DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 12/788,508, filed on 27 May 2010.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, in accordance with MPEP 804 II.B.2 they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim anticipates the examined claim. The examined application limitation:
(a) “a second linear part that is not directly connected to the first linear part” is taught by the reference Application limitations:
(b) “second connecting parts directly connecting the second linear part with the extending part” and
(c) “the first linear part has a first end and the second linear part has a second end facing the first end across a gap therebetween”,
because the second end of the second linear part faces a gap and the first end of the second linear part connects the second connecting parts with the extending part, the second linear part cannot be directly connected with the first linear part without being connected through in intervening structure. Directly connected structures cannot have any intervening structure.
MPEP 804 II.B.2 states: A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where a claim in an application under examination claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter claimed in a prior patent or a copending application. The claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
19/042,128
(Examined Application)
US Patent 12,242,701 (Reference Application)
Claim 1 A touch sensor device comprising:
a substrate; and conductive wiring lines disposed on the substrate,
the conductive wiring lines each having a linear shape, wherein,
(a) some of the conductive wiring lines constitute a detection electrode,
(b) the conductive wiring lines include:
(i) an extending part;
(ii) a first linear part extending in a first direction;
(iii) first connecting parts directly connecting the first linear part with the extending part; and
(iv) a second linear part that is not directly connected to the first linear part;
(c) the first linear part is shorter than the extending part,
(d) the first linear part and the extending part are arranged in a second direction different from the first direction, and
(e) the first linear part has a first end facing a second end of the second linear part having a gap therebetween.
Claim 1. A touch sensor device comprising:
a substrate; and conductive wiring lines disposed on the substrate,
the conductive wiring lines each having a linear shape, wherein,
(a) some of the conductive wiring lines constitute a detection electrode,
(b) the conductive wiring lines include:
(i) an extending part;
(ii) a first linear part extending in a first direction;
(iii) first connecting parts directly connecting the first linear part with the extending part;
(iv) a second linear part extending in the first direction; and
(v) second connecting parts directly connecting the second linear part with the extending part,
(c) both of the first and second linear parts are shorter than the extending part,
(d) the first linear part and the second linear part are arranged in the first direction,
(e) the first linear part and the extending part are arranged in a second direction different from the first direction,
(f) the second linear part and the extending part are arranged in the second direction, and
(g) the first linear part has a first end and the second linear part has a second end facing the first end across a gap therebetween.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2010/0164901) in view of Ritter (US 2010/0302201). All reference is to Chen unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 1 (Original), Chen teaches a touch sensor device comprising:
an insulator [fig. 1 @5]; and
conductive wiring lines [figs. 1 and @31 and 32] disposed on the insulator [fig. 1 @5],
the conductive wiring lines [fig. 5 @31 and 32] each having a linear shape [Linear: arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line], wherein,
(a) some of the conductive wiring lines constitute a detection electrode [¶0010, “defining one of the first dimensional conductive patterns and second dimensional conductive patterns as a driving electrode and the other as a sensing electrode”],
(b) the conductive wiring lines include:
(i) an extending part [fig. 5 @31];
(ii) a first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right- top)] extending in a first direction [fig. 5 @horizontal];
(iii) first connecting parts [fig. 5 @321] directly connecting the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right- top)] with the extending part [fig. 5 @31]; and
(iv) a second linear part fig. 5 @322 (middle- top)] that is not directly connected to the first linear part [illustrated by fig. 5];
(c) the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right- top)] is shorter than the extending part [fig. 5 @31];
(d) the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right- top] and the extending part [fig. 5 @31] are arranged in a second direction [fig. 5 @vertical] different from the first direction, and
(e) the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right-top)] has a first end [left] facing a second end [right] of the second linear part [fig. 5 @322 (middle-top)] having a gap [illustrated in fig. 5] therebetween
Chen does not teach a substrate
Ritter teaches a substrate [¶0007, “an array of sense electrodes is disposed on a first side of a substrate”]
Before the application was invented it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position touch sensing electrodes on a substrate as taught by Ritter into the touch sensor taught by Chen in order to protect the sensing electrodes from damage.
Regarding Claim 14 (Original), Chen teaches a touch sensor device comprising:
an insulator [fig. 1 @5]; and
conductive wiring lines [figs. 1 and @31 and 32] disposed on the insulator [fig. 1 @5],
the conductive wiring lines [fig. 5 @31 and 32] each having a linear shape [Linear: arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line], wherein,
(a) some of the conductive wiring lines constitute a detection electrode [¶0010, “defining one of the first dimensional conductive patterns and second dimensional conductive patterns as a driving electrode and the other as a sensing electrode”],
(b) the conductive wiring lines include:
(i) an extending part [fig. 5 @31];
(ii) a first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right- top)] extending in a first direction [fig. 5 @horizontal];
(iii) first connecting parts [fig. 5 @321] directly connecting the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right- top)] with the extending part [fig. 5 @31]; and
(iv) a second linear part fig. 5 @322 (middle- top)] that is not directly connected to the first linear part [illustrated by fig. 5];
(c) the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right- top)] is shorter than the extending part [fig. 5 @31];
(d) the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right- top] and the extending part [fig. 5 @31] are arranged in a second direction [fig. 5 @vertical] different from the first direction, and
(e) the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right-top)] has a first end [left] facing a second end [right] of the second linear part [fig. 5 @322 (middle-top)]
Chen does not teach a substrate
Ritter teaches a substrate [¶0007, “an array of sense electrodes is disposed on a first side of a substrate”]
Before the application was invented it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position touch sensing electrodes on a substrate as taught by Ritter into the touch sensor taught by Chen in order to protect the sensing electrodes from damage.
Regarding Claims 2 and 16 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1 and Claim 14, wherein
the extending part [fig. 5 @31] extends in the first direction [fig. 5 @ Horizontal].
Regarding Claims 3 and 17 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1 and Claim 14, wherein
a longitudinal direction of the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right-top)] , a longitudinal direction of the second linear part [fig. 5 @322 (middle-top)] , and
a longitudinal direction of the extending part [fig. 5 @31] are the first direction [fig. 5 @ horizontal].
Regarding Claims 4 and 18 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1 and Claim 14, wherein
a longitudinal direction of the first connecting parts [fig. 5 @321] is the second direction [fig. 5 @ vertical].
Regarding Claims 5 and 19 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1 and Claim 14, wherein
each of the first connecting parts [fig. 5 @321] has a linear shape [illustrated by fig. 5].
Regarding Claims 6 and 20 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1 and Claim 14, wherein:
the first connecting parts [fig. 5 @321], part of the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right-top)], and part of the extending part [fig. 5 @31] constitute a first annular [ring shaped] shape [the area bounded by 321 322 and part of 31 forms a non-closed shape which is construed as equivalent to the annular shape illustrated in fig. 9 of the application], and
the first end [left] of the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right-top] protrudes [the end of 322 protrudes from the area formed by an annular shape bounded by part of 31, 322 and 321] from the first annular shape [construed as the interior area framed by 322, 321 and part of 31].
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 6, wherein:
the conductive wiring lines [fig. 5 @321, 322 (top-right) and part of 31] have a second annular shape [the area bounded by 321, 322 (top -right) and part of 31 forms a non-closed shape which is construed as equivalent to the annular shape illustrated in fig. 9 of the application], and
the second annular shape includes part of the second linear part [fig. 5 @322 (middle-top] and part of the extending part [fig. 5 @31].
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 7, wherein:
the first end [left] of the first linear part [fig. 5 @322 (right-top] protrudes from the first annular shape toward the second end, and
the second end [right] of the second linear part [fig. 5 @322 (middle-top] protrudes from the second annular shape toward the first end [illustrated by fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 9 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1, wherein
a same voltage [the voltage applied to drive electrodes] is applied to the first linear part, the second linear part, the extending part, and the first connecting parts [Ritter: ¶0007, “In some mutual capacitance measurement systems, an array of sense electrodes is disposed on a first side of a substrate and an array of drive electrodes is disposed on a second side of the substrate that opposes the first side, a column or row of electrodes in the drive electrode array is driven to a particular voltage, the mutual capacitance to a single row (or column) of the sense electrode array is measured, and the capacitance at a single row-column intersection is determined”].
Regarding Claim 10 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1, wherein
the gap [construed as space, in same conductive layer, between right end of fig. 5 @322 (middle-top) and fig. 5 @322 (right-top)] does not include any conductive film [fig. 1 @3 illustrates gap in conductive material].
Regarding Claim 11 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1, wherein
no conductive film [fig. 1 @3 illustrates gap in conductive material] is included in an area [construed as space, in same conductive layer, between right end of fig. 5 @322 (middle-top) and fig. 5 @322 (right-top)] between the first end and the second end.
Regarding Claim 12 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1, wherein
the extending part [fig. 5 @31] is in contact with none of the first and second linear parts [the first extending parts insulate the linear parts from the extending part].
Regarding Claim 13 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 1, wherein
a distance between the first end [Ritter: fig. 8(a) @20 illustrates three sense electrodes where the left and right pair of electrodes are separated by a gap] and the second end is smaller than a length of the first connecting part [Ritter: fig. 8(a) vertical electrodes connecting horizontal extending portion of 20 with square shaped electrodes, first end is lower edge of upper square electrodes and second end is upper edge of lower square electrodes].
Regarding Claim 15 (Original), Chen in view of Ritter teaches the touch sensor device according to Claim 14, further comprising
detection electrodes [fig. 1 @3] disposed on the substrate [Ritter: ¶0007],
wherein the conductive wiring lines are the detection electrodes [¶0010, “defining one of the first dimensional conductive patterns and second dimensional conductive patterns as a driving electrode and the other as a sensing electrode”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 EST. 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.
/Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622