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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8,9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 and 9 recites the limitation "the break lines" in last line of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1-3,14,16,17,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZHOU et al (US 2018/0046301).
Regarding claim 1, ZHOU discloses a display panel (abstract), comprising a display area R1 and a non-display area R2 located at least to one side of the display area (Figure 2A-5); wherein the display panel comprises a touch sensing layer, the touch sensing layer comprises a plurality of touch positioning areas arranged in an array and touch capacitor structures located within the touch positioning areas (paragraph 27, 38, 42; When the finger touches or approaches the touch display apparatus, the capacitance at the touch position is increased. Therefore, during a touch detection, the position of a touch point can be determined by detecting the change of corresponding capacitance); wherein the touch capacitor structures comprise a first-type touch capacitor structure disposed throughout the touch positioning areas and a second-type touch capacitor structure disposed within a portion of the touch positioning areas (Figure 2A, ,3A, 4A, 6, 7); electrodes of the touch capacitor structures are grid electrodes (paragraph 6, 7); and the second-type touch capacitor structure comprises a first sub-capacitor structure located in the display area (touch circuitry within R1) and a second sub-capacitor structure (touch circuitry within R1 and R2) located in the non-display area (Figure 2A, ,3A, 4A, 6, 7; paragraph 6, 7); wherein a distribution density of grid lines of at least partial area of at least one second sub-capacitor structure is greater than a distribution density of grid lines of the first-type touch capacitor structure (Figure 2A, ,3A, 4A, 6, 7; paragraph 6, 7; by increasing the grid density of the touch electrode wires in the frame region, when the finger touches the edge of the display region, capacitance between the touch electrodes in the frame region and the finger is increased, thereby improving the strength of the touch signal).
Regarding claim 2, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses wherein in at least one second- type touch capacitor structure, the distribution density of grid lines in each area of the second sub-capacitor structure is greater than the distribution density of grid lines of the first-type touch capacitor structure (paragraph 6, 7, 23, 24, 44-45).
Regarding claim 3, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses wherein in the at least one second-type touch capacitor structure, the distribution density of grid lines in each area of the second sub-capacitor structure is 2 to 6 times the distribution density of grid lines of the first- type touch capacitor structure, wherein the distribution density of grid lines is a total length of grid lines per unit area (paragraph 41-45; The grid density of the touch electrode is a ratio of the area of a region occupied by the metallic wires to the area of the touch electrode).
Regarding claim 14, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses wherein the touch sensing layer is provided with a plurality of first touch signal channels arranged sequentially along a first direction and a plurality of second touch signal channels arranged sequentially along a second direction, the first direction and the second direction is arranged intersecting (Figure 2A-5; paragraph 21-23); one of the first touch signal channels and one of the second touch signal channels pass through any touch positioning area (Figure 2A-5; paragraph 21-23); the touch capacitor structure comprises a first electrode located in the first touch signal channel and a second electrode located in the second touch signal channel (Figure 2A-5; paragraph 21-23); the first electrode and the second electrode are both grid electrodes composed of grid lines and are provided in a same layer (Figure 2A-5; paragraph 6,7).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses wherein a distribution density of grid lines of the first sub-capacitor structure is consistent with the distribution density of the grid lines of the first-type touch capacitor structure (paragraph 6, 7, 23, 24, 44-45).
Regarding claim 17, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses wherein the non-display area comprises at least one of a first non-display area R2 and a second non-display area R3 (Figure 2A-6); wherein the first non-display area surrounds the display area (Figure 2A-6); and the second non-display area is partially or completely surrounded by the display area (Figure 2A-6).
Regarding claim 19, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses wherein a via hole is provided in the second non-display area (paragraph 29); the second-type touch capacitor structure comprises a second capacitor structure at least partially located in the second non-display area (paragraph 29); and a second sub- capacitor structure of the second capacitor structure is a grid electrode composed of grid lines (paragraph 29)
Regarding claim 20, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses a display device comprising the display panel according to claim 1 (abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 8,9,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al (US 2018/0046301) in view of YE (US 11,914,826).
Regarding claim 8, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses wherein the second-type touch capacitor structure comprises a first electrode and a second electrode disposed in a same layer and adjacent to each other, a boundary area is defined between the first electrode and the second electrode (Figure 2A, ,3A, 4A, 6, 7); the first electrode comprises a first edge portion proximate to the boundary area, and the second electrode comprises a second edge portion proximate to the boundary area (Figure 2A, ,3A, 4A, 6, 7); and in at least one second-type touch capacitor structure, at least one of the first edge portion and the second edge portion comprises a closed line located in the non-display area (Figure 2A, ,3A, 4A, 6, 7). However, ZHOU does not expressly disclose the closed line is connected to ends of at least some of the break lines. In a similar field of endeavor, YE discloses the closed line is connected to ends of at least some of the break lines (Figure 11, 12, 15; col. 4, line 15-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify ZHOU to include the teachings of YE, since YE states that such a modification would reduce resistance of connected metal wiring. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional grid formation based on those disclosed by YE.
Regarding claim 9, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses wherein in the at least one second-type touch capacitor structure, both the first edge portion and the second edge portion have closed lines, the closed lines of the first edge portion and the second edge portion are parallel and adjacent to each other (Figure 2A, ,3A, 4A, 6, 7).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, ZHOU does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first touch signal channels and the second touch signal channels comprises a channel body and an auxiliary electrode, the auxiliary electrode is surrounded by the channel body and separated from the channel body. In a similar field of endeavor, YE discloses wherein at least one of the first touch signal channels and the second touch signal channels comprises a channel body and an auxiliary electrode 301, 302 the auxiliary electrode is surrounded by the channel body and separated from the channel body (Figure 5, 6; col. 9, line 1-13,40-60; col. 10, line 40-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify ZHOU to include the teachings of YE, since YE states that such a modification would improve touch signal characteristics of a touch display. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional grid formation based on those disclosed by YE.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al (US 2018/0046301)
Regarding claim 18, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. ZHOU further discloses wherein the display area has a top corner, and the second-type touch capacitor structure comprises a first capacitor structure, and the first capacitor structure spans an edge of the top corner of the display area (Figure 1a, 2a, 6). However, ZHOU does not expressly disclose wherein the top corner is rounded. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of rounded corners in touch displays is well known and conventional in the art and the use of any shaped corners would be a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7,10-13 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: Prior Art fails to include specific structure as detailed in claim 4, 7, 10, and dependents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM M-F.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights