DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishizaki et al. (US 2012/0044202) in view of Takeda et al. (US 6,724,452)
Regarding claim 1:
Ishizaki discloses:
Claim 1
Ishizaki
A display device with a touch detection function comprising:
a substrate;
Paragraph 55
a plurality of pixels arranged in a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction, on the substrate, each of the pixels including a plurality of color regions;
Paragraph 56
a plurality of scanning signal lines extending in the first direction to supply a scanning signal for driving the pixels;
Paragraph 56
a plurality of pixel signal lines that extend on a plane parallel to a surface of the substrate to supply a pixel signal for displaying an image to the pixels; and
Paragraph 56
a plurality of touch detection electrodes each including a translucent conductive body that faces the substrate in the vertical direction,
Paragraph 57
wherein
a slit is disposed between two of the touch detection electrodes,
For example, as seen in Fig. 19, Paragraph 0105
the slit has at least three consecutive bent parts,
It shows some bent parts in Fig. 19, but they don't meet the further definition below
the slit, having the zigzag line shape in which a straight line having an angle with respect to the second direction is folded back at a bent part,
Not disclosed by Ishizaki: there is not a zigzag line shape.
is disposed over a whole length of the pixels in the second direction along the pixel signal lines, and
In Fig. 19 the slit is “along” the pixel signal lines because it is parallel and close to them.
is disposed between the touch detection electrodes that overlap substantially an entirety of each color region of adjacent pixels in both of the first direction and the second direction.
As seen in Fig. 19, the touch detection electrode TDL3 overlaps substantially an entirety of each color region of at least two adjacent pixels.
Ishizaki does not disclose:
"the slit, having the zigzag line shape in which a straight line having an angle with respect to the second direction is folded back at a bent part, is disposed over a whole length of the pixels in the second direction along the pixel signal lines"
Takeda discloses:
the pixel signal line having the zigzag line shape in which a straight line having an angle with respect to the second direction is folded back at a bent part (Fig. 73: the pixel signal line is 32, the scanning signal line is 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include in Ishizaki the slit, having the zigzag line shape in which a straight line having an angle with respect to the second direction is folded back at a bent part, is disposed over a whole length of the pixels in the second direction along the pixel signal lines, as suggested by Takeda.
The rationale is as follows:
In the embodiment of Ishizaki Fig. 19 the slit is in a second direction “along” the pixel signal lines (it should be noted it is not exactly on the lines, but as per the American Heritage Dictionary “along” can mean “on a line or course parallel and close to,” which it is). Ishizaki does not disclose a zagzag line shape. But Takeda teaches giving the pixel signal lines this shape. Takeda discloses this can improve viewing angle performance (e.g., column 3, lines 25-30). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Ishizaki in view of Takeda discloses:
wherein a plurality of the slits are disposed parallel to each other such that the slits adjacent to each other maintain a slit pitch in the first direction (the slits are parallel to each other in Ishizaki, and follow the pixels).
Regarding claim 3:
Ishizaki in view of Takeda discloses:
wherein a plurality of the slits are disposed with a slit pitch in the first direction, the slit pitch being an integer multiple of a pixel length of the respective pixels in the first direction (e.g., Ishizaki Fig 14a).
Regarding claim 5:
Ishizaki in view of Takeda discloses:
wherein each of the pixels has a bent portion having an angle with respect to the second direction, and ends of the pixels in the first direction are along the slit and along the pixel signal lines (Takeda Fig. 73, where they are along in Ishizaki as discussed earlier).
Regarding claim 6:
Ishizaki in view of Takeda discloses:
wherein the slit has the bent parts including a first bent part protruding to one direction along the first direction and a second bent part protruding to a direction opposite to the one direction along the first direction, the first bent part and the second bent part are alternately arranged in the second direction, the first bent part overlaps one of the scanning signal lines, and the second bent part is along a bent portion of a corresponding one of the pixels (Takeda Fig. 73).
Regarding claim 7:
wherein the slit is provided between adjacent color regions arranged in the first direction within a single pixel (as per Ishizaki Fig. 19 it is between at least part of the blue and the adjacent color).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 8 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:
Regarding claim 4:
The closest prior art of record, Ishizaki in view of Takeda, teaches wherein the pixels of a same color are arranged in the second direction, colors of the pixels adjacent in the first direction are different (as per, e.g., Ishizaki Fig. 19). Ishizaki in view of Takeda does not teach or suggest that the slit is disposed between the pixels of a green color arranged in the second direction and the pixels of a blue color arranged in the second direction. Instead Ishizaki deliberately places it over the pixels of the blue color in order to make this area more transparent. Since Ishizaki teaches a different placement and has a reason for putting it there, there does not seem to be any reason for one of ordinary skill to place it in the claimed position given the prior art. This in combination with the other elements of the claim render it allowable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8:
The closest prior art of record, Ishizaki in view of Takeda, does not teach or suggest wherein the slit does not overlap any portion of any color region. Again, it is deliberately placed to overlap with the blue region. Therefore this element in combination with the other elements of the claim render it allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622