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 . Claims 1-18 are pending.
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, an active pen and the active pen sensing range must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the Claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly Claim the subject matter which a joint inventor regards as the invention. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a Claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the Claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that Claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding Claim 1, the term “an area of a smallest convex polygon” in Claim 1 is used by the Claim to mean “distance,” while the accepted meaning is “area”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding Claims 2-18. Claims 2-18 are rejected for containing the indefinite subject matter of their parent Claim.
Claims 1-18 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly Claim the subject matter which a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1. Claim 1 contains the limitation:
in at least a portion of the touch control structure having at least four of the plurality of second mesh blocks, inside an area defined by an active pen sensing range with reference to any point in the portion of the touch control structure,
an electrode ratio of a first occupied area actually occupied by mesh lines of first mesh electrodes to a second occupied area actually occupied by mesh lines of second mesh electrodes is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2; and
the active pen sensing range has a size between 1/4 and 1/3 of a size of an area
of a smallest convex polygon that encircles a respective second mesh block of the plurality of second mesh blocks.
The cited limitation defines the active pen sensing range as a fraction of an area of a convex polygon and compares a point inside an area defined by the active pen sensing range to any point in a portion of the touch control structure. The area of a convex polygon is measured in two dimensions, while a range is measured in one dimension.
Applicant discloses the concept of an active pen sensing range and an active pen sensing range area:
[0084] In some embodiments, the active pen sensing range is a sensing range of an active pen for performing a touch control in the present touch control structure or display apparatus. In one example, the active pen sensing range area is a sensing range area of an active pen comprising a tip having a diameter in a range of 0.8 mm to 2.0 mm, e.g., 0.8 mm to 0.9 mm, 0.9 mm to 1.0 mm, 1.0 mm to 1.1 mm, 1.1 mm to 1.2 mm, 1.2 mm to 1.3 mm, 1.3 mm to 1.4 mm, 1.4 mm to 1.5 mm, 1.5 mm to 1.6 mm, 1.6 mm to 1.7 mm, 1.7 mm to 1.8 mm, 1.8 mm to 1.9 mm, or 1.9 mm to 2.0 mm.
The cited limitation is indefinite because the one dimensional range parameter cannot be determined from a two dimensional area measurement and Applicant’s disclosure supports the concept of sensing range and sensing range area. In addition, the one dimensional sensing range parameter sensing range must specify a point of origin. Figure 8 of Applicant’s specification illustrates an example of the smallest convex polygon SCP2 which Claim 1 uses to determine the Active Pen sensing range, however taking .25 to .3 of the area of SCP2 results in an area without anchor point or defined shape. The Claim 1 cited limitation is indefinite because the active pen sensing range (and area) can be determined to be an area of any shape and position inside SCP2. The area obtained from .25 to .3 of the area of SCP2 must gave a specified shape and anchor point to meet the 35 USC §112(b) requirement of particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the active pen sensing range.
Regarding Claims 2-18. Claims 2-18 are rejected for containing the indefinite subject matter of their parent Claim.
In support of compact prosecution the Claim term “active pen sensing range” is construed “active pen sensing area” and the area used to determine the active pen sensing range is in the shape of the convex polygon, the measured area reduced by ¼ to 1/3.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each Claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju (US 2014/0293163) in view of Bae (US 2018/0113559). All reference is to Ju unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 1 (Original), Ju teaches a touch control structure, comprising
a plurality of first mesh [¶0020, “In an embodiment of the invention, the first electrode series and the second electrode series are made of metal material and patterned in the form of mesh”] electrodes [fig. 1 @120] respectively in a plurality of rows [¶0032, “Each second electrode series 120 includes a plurality of second electrodes 122 and a plurality of second connection patterns 124, where the second connection patterns 124 connect the second electrodes 122 in series along a second direction D2”] and
a plurality of second mesh [¶0020] electrodes [fig. 1 @110] respectively in a plurality of columns [¶0032, “Each first electrode series 110 includes a plurality of first electrodes 112 and a plurality of first connection patterns 114, where the first connection patterns 114 connect the first electrodes 112 in series along a first direction D1”];
wherein a respective one of the plurality of second mesh electrodes [fig. 1 @110] comprises a plurality of second mesh blocks [fig. 1 @ 112] consecutively connected in a respective column [¶0032]; wherein,
in at least a portion of the touch control structure [fig. 1 @100] having at least four of the plurality of second mesh [fig. 1 @112] blocks,
inside an area defined by a sensing range (area) [fig. 1 @A] with reference to any point in the portion of the touch control structure [fig. 1 @100],
an electrode ratio [¶0039, “In the present embodiment, in a unit sensing area A arbitrarily selected on the touch panel 100, a ratio of an area occupied by the first electrode 112 to an area occupied by the second electrode 122 is 1:1.2 to 1:1.4 … When the user directly operates the touch panel 100 by fingers, a size of the unit sensing area A is, for example, set to 5 mm2 “] of a first occupied area actually occupied by mesh lines of first mesh electrodes [construed as area occupied by first electrodes (fig. 1 @122)] to a second occupied area actually occupied by mesh lines of second mesh electrodes [construed as area occupied by second electrodes (fig. 1 @112)] is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 [¶0039 teaches the ratio of electrodes 112 to electrodes 122 is 1 to 1.2 which is equivalent to an electrode+++ ratio of 1.2 to 1 (1.2) between 122 and 112]; and
the sensing range (area) [construed as .3A] has a size between 1/4 and 1/3 of a size of an area of a smallest [Construed based on applicant’s disclosure that the smallest convex polygon is the smallest convex polygon having four sides, fig. 1 @A is construed as a smallest convex polygon encircling a respective second mesh block] convex polygon [fig. 1 @A, A convex polygon is any shape that has all interior angles that measure less than 180 degrees] that encircles a respective second mesh block [fig. 1 @112] of the plurality of second mesh blocks
Lu does not teach the specified sensing area is a specified active pen sensing area
Bae teaches specifying an active pen [¶0542] sensing area [fig. 36 @LSA, ¶0543, “The whole screen area in which local sensing is performed is referred to as a local sensing area (LSA)”, ¶0546, “In connection with a driving method at the time of local sensing, the touch display device 100 may perform sensing processing (touch-sensing processing or pen-touch-sensing processing) by performing signal detection through the touch electrodes arranged in the LSA”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of multiple active pen sensing areas, each sensing area a selected portion of the touch screen, as taught by Bae, into the touch control structure taught by Lu in order that accurate pen recognition (pen-touch sensing) may be enabled even in variable situations in which the number of active pens and the touch range of the active pens are dynamically variable (Bae: ¶0554).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1, wherein
the electrode ratio in the smallest convex polygon [fig. 1 @A] is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 [¶0039 teaches 1.2].
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1, wherein,
inside any area having a size between 1/20 and 1/6 of the size of the area of the smallest convex polygon, with reference to any point in the portion of the touch control structure, an electrode ratio is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 [¶0039 teaches anywhere in the area inside (fig. 1 @A) has an electrode ration of 1.2 therefore a smaller area inside fig. 1 @A has the electrode ration of 1.2].
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1, wherein
the respective second mesh block [fig. 1 @112A] has a substantially 0O [construed as two arrows arranged back to back in a column direction] shape, and the smallest convex polygon has a rectangular shape [fig. 1 @A].
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1, wherein
the area of the smallest convex polygon [fig. 1 @A] is in a range of 5 mm2 [¶0043]
Ju in view of Bae does not teach the area of the smallest convex polygon is in a range of 12.25 mm2 to 16 mm2
Ju further teaches the size of the unit sensing area A is only used as an example, and the invention is not limited thereto. Actually, the sizes of the first electrode 212 and the second electrode 222 can be determined according to a size, a resolution requirement and a using method of the touch panel 200. Therefore, the size of the unit sensing area A can be greater than or equal to 5 mm2
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first and second mesh electrodes such that the unit sensing area A is between 12.25 mm2 and 16.00 mm2 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1, wherein
a respective one of the plurality of first mesh electrodes [fig. 1 @120] comprises a plurality of first mesh blocks [fig. 1 @122A] and a plurality of third mesh blocks [fig. 1 @122B] alternately arranged in a respective row [¶0036, “The pattern of the second electrode 122 is, for example, composed of a second main pattern 122A and a plurality of second sub patterns 122B connected to the second main pattern 122A. Here, a main extending direction of the second main pattern 122A is approximately parallel to the second direction D2”].
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 7, wherein
the electrode ratio in a smallest convex polygon [fig. 1 @A, fig. 1 illustrates the pitch P1 and pitch P2 of electrodes 112 is equal to the P1 and P2 of electrode 120] that encircles a respective first mesh block [fig. 1 @122A] of the plurality of first mesh blocks is in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 [¶0039].
Regarding Claim 10 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1, wherein,
in at least the portion of the touch control structure [fig. 1 @100], inside the area defined by the active pen sensing range [fig. 1 @A] with reference to any point in the portion of the touch control structure, at least a portion of a dummy electrode [fig. 4 @Ed] is present [¶0050, “the dummy electrode Ed is, for example, disposed between the first electrode E1 and the second electrode E2 to fill the area of the gap G”, fig. 1 illustrates portions of gap G located in sensing area A].
Regarding Claim 11 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1,
a respective one of the plurality of first mesh electrodes [fig. 1 @120] comprises a plurality of first mesh blocks [fig. 1 @122A] and a plurality of third mesh blocks [fig. 1 @122B] alternately arranged in a respective row [¶0036, “The pattern of the second electrode 122 is, for example, composed of a second main pattern 122A and a plurality of second sub patterns 122B connected to the second main pattern 122A. Here, a main extending direction of the second main pattern 122A is approximately parallel to the second direction D2”];
the respective second mesh block [fig. 1 @112A] is in a space between a first adjacent third mesh block [fig. 1 @122B], a second adjacent third mesh block [fig. 1 @122B], a first adjacent first mesh block [fig. 1 @122A above right], a second adjacent first mesh block [fig. 1 @ 122A above left], a third adjacent first mesh block [fig. 1 @ 122A below right], and a fourth adjacent first mesh block [fig. 1 @ 122A below left];
a first portion of a respective third mesh block [fig. 1 @122b2 left] extends into a space between branches of a first adjacent second mesh block [fig. 1 @112A right]; and
a second portion of the respective third mesh block [fig. 1 @122b2 right] extends into a space between branches of a second adjacent second mesh block [fig. 1 @112A left].
Regarding Claim 13 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1, wherein
a respective second mesh block [fig. 1 @112A] of the plurality of second mesh blocks comprises a connecting portion [fig. 1 @114], a first branch [fig. 1 @112C top right], a second branch [fig. 1 @112C top right], a third branch [fig. 1 @112C top right], and a fourth branch [fig. 1 @112C top right], the first branch, the second branch, the third branch, and the fourth branch respectively connected [via fig. 1 @122A] to the connecting portion [fig. 1 @114].
Regarding Claim 18 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1,
embedded in a display apparatus comprising a display panel [Bae: ¶0016, “In one aspect, embodiments disclosed herein may provide a touch display device including: a display panel in which a plurality of data lines and a plurality of gate lines are arranged, and a plurality of touch electrodes which are embedded in the display panel] and
a plurality of touch control integrated circuits [Bae: fig. 24B @ 2410 and 2420] connect to the touch control structure [Bae: fig. 24B @TE].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju in view of Bae and Mo (US 2014/0362035). All reference is to Ju unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Ju in view of Bae teaches the touch control structure of Claim 1
Ju in view of Bae does not teach the active pen sensing range is a sensing range of an active pen comprising a tip having a diameter in a range of 0.8 mm to 2.0 mm
Mo teaches sensing an active pen [fig. 6 @21] comprising a tip having a diameter in a range of 0.8 mm to 2.0 mm [¶0065, “the touch area between an active pen and a capacitive screen is usually very small, and generally the diameter is only 1 to 2 mm]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of sensing the position of an active pen having a tip diameter between .8 to 2.0 mm, as taught by Mo, into the touch control structure taught by Ju in view of Bae in order to accurately determine the position of an active pen with a touch area much smaller than a finger.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12, and 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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