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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (details of the charging electrodes and the third electrodes) in the reply filed on 1/08/2026 is acknowledged.
As detailed below, claim 22 is allowable, therefore, the restriction requirement among groups I-IV, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 12/19/2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 12/19/2025 is partially withdrawn. Claims 24-28, directed to Groups II-IV respectively, are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claims 8-16 and 20-21 also directed to Groups II-IV remain withdrawn from consideration because they do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Currently, claims 1-29 are pending, but claims 8-16 and 20-21 are withdrawn from examination as directed to non-elected subject matter, and claims 1-7, 17-19 and 22-29 are examined as follows.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Electronic device with a sensor layer comprising third electrodes and an auxiliary layer comprising charging electrodes”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 17-19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in US 2023/0067179 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electronic device (Kim’s par. 1) comprising:
a light emitting element layer (Kim’ Fig. 3b and par. 563: see 561 with LEDs) comprising a light emitting element (Kim’s Fig. 6 and par. 563);
a sensor layer on the light emitting element layer (Kim’s Fig. 3b and par. 555: see 261);
a sensor driver configured to drive the sensor layer (Kim’s Fig. 2 and par. 552: see 262); and
an auxiliary layer (Kim’s Figs. 45-46 and par. 556: see 264) in a layer different from that of the sensor layer (Kim’s Figs. 45-46, 78 and par. 1015-1017: see 264/241 on layer different from 261), the auxiliary layer comprising a plurality of first charging electrodes (Kim’s Figs. 28, 80, 82, 88 and par. 1001: see loops 264a/264b or 241a/241b), wherein the sensor layer (Kim’s Fig. 21: see 261) comprises:
a plurality of first electrodes along a first direction (Kim’s Figs. 21-22 and par. 657: electrodes 121 along horizontal);
a plurality of second electrodes along a second direction crossing the first direction, and crossing the plurality of first electrodes (Kim’s Figs. 21-22 and par. 657: electrodes 111 along vertical and crossing electrodes 121); and
a plurality of third electrodes along the first direction (Kim’s Fig. 22 and par. 717: see 131 along horizontal connected by horizontal bridge BP3), and adjacent to the plurality of first electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 22: see 131 inside [thus adjacent] to 121), and
wherein the sensor driver (Kim’s Fig. 2: see 262) is configured to output a first signal having a first phase to the plurality of third electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 154: driving signal to 131), and output a second signal to the plurality of first charging electrodes (Kim’s Figs. 139-140, 170-172: signal D_264).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose the second signal having a second phase having a phase difference from that of the first phase.
However, Kim does disclose that the driving signal applied to the first to third touch electrodes have the same phase (Kim’s par. 1426 such as in period T2 of Fig. 154), an embodiment where the driving signal applied to the first electrodes has a phase [or a frequency] different than the driving signal applied to the charging electrodes (Kim’s Figs. 140: see phase of D_264 at the start of time T2 different from the phase of D_121), and applying a different phase signal to the touch sensor or the charging electrode (Kim’s Figs. 144-147 and par. 1408: the driving signal changes of phase in different subperiods).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that:
the second signal has a second phase having a phase difference from that of the first phase (Kim’s Figs. 140: during period T2, the phase of D_264 is different from the phase of D_121, and upon combination, the phase of the signal applied to third electrodes 131 is the same as the phase of the signal applied to 121 per par. 1426 and Fig. 154),
in order to obtain the predictable result of the third electrodes being applied a signal with a same phase than the first and second electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 154 and par. 1426), and the predictable result of a different phase between the signal applied to the first electrodes and the charging electrodes (Kim’s Figs. 140).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein, in a plan view (Kim’s Figs. 28, 20-22), the plurality of first charging electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 28: see 264a, 264b) overlap with the plurality of third electrodes, respectively (Kim’s Figs. 100: see overlap of 21 with 241, and Figs. 20-22, 28: see electrodes 131 over the whole of the active area, which thus results in overlap of the electrodes 131 with loops 264a/264b).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein a number of the plurality of first charging electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 28: two loops 264a and 264b) is less than a number of the plurality of third electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 20: at least nine electrodes 131).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses wherein, in a side view, each of the plurality of first charging electrodes has a width (Kim’s Fig. 227: see width of loop 241 [charging electrode]) smaller than a gap between central axes of two adjacent third electrodes from among the plurality of third electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 20: the central axis of the left column of electrodes 131 is where CHD-1 is aligned, the central axis of the center column of electrodes 131 is where CHD-2 is aligned, the gap between these two axis includes five electrodes 111. Fig. 227 shows that the width of a touch electrode 111 is larger than the width of the loop 241, thus the gap between central axes of adjacent electrodes 131 [Fig. 20] is larger than the width of loop 241 [Fig. 227]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses wherein the plurality of third electrodes are electrically connected with one another (Kim’s Figs. 21-22 and par. 734: see 131 connected at least in four groups to wires CHD-1 to CHD-4).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses wherein the plurality of first charging electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 88: plural antennas 241) are electrically connected with one another (Kim’s Fig. 80 and par. 1012: loops 241a and 241b electrically connected to each other through 272).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses wherein the auxiliary layer (Kim’s Figs. 45-46: see 264) further comprises a plurality of second charging electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 88 and par. 1058: see 241c and 241d) electrically insulated from the plurality of first charging electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 88: see 241a and 241b),
wherein, in a plan view (Kim’s Figs. 88, 28, 20-22), the plurality of first charging electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 88: see bottom portion of display panel DP where 241a/241b are located, this area is equivalent to right portion of Fig. 28) overlap with some of the plurality of third electrodes (Kim’s Figs. 100: see overlap of 21 with 241, and Figs. 20-22, 28: see electrodes 131 over the whole of the active area, which thus results in overlap of the electrodes 131 with loops 241a/241b in the bottom portion of Fig. 88 or the right portion of Fig. 28), respectively, and
wherein the plurality of second charging electrodes (Kim’s Fig. 88: see top portion of display area DP where 241c/241d are located, this area is equivalent to left portion of Fig. 28) overlap with others of the plurality of third electrodes, respectively (Kim’s Figs. 100: see overlap of 21 with 241, and Figs. 20-22, 28: see electrodes 131 over the whole of the active area, which thus results in overlap of the electrodes 131 with loops 241c/241d in the top portion of Fig. 88 or the left portion of Fig. 28).
Regarding claim 29, Kim disclose an electronic device comprising:
a first display device (Kim’s Figs. 1b, 93-94 and par. 1083: left side of touchpanel 2/20 includes the left side of display 251) configured to display an image on a first surface (Kim’s Figs. 1b, 93-94 and par. 546, 579: image displayed by 251 on left side through window [22]); and
a second display device (Kim’s Figs. 1b, 93-94 and par. 1083: right side of touchpanel 2/20 includes the right side of display 251) configured to display an image (Kim’s Fig. 94 and par. 546, 579: image displayed by 251 on right side through window 22) on a second surface opposite the first surface (Kim’s Fig. 94: the left side of 251 is opposite the right side of 251 when folded), wherein at least one of the first display device or the second display device comprises: all limitations as described for claim 1.
In addition, Kim discloses:
wherein the electronic device is one of a television, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a car navigation device, or a game machine (Kim’s Fig. 1b and par. 528).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-28 are allowed, and claims 3, 6 and 7 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 22, the prior art fails to disclose “an electronic device comprising: a light emitting element layer comprising a light emitting element; a sensor layer on the light emitting element layer; a sensor driver configured to drive the sensor layer; and an auxiliary layer in a layer different from that of the sensor layer, the auxiliary layer comprising a plurality of charging electrodes, wherein the sensor layer comprises: a plurality of first electrodes along a first direction; a plurality of second electrodes along a second direction crossing the first direction, and crossing the plurality of first electrodes; and a plurality of third electrodes along the first direction, and adjacent to the plurality of first electrodes, and wherein, in a side view, central axes of the plurality of charging electrodes are aligned with central axes of the plurality of third electrodes, respectively”.
Dependent claims 23-28 are allowable for at least the same reason than claim 22.
Similarly, regarding dependent claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose ALL limitation of claim 1, in addition to “wherein, in a side view, central axes of the plurality of first charging electrodes are aligned with central axes of the plurality of third electrodes, respectively”.
Kim is directed to charging electrodes for a digitizer in a different layer than touch electrodes that also include a third electrode (see rejection of claim 1), but Kim fails to disclose “wherein, in a side view, central axes of the plurality of charging electrodes are aligned with central axes of the plurality of third electrodes, respectively”.
Mizuhashi et al. in US 2025/0355527 also disclose a touch sensor layer and a sensor coil driving layer (Figs. 5-6, 15), but fails to disclose “wherein, in a side view, central axes of the plurality of charging electrodes are aligned with central axes of the plurality of third electrodes, respectively”.
Alignment of two coils overlapping each other is disclosed by Nakamura et al. in US 11,315,987 (Fig. 14), but Nakamura fails to disclose the limitations of the sensor layer as described in claim 22 or claim 1 [for claim 7].
Regarding dependent claim 3, the prior art fails to disclose ALL limitation of claim 1, in addition to “wherein a number of the plurality of first charging electrodes is equal to a number of the plurality of third electrodes”. The closest prior art to Kim does not disclose these features.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose ALL limitation of claim 1, in addition to “wherein a width of each of the plurality of first charging electrodes is equal to a width of each of the plurality of third electrodes”. The closest prior art to Kim does not disclose these features.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621