DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 20 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) as unpatentable over Ishizaki et al. (US 2012/0044202; hereafter Ishizaki ‘202) in view of Takeda et al. (US 6,724,452) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ishizaki ‘262 below.
Ishizaki ‘262 discloses that the slit is along the pixel line and between the color regions, which was not taught by Ishizaki ‘202 before.
It should be noted there is some ambiguity in the claim language and the language of applicant’s specification, and it is worth discussing this for a moment to clarify the record. The claim recites that “the slit” is “disposed between two of the touch detection electrodes.” This corresponds to applicant’s Fig. 25. However, in applicant’s specification every other electrode is a touch detection electrode and the other is a dummy electrode. So can it really be said that the slit is disposed between two of the touch detection electrodes?
The Examiner has decided not to make a 112 rejection of this language for two reasons. (1) the claim doesn’t recite that the touch detection electrodes are actually connected to anything, and the touch detection electrodes and dummy electrodes are otherwise identical, so perhaps the dummy electrodes can be considered “touch detection electrodes” insofar as they are defined by the claim. (2) the slit between a touch detection electrode and a dummy electrode is still “disposed between two touch detection electrodes” and so could still meet the claim language for that reason. So for these reasons this language has not been rejection or objected to, but it should be made clear what the specification discloses so that the metes and bounds of the claim can be understood.
Note that this is actually true in Ishizaki ‘262 as well – some electrodes are used for touch detection and some are just dummy electrodes. Ishizaki ‘262 meets the claims the same way applicant’s own invention does.
In any case, because claims 4 and 8 were noted a containing allowable subject matter before, and newly amended claims 1 and 8 contain this language, this rejection has been made non-final.
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 5-15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishizaki et al. (US 2010/0214262; hereafter Ishizaki ‘262) in view of Takeda et al. (US 6,724,452).
Claim 15 will be addressed first because it is the broadest claim.
Regarding claim 15:
Ishizaki ‘262 discloses:
Claim 15
Ishizaki '262
A display device with a touch detection function comprising:
Paragraph 2
a substrate;
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 72: "in the form of a matrix"; Paragraph 81: "color filter"
a plurality of scanning signal lines extending in the first direction to supply a scanning signal for driving the pixels;
Paragraph 76: "scanning line"
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 74: "signal line"
a plurality of touch detection electrodes each including a translucent conductive body that faces the substrate in the vertical direction,
Paragraphs 83-84
wherein
a slit is disposed between two of the touch detection electrodes,
Paragraph 134; Fig. 11 -- as can be seen in the figure there is a slit between every three pixels
the slit has at least three consecutive bent parts, and
Not disclosed by Ishizaki
the slit does not overlap any portion of any color region.
As seen in Fig. 11, the slit is along the signal line between the pixel color regions
Therefore Ishizaki '262 does not disclose:
"the slit has at least three consecutive bent parts"
(but notice that in Ishizaki '262 the slit is along the pixel signal line as shown in Fig. 11)
Takeda discloses:
The pixel signal line has three consecutive bent parts (Fig. 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include in Ishizaki where the slit has at least three consecutive bent parts, as suggested by Takeda.
The rationale is as follows:
Ishizaki '262 and Takeda are directed to the same field of art.
Ishizaki '262 discloses the slit is along the pixel signal line; Takeda discloses this line should have at least three consecutive bent parts. Takeda discloses this sort of shape can improve pixel viewing angle performance (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 1:
Many elements of this claim have already been discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 15 above.
Ishizaki ‘262 in view of Takeda discloses:
wherein
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 (taught by Takeda as discussed above), and
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 (they do as shown in Ishizaki ‘262 Fig. 11),
the pixels of a same color are arranged in the second direction (Ishizaki ‘262 Fig. 11),
colors of the pixels adjacent in the first direction are different, and 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 (Ishizaki ‘262 Fig. 11: the slit is directly between the blue and red pixels, but this still means it is between a blue sub-pixel and the green sub-pixel of the next pixel block).
Regarding claim 2:
Ishizaki ‘262 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 ‘262 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 ‘262 Fig. 11).
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. 74, 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 (this is the configuration of Takeda Fig. 73).
Regarding claim 7:
wherein the slit is provided between adjacent color regions arranged in the first direction within a single pixel (in Ishizaki ‘262, if you consider the R, G, and B pixels sub-pixels, and the group a single pixel, this is not the case. But Ishizaki ‘262 discloses the pixel pitch could be any natural number (e.g., paragraph 105), in which case this could be true).
Regarding claim 8:
Ishizaki in view of Takeda disclose:
The slit does not overlap any portion of any color region (as shown in Ishizaki ‘262 Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 9-14:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
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
Prosecution Insights