Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character 10 in FIG. 2 (appearing as “11(10)” and “12(10)”).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference character N (“node N”, specification paragraph [0026], described with reference to FIGS. 3 and 6).
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2” has been used to designate both the cover member (FIGS. 1 and 2; specification paragraph [0013]) and the substrate (FIG. 4, where the element labeled “2” is labeled “3” in FIGS. 3, 5 and 6).
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. 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 Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: the clauses “the first cell second side includes a first intersection point, the first cell third side includes a second intersection point” are finite clauses inserted in a list of participial phrases (“having … , including … , and having …”).
Claim 2: “the the second cell first length”; and “located on opposite sides across the second cell first diagonal length”.
Claims 6, 7 and 11: “each of the plurality of first electrode cells is the first cell” and “each of the plurality of second electrode cells is the second cell” (claim 1 recites a single first cell and a single second cell).
Claim 6: “the number of intersection points between the second cell and each of the plurality of first electrode cells” (the claim recites a plurality of second electrode cells immediately before).
Claim 9: “each side of first cell”.
Claim 10: “inclusive of the first and second intersection parts the first cell first side” (no punctuation or conjunction between the phrase and the list); “at least one of the second cell”.
Claim 12: “the first electrode is a transmission”.
Claim 14: “patten”.
Claim 18: “proximal the first surface”; “proximal the second surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Any remaining claim(s) is/are objected to, as being dependent upon one or more objected base claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following interpretations are applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (MPEP 2111).
Intersection point. The first and second electrodes are on opposite surfaces of the substrate and are insulated from one another (specification paragraphs [0027]–[0028]), and claim 1 recites that the intersection points “overlap the first cell in the top view.” An intersection point is a location at which a fine line of one electrode overlaps a fine line of the other electrode in the top view.
Provided on each side of [the] first cell (claim 9). The claim does not recite “directly on.” The specification describes “the fine line 20 corresponding to each side of the quadrangular shape” as the element that intersects fine lines of the other electrode (paragraph [0040]). An intersection point is provided on a side of the first cell when it lies on the fine line that forms that side, within the segment between the cell’s vertices or along the same fine line beyond them. In the alternative, the claim is also met where two intersection points lie within each side segment itself, as set out in the rejection of claim 9.
A second cell having a second quadrangular shape. The claim does not limit the second cell to the smallest opening of the second electrode’s mesh. A quadrangle whose four sides are formed by fine lines of the second electrode is a second cell; where the rejection relies on a quadrangle formed by a 2 × 2 block of the smallest openings, it says so.
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 2, 10 and 18 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2.
Claim 1 recites “a second cell first length along the second direction greater than a second cell second length along the first direction.”
Claim 2 recites that “the second cell second length is equal to the second cell second diagonal length, the second cell second diagonal length extending along the second direction,” and that “the second cell first length is equal to the second cell first diagonal length, the second cell first diagonal length extending along the first direction.”
Each clause equates a length taken along one direction with a diagonal that the same clause states extends along the perpendicular direction; the clauses cannot be reconciled with claim 1, and the metes and bounds of the second cell’s recited dimensions cannot be determined.
It is likewise unclear which diagonal is “the second cell first diagonal length” of the last clause, the direction clause of claim 2 identifying the diagonal extending along the first direction while the equality clause, read with claim 1, identifies the diagonal equal to the second cell first length, which extends along the second direction.
Claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the first and second intersection parts” in lines 1-2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; claim 1 recites intersection points, and no intersection parts are recited.
Claim 10 further recites “at least one of the second cell of a plurality of second cells.”
Claim 1 recites a single second cell; claim 10 introduces a plurality of second cells and then refers to “the second cell” as one of that plurality, and it cannot be determined whether the recited intersection is with the second cell of claim 1 or with a cell of an otherwise unrecited plurality.
Claim 18.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “the plurality of first electrodes” and “the plurality of second electrodes” in lines 2–3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim; claims 1, 11 and 16 recite a first electrode, a second electrode, and pluralities of first and second electrode cells, but no plurality of first electrodes or of second electrodes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 8-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takao (US 2011/0291966 A1);
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao.
Regarding claim 1, Takao discloses a touch sensor [e.g., Paragraph 36: The touch screen device, to which the present invention is applied, is used as a capacitance-type touch screen to be installed in a front surface of a display of a personal computer or an electronic device.] comprising:
a first electrode [Figs. 4, 5: 5]:
extending in a first direction [Fig. 5: 15] orthogonal to a second direction [Fig. 3: 13] [e.g., Paragraph 47: the plural second electrodes 5, arranged in parallel with respect to each other, are formed on the second electrode base 6 at a predetermined interval; Paragraph 48: a second direction 15 (vertical direction of pixels in the display) connecting the terminals 14 perpendicular to the first direction 13], and
including a first cell [Fig. 7: one rhombus bounded by lines 16, 17]:
having a first quadrangular shape [e.g., Paragraph 48: the second electrodes 5 form a continuous pattern of rhombus shaped grids having an apex angle 2θ and configured by the conductor lines 16 and 17]
including a first cell first side, a first cell second side, a first cell third side directly connected to the first cell second side, and a first cell fourth side directly connected to the first cell second side [Fig. 7: the four sides of one rhombus bounded by lines 16, 17; the second side and the third side meet at one acute apex of the rhombus, and the fourth side is the other side meeting the second side],
the first cell second side includes a first intersection point, the first cell third side includes a second intersection point [Fig. 7: the two crossings of one line 11 (or 12) with two sides of one rhombus of lines 16, 17 that share a vertex; annotated FIG. 7, points A and B], and
having a first cell first length along the first direction greater than a first cell second length along the second direction [e.g., Paragraph 48: a plurality of conductor lines 16 and 17, inclined only at a predetermined angle θ in clockwise and counterclockwise directions with respect to a second direction 15; Paragraph 71: it is preferable that the predetermined angle θ is 20-35 degrees; Fig. 5: 15, 16, 17; Fig. 7]; and
a second electrode [Figs. 2, 3: 3]: extending in the second direction [e.g., Paragraph 42: the plural first electrodes 3, arranged in parallel with respect to each other, are formed on the first electrode base 4 at a predetermined interval; Paragraph 43: a plurality of conductor lines 11 and 12, inclined at a predetermined angle θ in clockwise and counterclockwise directions with respect to a first direction 13],
overlapping the first electrode in a top view [e.g., Paragraph 51: The rhombus shaped grid pattern of the first electrodes 3 and the rhombus shaped grid pattern of the second electrodes 5 are overlapped so as to form a new pattern.; Figs. 6, 7], and
including a second cell [Fig. 7: one rhombus bounded by lines 11, 12]:
having a second quadrangular shape [e.g., Paragraph 43: the first electrodes 3 form a continuous pattern of rhombus shaped grids having an apex angle 2θ and configured by the conductor lines 11 and 12]
including a second cell first side, a second cell second side, a second cell third side, and a second cell fourth side [Fig. 7: the four sides of one rhombus bounded by lines 11, 12], and
having a second cell first length along the second direction greater than a second cell second length along the first direction [e.g., Paragraph 43: a plurality of conductor lines 11 and 12, inclined at a predetermined angle θ in clockwise and counterclockwise directions with respect to a first direction 13; Paragraph 52: The rhombus shaped grids formed by the conductor lines 11 and 12; Paragraph 52: and the rhombus shaped grids formed by the conductor lines 16 and 17 have the same shape, and they are rotated by 90 degrees with respect to each other.; Fig. 3: 11, 12, 13; Fig. 7],
wherein: the second cell first side contains the first intersection point and the second intersection point, the first and second intersection points overlap the first cell in the top view, and the first cell fourth side intersects the second electrode [Fig. 7: in the rhombi of lines 16, 17 drawn complete within the overlapped area, a segment of one line 11 or 12, forming one side of a rhombus of lines 11, 12, crosses two sides of the rhombus of lines 16, 17 that meet at an acute apex, at two points lying on that rhombus in the top view, and the remaining sides of that rhombus are each crossed by other lines 11, 12; annotated FIG. 7]
(e.g., see Paragraphs 36–58; Figs. 1–7).
Takao’s conductor lines 16 and 17 lie at the angle θ to the second direction 15 and its conductor lines 11 and 12 lie at the angle θ to the first direction 13, the two directions being perpendicular (Paragraphs 43, 48).
Each side of a first cell therefore lies at ±θ to the direction 15 and each side of a second cell at 90° ± θ to that direction, so that no side of a second cell is parallel to any side of a first cell for any θ other than 45°, which Takao does not use (Paragraph 71: 20–35 degrees; Paragraph 62: 30 degrees for the embodiment of FIGS. 1, 6 and 7).
A line 11 or 12 crossing a first cell therefore crosses its sides, and FIG. 7, the enlarged plan view of the overlapped electrodes (Paragraph 22: FIG. 7 is an enlarged plan view of FIG. 6;), shows sides of second cells crossing two adjacent sides of first cells at points within the first cell and clear of its vertices, and every side of each completely drawn first cell crossed by a line of the second electrode.
Of the eight first cells drawn complete within the overlapped area of FIG. 7, six are crossed on two directly connected sides by one side of one of the smallest rhombi of lines 11, 12, and every side of each of the eight is crossed by a line 11 or 12.
Any one of those cells is the claimed first cell, and the rhombus of lines 11, 12 whose side crosses it is the claimed second cell; the cell marked in the annotated copy of FIG. 7 is one of them.
Drawings may anticipate claimed subject matter when they clearly show the structure that is claimed (MPEP 2125).
[see image 1 below: “Takao FIG. 7 (enlarged), examiner’s annotation”]
PNG
media_image1.png
1682
1250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Should it be shown that Takao’s FIG. 7 discloses the relationship of the first and second intersection points to the sides of the first cell with insufficient specificity:
Takao expressly discloses two rhombic meshes of the same shape rotated by 90 degrees with respect to each other, with conductor lines inclined at θ = 20–35 degrees to the respective electrode directions (Paragraphs 43, 48, 52, 71), and
expressly discloses that the overlapped meshes form a continuous pattern over the entire surface of the screen whatever the registration of the two electrodes [e.g., Paragraph 54: the squares 18 and the squares 19 can be formed even when the positional relationship between the first electrodes 3 and the second electrodes 5 is displaced backward, forward, right, or left, for example, without a complicated combination; Paragraph 58: even in a case where registration is displaced (misregistration occurs) at the time of forming an electrode pattern, a continuous pattern of squares as a basic shape is formed without interruption].
Overlaying the two meshes so recited necessarily places the sides of the second cells obliquely across the sides of the first cells, so that a side of a second cell crosses two adjacent sides of a first cell at two points within that cell and the remaining sides of that first cell are crossed by other lines of the second electrode; FIG. 7 is one such registration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to overlay Takao’s two meshes as Takao teaches, with the recited angles, because Takao teaches that doing so forms a continuous pattern of squares that suppresses low-frequency moire [e.g., Paragraph 56: A linear-shaped pattern may cause low-frequency moire. The present embodiment thus accordingly controls the occurrence of low-frequency moire.], and the claimed crossing relationship is the necessary result of the overlay Takao describes.
See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
Regarding claim 2, Takao discloses the first cell has a first cell first diagonal length and a first cell second diagonal length, the first cell first length is equal to the first cell second diagonal length, the first cell second diagonal length extending along the first direction, the first cell second length is equal to the first cell first diagonal length, the first cell first diagonal length extending along the second direction, the second cell has a second cell first diagonal length and a second cell second diagonal length, the second cell second length is equal to the second cell second diagonal length, the second cell second diagonal length extending along the second direction, the second cell first length is equal to the second cell first diagonal length, the second cell first diagonal length extending along the first direction [the rhombi of each electrode have one diagonal along and one diagonal perpendicular to that electrode’s direction, each diagonal being the extent of the rhombus in its direction: [e.g., Paragraph 48: rhombus shaped grids having an apex angle 2θ; Paragraph 43: rhombus shaped grids having an apex angle 2θ; Figs. 3, 5, 7]], and
pairs of the first intersection point and the second intersection point are located on opposite sides across the second cell first diagonal length [Fig. 7: the rhombus of lines 11, 12 marked in the annotated copy of FIG. 7 (image 2) carries, on two of its sides, pairs of intersection points each formed by that side crossing two directly connected sides of one rhombus of lines 16, 17, and those pairs lie on opposite sides of the diagonal of that rhombus extending along the first direction].
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
[see image 2 below: “Takao FIG. 7 (enlarged), examiner’s annotation”]
PNG
media_image2.png
1226
1190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Takao discloses the first cell and the second cell are substantially the same size.
Takao recites a single predetermined angle and a single predetermined interval for both electrodes [e.g., Paragraph 13: a first electrode having a plurality of first conductor lines, inclined at a predetermined angle in clockwise and counterclockwise directions with respect to a first direction and provided at a predetermined interval to form a grid-shaped pattern; Paragraph 13: inclined at the predetermined angle in clockwise and counterclockwise directions with respect to a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction and provided at the predetermined interval to form a grid-shaped pattern] and
that the two rhombus grids have the same shape, rotated by 90 degrees [e.g., Paragraph 52: and the rhombus shaped grids formed by the conductor lines 16 and 17 have the same shape, and they are rotated by 90 degrees with respect to each other.].
Rhombi of the same apex angle whose sides are spaced at the same interval are congruent, so the first cell and the second cell are necessarily the same size (Fig. 7).
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Regarding claim 9, Takao discloses two intersection points are provided on each side of first cell inclusive of the first and second intersection points [Fig. 7: each line 16 or 17 forming a side of a first cell is crossed by lines 11 and 12 at a plurality of points along its length (up to eight within the drawn field),
so that at least two intersection points lie on the fine line forming each side of the first cell, the first and second intersection points among them; and, in the alternative, the rhombus of lines 16, 17 marked in the annotated copy of FIG. 7 (image 1) has exactly two crossings within each of its four sides, eight in all, and each of its four sides is crossed at two points by one side of a second cell formed by a 2 × 2 block of the rhombi of lines 11, 12, the first and second intersection points being two of those eight].
See the Claim Interpretation section above.
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Regarding claim 10, Takao discloses, inclusive of the first and second intersection parts the first cell first side, the first cell second side, the first cell third side, and the first cell fourth side, each has an intersection point with at least one of the second cell of a plurality of second cells [Fig. 7: every side of each rhombus of lines 16, 17 drawn complete within the overlapped area is crossed by at least one line 11 or 12, each such line forming a side of a rhombus of lines 11, 12; annotated FIG. 7, image 1].
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Regarding claim 11, Takao discloses the first electrode includes a plurality of first electrode cells, each of the plurality of first electrode cells is the first cell, the second electrode includes a plurality of second electrode cells, and each of the plurality of second electrode cells is the second cell [e.g., Paragraph 48: the second electrodes 5 form a continuous pattern of rhombus shaped grids having an apex angle 2θ and configured by the conductor lines 16 and 17; Paragraph 43: the first electrodes 3 form a continuous pattern of rhombus shaped grids having an apex angle 2θ and configured by the conductor lines 11 and 12; Figs. 3, 5, 7].
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Regarding claim 14, Takao discloses the first electrode has a first mesh pattern and the second electrode has a second mesh pattern [e.g., Paragraph 48: a continuous pattern of rhombus shaped grids; Paragraph 43: a continuous pattern of rhombus shaped grids; Paragraph 56: which makes it unlikely that the mesh pattern of the electrodes will be recognized as a linear shape compared to a pattern of one square as a basic shape].
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Regarding claim 15, Takao discloses the first electrode is electrically insulated from the second electrode [e.g., Paragraph 39: First electrodes 3 are provided on a surface of the first electrode base 4 opposite to the second electrode base 6. Second electrodes 5 are provided on the second electrode base 6 on the side of the first electrode base 4.; Paragraph 45: A transparent insulating material is used for the first electrode base 4.; Fig. 1: 3, 4, 5, 6].
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Regarding claim 16, Takao discloses a substrate [e.g., Paragraph 50: the first electrodes 3 may be formed on a front surface of the first electrode base 4, and the second electrodes 5 may be formed on a rear surface of the first electrode base 4; Fig. 1: 4].
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Regarding claim 17, Takao discloses the substrate electrically insulates the first electrode from the second electrode [e.g., Paragraph 45: A transparent insulating material is used for the first electrode base 4.; Paragraph 50: the first electrodes 3 may be formed on a front surface of the first electrode base 4, and the second electrodes 5 may be formed on a rear surface of the first electrode base 4].
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Regarding claim 18, Takao discloses the substrate includes first and second surfaces on opposing sides of the substrate, wherein the plurality of first electrodes is proximal the first surface and the plurality of second electrodes is proximal the second surface [e.g., Paragraph 50: the first electrodes 3 may be formed on a front surface of the first electrode base 4, and the second electrodes 5 may be formed on a rear surface of the first electrode base 4; Claim 19: said plurality of first electrodes being provided on a first surface of said base and said plurality of second electrodes being provided on a second surface of said base that is opposite to said first surface of said base].
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Regarding claim 19, Takao discloses the substrate is electrically insulating, flexible, or light transmitting, or any combination thereof [e.g., Paragraph 45: A transparent insulating material is used for the first electrode base 4.; Paragraph 45: The thickness of the first electrode base 4 is 0.05-2 mm in a case of a PET film, and the relative permittivity is 2.5-5.].
The alternative rejection of claim 1 applies with no change.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao in view of Satou (US 2016/0274703 A1);
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Satou.
Regarding claim 3, Takao discloses the touch sensor of claim 1 as set forth above.
Takao does not expressly disclose the second electrode further includes a dummy pattern that is electrically insulated from the second cell and is located inside the second cell.
However, Satou discloses a touch sensor having a first mesh electrode and a second mesh electrode overlapping in plan view [e.g., Paragraph 67: in the laminated conductive sheet 12, as shown in FIG. 3, the first electrodes 18A and the second electrodes 18B are opposed to each other through the insulating second transparent base 14B; Figs. 3, 7],
wherein the second electrode further includes a dummy pattern [Fig. 13: 50] that is electrically insulated from the second cell [e.g., Paragraph 93: However, the end portions of the dummy thin wires 50 are separated from the thin wires 20B forming the second cells 22B, and for this reason, electric conduction is not provided between the second electrodes 18B and the dummy thin wires 50.] and
is located inside the second cell [e.g., Paragraph 96: In the cases shown in FIGS. 12 and 13, the dummy thin wires 50 are disposed in the openings of the second cells 22B.; Paragraph 98: That is, the dummy thin wires 50 are provided in the second cells 22B constituting the second electrode 18B, whereby thin wire appearance is improved (the second mesh is made hard to be visually recognized).; Figs. 12, 13: 22B, 50, 52],
the second electrode being the electrode nearer the touch surface [e.g., Paragraph 10: hereinafter, the lower electrode is referred to as a first electrode, and the upper electrode is referred to as a second electrode].
Takao and Satou are analogous art, because both are from the same field of endeavor, capacitive touch sensors having two overlapping metal-mesh electrodes, and both address the visibility of the mesh electrodes to the user of the display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, in each cell of Takao’s electrode nearer the touch surface (the first electrodes 3, the claimed second electrode), an electrically isolated dummy pattern of thin wires as taught by Satou, so that the lines of the mesh electrode are made hard to be visually recognized [e.g., Satou, Paragraph 21: Therefore, the metal mesh electrodes are made hard to be visually recognized.; Paragraph 98: whereby thin wire appearance is improved (the second mesh is made hard to be visually recognized)],
which is the same objective Takao pursues for its own overlapped mesh pattern [e.g., Takao, Paragraph 56: which makes it unlikely that the mesh pattern of the electrodes will be recognized as a linear shape compared to a pattern of one square as a basic shape].
Moreover, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Satou’s dummy thin wires with Takao’s electrode by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Satou discloses the first cell intersects the dummy pattern in the top view [e.g., Paragraph 97: Accordingly, the thin wires 52 which form the dummy thin wires 50 cross the in-opening cells 22a.; Paragraph 96: the dummy thin wires 50 are positioned above the in-opening cells 22a through the second sheet body 10B as an insulating layer; Fig. 13: 22a, 52].
In the combination, the dummy thin wires provided in the cells of Takao’s first electrodes 3 lie over and cross the cells of Takao’s second electrodes 5 in the top view (Takao Fig. 7).
The reasons for combining set forth for claim 3 apply.
Regarding claim 5, Takao discloses a cover member [Fig. 1: 2] located above the second electrode [Fig. 1: 3] and including an operation screen [Fig. 1: 9] [e.g., Paragraph 38: the screen body 1 has a second electrode base 6; Paragraph 38: a first electrode base 4 that is superimposed on the second electrode base 6 by an adhesive 8; Paragraph 38: and a screen base material 2 that is attached to the first electrode base 4 by an adhesive 7; Paragraph 41: A surface of the screen base material 2 opposite to the first electrode base 4 serves as a touch surface 9 where a touch operation is performed by a user's finger.],
wherein the second electrode is located above the first electrode [Fig. 1: 3 above 5] [e.g., Paragraph 39: First electrodes 3 are provided on a surface of the first electrode base 4 opposite to the second electrode base 6. Second electrodes 5 are provided on the second electrode base 6 on the side of the first electrode base 4.].
The reasons for combining set forth for claim 3 apply; Satou likewise places the dummy pattern in the electrode nearer the touch surface (Paragraphs 10, 98).
Regarding claim 6, Takao discloses the first electrode includes a plurality of first electrode cells, each of the plurality of first electrode cells is the first cell, the second electrode includes a plurality of second electrode cells, each of the plurality of second electrode cells is the second cell [e.g., Takao, Paragraph 48: a continuous pattern of rhombus shaped grids; Paragraph 43: a continuous pattern of rhombus shaped grids; Fig. 7].
Satou discloses that its dummy thin wires cross first cells that the frame lines of the second cells do not cross [e.g., Satou, Paragraph 90: frame lines (thin wires 20B) which form the second cells 22B do not cross the in-opening cells 22a; Paragraph 97: Accordingly, the thin wires 52 which form the dummy thin wires 50 cross the in-opening cells 22a.; Fig. 13: 22a, 20B, 52],
that is, first cells in which the intersection points with the dummy pattern outnumber the intersection points with the second cell, and teaches providing the dummy so that the density of lines is the same in every first cell [e.g., Satou, Paragraph 97: As a result, the coarse and dense patterns of the frame lines (thin wires 20A, 20B, 52) are the same in the in-opening cells 22a and the surrounding first cells 22A. With this, the in-opening cells 22a are made hard to be visually recognized.].
In the combination, with Satou’s cross-shaped dummy thin wires provided in each cell of Takao’s electrode nearer the touch surface (θ = 30°, Takao Paragraph 62), a plurality of the cells of Takao’s other electrode, the claimed first electrode cells, are each crossed by the dummy thin wires at more points than by the lines of the second cell, so that the recited comparison is met for that plurality.
The reasons for combining set forth for claim 3 apply.
Regarding claim 7, Takao discloses the first electrode includes a plurality of first electrode cells, each of the plurality of first electrode cells is the first cell, the second electrode includes a plurality of second electrode cells, each of the plurality of second electrode cells is the second cell (Paragraphs 43, 48; Fig. 7).
Takao does not expressly disclose the number of intersection points between the plurality of first electrode cells and the plurality of second electrode cells is 3 or more and 97 or less in a unit area corresponding to 1 square millimeter; Takao provides its conductor lines at a predetermined interval without stating its value (Paragraphs 43, 48).
Satou discloses the cell pitch of a rhombic mesh electrode of a touch sensor [e.g., Paragraph 61: the cell pitches (the inter-center distance between adjacent cells) as the distance between the inside of one first cell 22A and the outside of an adjacent first cell 22A is 50 μm to 400 μm; Paragraph 61: The average cell pitch Pd is thus set, whereby it is effective to reduce moire and thin wire appearance. A more preferable range of the average cell pitch Pd is 50 μm to 300 μm.] and exemplifies two overlapped mesh electrodes each having a cell pitch of 300 μm [e.g., Paragraph 119: Comparative 300 300 1 0.7 A Example 1].
In Takao’s geometry (θ = 30°, Paragraph 62; congruent rhombi of side s, the four line families at the common perpendicular spacing s · sin 60°), lines 11 cross lines 16 and lines 12 cross lines 17 at 90°, and lines 11 cross lines 17 and lines 12 cross lines 16 at 30°, so that the number of crossings between the two electrodes per unit area is 4 / s².
At Satou’s exemplified cell pitch of 300 μm this is about 44 crossings per square millimeter, and the recited 3 to 97 per square millimeter corresponds to cell pitches of about 203 μm to 1,155 μm, which overlaps Satou’s disclosed range of 50 μm to 400 μm and its more preferable range of 50 μm to 300 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Takao’s conductor lines at the cell pitch Satou teaches, because Satou teaches that a cell pitch in that range is effective to reduce moire and thin wire appearance (Paragraph 61), the same objective Takao pursues (Paragraph 56), and the recited number of intersection points per square millimeter is the result of applying that pitch to Takao’s recited mesh geometry.
See KSR, 550 U.S. 398.
A claimed range that overlaps a range obtained from the prior art’s disclosed dimensions is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao in view of Yilmaz (US 2013/0127775 A1);
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yilmaz.
Regarding claim 12, Takao discloses the touch sensor of claim 11 as set forth above, with a position detector connected to the electrodes [e.g., Paragraph 36: a position detector (controller) that detects a touch position based on variation in capacitance corresponding to a touch operation performed by a finger on the touch surface; Paragraph 42: The terminals 10 are connected to a position detector (not shown in the drawing).].
Takao does not expressly disclose the first electrode is a transmission and the second electrode is a reception electrode.
However, Yilmaz discloses a capacitive touch sensor having drive electrodes on one side of a substrate and sense electrodes on the other side [e.g., Paragraph 16: touch sensor 10 may have drive electrodes disposed in a pattern on one side of a substrate and sense electrodes disposed in a pattern on another side of the substrate; Paragraph 16: In such configurations, an intersection of a drive electrode and a sense electrode may form a capacitive node.],
wherein the electrodes extending in one direction are drive (transmission) electrodes and the electrodes extending in the perpendicular direction are sense (reception) electrodes [e.g., Paragraph 25: In particular embodiments, electrodes 52 with conductive regions 40 interconnected in the first direction may function as drive electrodes and; Paragraph 25: electrodes 54 with conductive regions 42 interconnected in the second direction may function as sense electrodes.; Paragraph 15: In particular embodiments, drive lines may run substantially perpendicular to sense lines.].
Takao and Yilmaz are analogous art, because both are from the same field of endeavor, mutual-capacitance touch sensors having two sets of electrodes crossing one another on opposite sides of a substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate Takao’s second electrodes 5 (the claimed first electrode) as drive (transmission) electrodes and its first electrodes 3 (the claimed second electrode) as sense (reception) electrodes, as taught by Yilmaz,
because Yilmaz teaches that a voltage applied to the drive electrode induces a charge on the sense electrode whose change the controller measures to determine the touch position [e.g., Paragraph 13: When an object touches or comes within proximity of the capacitive node, a change in capacitance may occur at the capacitive node and controller 12 may measure the change in capacitance.; Paragraph 13: By measuring changes in capacitance throughout the array, controller 12 may determine the position of the touch or proximity within the touch-sensitive area(s) of touch sensor 10.],
which is the capacitance-variation detection Takao’s position detector performs (Takao Paragraph 36).
Moreover, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Yilmaz’s drive and sense assignment with Takao’s electrodes by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Yilmaz discloses the first electrode is electrically connected to a driving circuit and the second electrode is electrically connected to a detection circuit [e.g., Paragraph 18: Controller 12 may include a processor unit, a drive unit, a sense unit, and a storage unit.; Paragraph 18: The drive unit may supply drive signals to the drive electrodes of touch sensor 10.; Paragraph 18: The sense unit may sense charge at the capacitive nodes of touch sensor 10 and provide measurement signals to the processor unit representing capacitances at the capacitive nodes.; Paragraph 19: Particular tracks 14 may provide drive connections for coupling controller 12 to drive electrodes of touch sensor 10, through which the drive unit of controller 12 may supply drive signals to the drive electrodes.; Paragraph 19: Other tracks 14 may provide sense connections for coupling controller 12 to sense electrodes of touch sensor 10, through which the sense unit of controller 12 may sense charge at the capacitive nodes of touch sensor 10.; Paragraph 18: Controller 12 may be one or more integrated circuits (ICs)--such as for example general-purpose microprocessors, microcontrollers, programmable logic devices (PLDs) or arrays (PLAs), application-specific ICs (ASICs)--; Fig. 1: 10, 12, 14].
The reasons for combining set forth for claim 12 apply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–19 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Satou is no longer relied upon for the first and second intersection points overlapping the first cell; that limitation, and the amended limitations of claim 1 concerning the sides of the first cell, are met by Takao as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the maintenance of 75% of the capacitance value associated with the first cell when one side of the first cell is disconnected by a wiring defect) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM).
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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
21 September 2026
