DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to 04/23/2026.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-18 are pending.
Claim 19 is allowed.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Pub. 2018/0275795) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. 2019/0278455), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a display device (see fig. 1) comprising: a substrate (substrate 11-see fig. 2); an emissive area defined on the substrate (area corresponding to OLED element 14-see fig. 2), the emissive area comprising a light emitting element configured to emit light (OLED 14-see fig. 2 and [0027]); a touch area disposed adjacent to the emissive area and configured to sense whether or not there is a touch (area corresponding to sense capacitor 15 used to generate a signal for touch sensing-see fig. 2 and [0028]).
Takahashi further discloses a sensing line SNS[j] controlled by a scan line SL[i-1] and data writing controlled by a scan line SL[i]-(see figs. 3-4]). Therefore, Takahashi does not appear to expressly disclose and a gate line connected to the emissive area and the touch area in common, wherein the gate line is connected in common to a gate of a switching transistor disposed in the emissive area and a gate of a touch transistor disposed in the touch area.
Li, in for example, figs. 2 and 9-10 with description in, for example, [0055]-[0059], illustrates a pixel unit of a touch display panel, which includes a touch area having a touch electrode 120, and an emissive area (illustrated by a pixel electrode 110), wherein a gate line 102 is connected to both the touch electrode (touch area) and the pixel electrode (emissive area). While the line 102 is implemented as separate lines 102a connected to the touch area (based on the touch electrode and emissive area disposed in a column direction), and 102 connected to the pixel electrode 110, both lines supply a same signal (see figs. 9-10), and supplying the same signal using a single line or different lines is a design choice and amounts to common sense or ordinary routine practice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the combined teachings of Takahashi and Li.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Li with the invention of Takahashi by supplying a common gate signal to the touch area and the emissive area, as taught by Li, thus synchronous scanning of touch detection and display is realized (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi discloses a display device (see fig. 1) comprising: a display panel comprising a pixel (display panel with pixel circuits 6-see fig. 1 and [0029]) and a gate line (scan line, e.g., SL[i]-see fig. 1); and a data driver connected to the pixel (touch controller-embedded display driver 2-see fig. 1 with description in [0024]), wherein the pixel comprises an emissive area (area corresponding to OLED element 14-see fig. 2) and a touch area disposed adjacent to the emissive area (area corresponding to sense capacitor 15 used to generate a signal for touch sensing-see fig. 2 and [0028]), wherein the emissive area comprises a light emitting element configured to emit light (OLED 14-see fig. 2 and [0027]), wherein the touch area comprises a touch electrode configured to sense whether or not there is a touch (area corresponding to sense capacitor 15 used to generate a signal for touch sensing-see fig. 2 and [0028]); a scan driver connected to a gate line (scan driver 4-see fig. 1), wherein the data driver comprises a first circuit configured to supply a data voltage to the emissive area, and a second circuit configured to supply a touch drive voltage to the touch area (see [0024] and [0031]-touch controller-embedded display driver 2 supplies data voltages to data lines DL[1] to DL[m] and touch sensing).
Takahashi further discloses a sensing line SNS[j] controlled by a scan line SL[i-1] and data writing controlled by a scan line SL[i]-(see figs. 3-4]). Therefore, Takahashi does not appear to expressly disclose and a gate line connected to the emissive area and the touch area in common, wherein the gate line is connected in common to a gate of a switching transistor disposed in the emissive area and a gate of a touch transistor disposed in the touch area.
Li, in for example, figs. 2 and 9-10 with description in, for example, [0055]-[0059], illustrates a pixel unit of a touch display panel, which includes a touch area having a touch electrode 120, and an emissive area (illustrated by a pixel electrode 110), wherein a gate line 102 is connected to both the touch electrode (touch area) and the pixel electrode (emissive area). While the line 102 is implemented as separate lines 102a connected to the touch area (based on the touch electrode and emissive area disposed in a column direction), and 102 connected to the pixel electrode 110, both lines supply a same signal (see figs. 9-10), and supplying the same signal using a single line or different lines is a design choice and amounts to common sense or ordinary routine practice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the combined teachings of Takahashi and Li.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Li with the invention of Takahashi by supplying a common gate signal to the touch area and the emissive area, as taught by Li, thus synchronous scanning of touch detection and display is realized (see [0004]).
Claims 8-9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Li, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 2023/0172015), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi in view of Li does not appear to expressly teach wherein the touch area further comprises at least one dummy touch electrode disposed as a form of a closed curve surrounding a touch electrode, to be spaced apart from the touch electrode.
Lee is relied upon to teach wherein the touch area further comprises at least one dummy touch electrode disposed as a form of a closed curve surrounding a touch electrode, to be spaced apart from the touch electrode (see fig. 6 with description in [0143]-[0145]-at least one electrode pattern can be disposed to surround a touch electrode TE, and the at least one electrode pattern can be a short circuit prevention electrode SPE, a dummy electrode DE-please, note that SPE and DE are herein equated to claimed dummy touch electrode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the inventions of Takahashi and Li such that at least one dummy touch electrode is disposed to surround the touch electrode, as taught by Lee, in order to prevent parasitic capacitance between the touch electrode and a second electrode of a light emitting element in the emissive area or a signal line driving the light emitting element (see [0180]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee is further relied upon to teach wherein the at least one dummy touch electrode includes a first dummy touch electrode (SPE-see fig. 7) and a second dummy touch electrode (dummy electrode DE-see fig. 7) disposed between the first dummy touch electrode and the touch electrode (DE is disposed between touch electrode (TE) and short circuit prevention electrode SPE), and wherein the second dummy touch electrode is disposed at a different layer than the first dummy touch electrode and the touch electrode, so as to be spaced apart from the first dummy touch electrode and the touch electrode vertically (as shown in fig. 7, TE and SPE are disposed on a same layer, while DE is disposed on a layer different layer (on dam structure DAS)).
Regarding claim 18, Lee is further relied upon to teach wherein the touch area comprises a transmission area configured to transmit natural light or an object incident thereto through a front surface or a back surface of the display panel (the touch electrode is disposed in a transmissive area TA (see fig. 7), and the touch electrode TE can be a transparent electrode or an opaque electrode and at least a portion of the touch electrode TE can be opened-see [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the inventions of Takahashi and Li such that the touch area includes a transmission area that transmits natural light, as taught by Lee, in order to provide a touch display device having a high transmittance (see [0098]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 11-12 and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitations “wherein, for one frame, the gate line first transmits a scan signal of a first pulse and then transmits a scan signal of a second pulse after a predetermined time elapses from the transmission of the scan signal of the first pulse” recited in claim 3 are not taught or suggested by the references of record. Similar limitations are also recited in claim 11. Claims 4-7 depend from claim 3, and claims 12-13 and 14-17 depend from claim 11, and are therefore further indicated as allowable.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The references of record fail to teach or suggest “the driving method comprising: outputting a scan signal of a first pulse for one frame through the gate line; and outputting a scan signal of a second pulse for the one frame through the gate line, wherein the scan signal of the second pulse is output after a predetermined time has elapsed from the outputting of the scan signal of the first pulse”, recited in claim 19.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued (see applicant remarks, pg. 1-5) that reference Li fails to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the gate line is connected in common to a gate of a switching transistor disposed in the emissive area and a gate of a touch transistor disposed in the touch area”, specifically, applicant argued that “in fig. 7 of Li, agate line 102 is connected to a pixel electrode (of an emissive area) and a second/different gate line 102a is connected to a touch electrode (of a touch area). Thus the gate line 102 and gate line [[102]] 102a are implemented as separate, distinct lines.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s position for at least the following reasons: In the instant application (as illustrated in, for example, fig. 14), the emissive area and the touch area are disposed in a row direction, while in the applied reference Li, the touch area and the emissive area are disposed in a column direction, and because the gate lines extend in a row direction, Li implements a layout structure that utilizes a gate line 102 to supply a gate signal to the emissive area, and a gate line 102a to supply the same gate signal to the touch area. Since both lines are supplying the same gate signal (see fig. figs. 9-10), the gates of switching transistors disposed in both the touch area and the emissive area, and receiving the gate signal, are necessarily connected in common. Supplying the same signal using a single line or two lines is an obvious design choice that may be necessitated by a layout structure of the emissive and touch areas (i.e., in a row or column direction), and simply amounts to common sense or ordinary routine practice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention in view of the combined teachings of Takashi and Li. The examiner therefore contends that the independent claims 1 and 10, as currently amended, are still obvious in view of Takahashi and Li.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARDIS F AZONGHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7706. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-7:00PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571)272-7776. 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.
/SARDIS F AZONGHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights