
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 Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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 at (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights