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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiki (US 2015/0378477 A1) in view of Satou et al (US 2016/0274703 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshiki discloses a touch sensor comprising:
a first electrode [e.g., Figs. 4, 5: 2a, 6a] that extends in a first direction [e.g., Figs. 4, 5: X]; and
a second electrode [e.g., Figs. 4, 6: 2b, 6b] that extends in a second direction [e.g., Figs. 4, 5: Y] orthogonal to the first direction and overlaps the first electrode in a top view (e.g., see Paragraphs 20, 21, 40, 41),
the first electrode including a first cell having a quadrangular shape [e.g., Fig. 5: 6a; Paragraphs 29, 35, 54, 57: lozenge pattern],
the second electrode including a second cell having a quadrangular shape [e.g., Fig. 6: 6b; Paragraphs 29, 36, 59: lozenge pattern],
a length [e.g., Fig. 5: k1] of the first cell along the first direction being greater than a length [e.g., Fig. 5: j1] of the first cell along the second direction (e.g., see Paragraph 21-29),
a length [e.g., Fig. 6: j2] of the second cell along the second direction being greater than a length [e.g., Fig. 6: k2] of the second cell along the first direction (e.g., see Paragraph 21-29),
the second cell including a first side [e.g., Fig. 6: 1st side of 6b] containing a first intersection point [e.g., Fig. 6: 1st corner intersection point of the 1st side of 6b] and a second intersection point [e.g., Fig. 6: 2nd corner intersection point of the 1st side of 6b] (e.g., see Paragraphs 40-103).
Yoshiki doesn’t appear to expressly disclose the first and second intersection points overlapping the first cell in a top view, as instantly claimed.
However, Satou discloses a touch sensor comprising:
a first electrode [e.g., Figs. 6, 7: 18B] that extends in a first direction [e.g., Fig. 4: Y]; and
a second electrode [e.g., Figs. 4, 7: 18A] that extends in a second direction [e.g., Fig. 4: X] orthogonal to the first direction and overlaps the first electrode in a top view (e.g., see Figs. 3, 7),
the first electrode including a first cell having a quadrangular shape [e.g., Fig. 7: 22B; Paragraphs 15, 69: diamond shape],
the second electrode including a second cell having a quadrangular shape [e.g., Fig. 7: 22A; Paragraphs 15, 60: diamond shape],
a length of the first cell along the first direction being greater than a length of the first cell along the second direction [e.g., Paragraph 78: a horizontally long diamond shape or a vertically long diamond shape],
a length of the second cell along the second direction being greater than a length of the
second cell along the first direction [e.g., Paragraph 65: a horizontally long diamond shape or a vertically long diamond shape],
the second cell including a first side [e.g., Fig. 7: 1st side of 22A] containing a first intersection point [e.g., Fig. 7: 1st corner/intersection point on the 1st side of 22A] and a second intersection point [e.g., Fig. 7: 2nd corner/intersection point on the 1st side of 22A],
the first and second intersection points overlapping [e.g., Fig. 7: cell 22A is smaller than and contained within cell 22B] the first cell in a top view (e.g., see Fig. 7; Paragraphs 15, 50-147).
Yoshiki and Satou are analogous art, because they are from the shared inventive field of touch screens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Satou’s cell sizing and/positioning arrangement with Yoshiki’s electrodes, so as to that the transmittance of mesh electrodes is high and touch detection accuracy is high.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Satou’s cell sizing and/positioning arrangement with Yoshiki’s electrodes as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshiki discloses the length of the first cell along the first direction is equal to a length of a second diagonal line of the first cell, the second diagonal line extending along the first direction (e.g., see Figs 4, 5; Paragraphs 21-29),
the length of the first cell along the second direction is equal to a length of a first diagonal line of the first cell, the first diagonal line extending along the second direction (e.g., see Figs 4, 5; Paragraphs 21-29),
the length of the second cell along the second direction is equal to a length of a fourth diagonal line of the second cell, the fourth diagonal line extending along the second direction (e.g., see Figs 4, 6; Paragraphs 21-29),
the length of the second cell along the first direction is equal to a length of a third diagonal line of the second cell, the third diagonal line extending along the first direction (e.g., see Figs 4, 6; Paragraphs 21-29).
Satou discloses pairs of the first intersection point and the second intersection point are located on opposite sides across the third diagonal line (e.g., see Fig. 7; Paragraphs 71-91).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshiki discloses the second electrode further includes a dummy pattern [e.g., Figs. 4-6: 12, 16] that is electrically insulated from the second cell and is located inside the second cell (e.g., see Paragraphs 20, 29, 40, 50-59).
Satou discloses the second electrode further includes a dummy pattern [e.g., Fig. 13: 50] that is electrically insulated from the second cell and is located inside the second cell (e.g., see Paragraphs 92-98).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshiki discloses the first cell intersects the dummy pattern in a top view (e.g., see Figs. 4-6; Paragraphs 20, 29, 40, 50-59).
Satou discloses the first cell intersects the dummy pattern in a top view (e.g., see Fig. 13; Paragraphs 92-98).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshiki discloses a cover member [e.g., Fig. 3: 1, 3, 4, 5] located above the second electrode and including an operation screen [e.g., Fig. 3: 1, 3, 4, 5; Paragraph 44: the optically transparent electrode shown in FIG. 3 is used as a touchscreen by an operator], wherein the second electrode is located above the first electrode (e.g., see Fig. 3; Paragraphs 40-46).
Satou discloses a cover member [e.g., Fig. 1: 106, 108, 110, 110a] located above the second electrode and including an operation screen [e.g., Fig. 1: 106, 108, 110, 110a], wherein the second electrode is located above the first electrode (e.g., see Fig. 1; Paragraphs 50-57).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshiki discloses the first electrode includes a plurality of first electrode cells [e.g., Fig. 5: 6a; Paragraphs 29, 35, 54, 57: lozenge patterns], each of the plurality of first electrode cells is the first cell,
the second electrode includes a plurality of second electrode cells [e.g., Fig. 6: 6b; Paragraphs 29, 36, 59: lozenge pattern], each of the plurality of second electrode cells is the second cell, and
the number of intersection points between the dummy pattern and each of the plurality of first electrode cells in a top view is greater than the number of intersection points between the
second cell and each of the plurality of first electrode cells in a top view (e.g., see Figs. 4-6; Paragraphs 20, 29, 40, 50-59).
Satou discloses the first electrode includes a plurality of first electrode cells [e.g., Fig. 13: 22B; Paragraphs 15, 69: diamond shapes], each of the plurality of first electrode cells is the first cell,
the second electrode includes a plurality of second electrode cells [e.g., Fig. 13: 22A; Paragraphs 15, 60: diamond shapes], each of the plurality of second electrode cells is the second cell, and
the number of intersection points between the dummy pattern and each of the plurality of first electrode cells in a top view is greater than the number of intersection points between the
second cell and each of the plurality of first electrode cells in a top view (e.g., see Fig. 13; Paragraphs 92-98).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshiki discloses the first electrode includes a plurality of first electrode cells [e.g., Fig. 5: 6a; Paragraphs 29, 35, 54, 57: lozenge patterns], each of the plurality of first electrode cells is the first cell,
the second electrode includes a plurality of second electrode cells [e.g., Fig. 6: 6b; Paragraphs 29, 36, 59: lozenge pattern], each of the plurality of second electrode cells is the second cell, and
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 (e.g., see Example 1, Table 1, Paragraphs 70-102: k1=800µm, j1=375µm, k2=400µm, j2=750µm results in there being 27 intersection points/mm2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached 'Notice of References Cited' are cited to further evidence the state of the art pertaining to touch sensors.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
26 June 2026
Prosecution Insights