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, 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2020/0026383 A1) in view of Jeon (US 2024/0036675 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a touch display device comprising:
a plurality of pixels [e.g., Fig. 3: SP];
a plurality of source lines [e.g., Figs. 3, 19: DL; see Paragraph 86] connected to the plurality of pixels and configured to receive a plurality of source signals [e.g., Figs. 3, 19: Vdata; see Paragraphs 330-333];
a common electrode [e.g., Fig. 3: VSS line; Fig. 19: E2] configured to supply a driving voltage [e.g., Fig. 3: VSS; see Paragraph 188] to the plurality of pixels;
a plurality of first capacitors [e.g., Fig. 19: CDC] between the plurality of source lines and the common electrode; and
a plurality of touch electrodes [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: RX_TE] coupled to the common electrode through a plurality of second capacitors [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: Cp_RX],
wherein the plurality of source lines are further configured to provide the plurality of source signals to the common electrode through the plurality of first capacitors as a plurality of touch driving signals [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: Vnoise],
wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are further configured to receive the plurality of touch driving signals through the plurality of second capacitors, and
wherein each of the plurality of touch driving signals is based on corresponding information [e.g., Paragraph 331: the data voltage (Vdata) can be a video signal or an image signal whose voltage level varies for image display] displayed by corresponding pixels among the plurality of pixels (e.g., see Paragraphs 84-475).
Hwang doesn’t appear to expressly disclose gray information.
However, Jeon discloses each data voltage [e.g., Fig. 3: Vdata] is based on corresponding gray information [e.g., Paragraph 52: The data driving circuit 130 supplies a data voltage corresponding to image data to the subpixel SP. As a result, the subpixel SP emits light with a brightness corresponding to the gray level of the image data to display the image] displayed by corresponding pixels [e.g., Fig. 3: SP] among the plurality of pixels (e.g., see Paragraphs 48-83).
Hwang and Jeon are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of touch display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Jeon’s gray information with Hwang’s touch display device, so as to prevent error in the displayed image.
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 Jeon’s gray information with Hwang’s touch display device 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, Hwang discloses a touch electrode [e.g., Fig. 8: one column of RX_TE] from among the plurality of touch electrodes comprises a plurality of touch pixels [e.g., Fig. 8: RX-PTE], and
wherein the plurality of touch pixels are configured to receive a plurality of first touch driving signals [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: 1st Vnoise pulses] from among the plurality of touch driving signals through a plurality of third capacitors [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: Cp_RX] from among the plurality of second capacitors, and
wherein the plurality of third capacitors are connected between the plurality of touch pixels and corresponding areas [e.g., Fig. 19: areas of E2] of the common electrode (e.g., see Paragraphs 84-475).
Regarding claim 19, Hwang discloses each pixel of the plurality of pixels comprises an organic light emitting diode [e.g., Fig. 3: ED; Paragraph 94], and
wherein the common electrode is connected to a cathode [e.g., Fig. 3: ED cathode] of the organic light emitting diode (e.g., see Paragraphs 110-131).
Claims 3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2020/0026383 A1) in view of Jeon (US 2024/0036675 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2022/0187943 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang discloses the plurality of touch pixels are electrically connected, and wherein the plurality of third capacitors are configured to transmit the plurality of first touch driving signals to generate touch signals [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: Vpen + Vnoise] corresponding to the touch electrode (e.g., see Paragraphs 324-356).
Hwang and Jeon don’t appear to expressly disclose the capacitor is configured to filter the plurality of first source signals.
However, Lee discloses a capacitor [e.g., Fig. 6: Cpara] between the common electrode [e.g., Fig. 6: TE; Paragraph 112; or Fig. 6: 610; Paragraph 122] and the plurality of first source lines [e.g., Fig. 6: 610; Paragraph 122; or Fig. 6: TE; Paragraph 112] is configured to filter a plurality of first source signals [e.g., Fig. 6: TDS] (e.g., see Paragraphs 120-138).
Hwang, Jeon and Lee are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of touch display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Lee’s filtering capacitor with Hwang’s and Jeon’s touch display device, so as to improve overall touch sensitivity.
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 Lee’s filtering capacitor with Hwang’s and Jeon’s touch display device 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 7, Hwang discloses a plurality of first source signals [e.g., Fig. 3: Vdata; see Paragraphs 330-333] are provided to a plurality of first source lines [e.g., Figs. 3, 19: DL; see Paragraph 86], and
wherein a capacitor [e.g., Fig. 19: CDC] between the common electrode and the plurality of first source lines is configured to transmit the plurality of first source signals to provide a first touch driving signals [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: 1st Vnoise pulses] among the plurality of touch driving signals to a plurality of first touch electrodes [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: RX_TE] corresponding to the plurality of first source signals (e.g., see Paragraphs 324-356).
Lee discloses a capacitor [e.g., Fig. 6: Cpara] between the common electrode [e.g., Fig. 6: TE; Paragraph 112; or Fig. 6: 610; Paragraph 122] and the plurality of first source lines [e.g., Fig. 6: 610; Paragraph 122; or Fig. 6: TE; Paragraph 112] is configured to filter a plurality of first source signals [e.g., Fig. 6: TDS] (e.g., see Paragraphs 120-138).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang discloses the plurality of first touch electrodes from among the plurality of touch electrodes extends in a first direction [e.g., Fig. 3: horizontal direction; Paragraphs 162-163], and
the plurality of source lines extends in a second direction [e.g., Fig. 3: vertical direction],
wherein a first touch driving signal [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: Vnoise] from among the plurality of touch driving signals corresponds to a first touch electrode [e.g., Fig. 3: TE; Figs. 7-8: RX-TE or TX-TE; Figs. 19, 23: RX_TE] from among the plurality of first touch electrodes, and
wherein capacitors [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: via Cp_RX] corresponding to the first touch electrode are configured to pass the first touch driving signal to provide a touch signal [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: Vpen + Vnoise] (e.g., see Paragraphs 84-475).
Lee discloses capacitors [e.g., Fig. 6: Cpara] configured to filter a touch driving signal [e.g., Fig. 6: TDS] to provide a touch signal [e.g., Paragraphs 120-138: low pass filtered signal].
Regarding claim 9, Hwang discloses a plurality of second touch electrodes [e.g., Fig. 3: TE; Figs. 7-8: RX-TE or TX-TE; Figs. 19, 23: RX_TE] from among the plurality of touch electrodes extends in the first direction, and the plurality of source lines extends in the first direction,
wherein a second touch driving signal [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: Vnoise] from among the plurality of touch driving signals corresponds to a second touch electrode [e.g., Fig. 3: TE; Figs. 7-8: RX-TE or TX-TE; Figs. 19, 23: RX_TE] from among the plurality of second touch electrodes, and
wherein capacitors [e.g., Figs. 19, 23: via Cp_RX] corresponding to the second touch electrode are configured to pass the plurality of touch driving signals to provide the touch signal (e.g., see Paragraphs 84-475).
Lee discloses capacitors [e.g., Fig. 6: Cpara] configured to filter a touch driving signal [e.g., Fig. 6: TDS] to provide a touch signal [e.g., Paragraphs 120-138: low pass filtered signal].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2020/0026383 A1) in view of Jeon (US 2024/0036675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhat et al (US 2022/0335910 A1) and Kim et al (US 2019/0102017 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang discloses a plurality of receiving lines [Fig. 23: Ni2 OP-AMP input line] configured to generate a plurality of touch sensing signals [e.g., Fig. 23: (Vpen + Vnoise)] by transmitting the plurality of touch driving signals; and
a touch circuit [Fig. 23: OP-AMP] configured to generate a plurality of pieces of touch information [e.g., Fig. 23: Vout] by correcting a plurality of touch voltage differences [e.g., Fig. 23: (Vpen + Vnoise) - Vnoise] between the plurality of touch sensing signals and the plurality of touch driving signals according to a level of each of the plurality of touch driving signals (e.g., see Paragraph 324-356).
Hwang and Jeon don’t appear to expressly disclose a touch processor, as instantly claimed.
However, Bhat discloses substituting a touch processor [e.g., Fig. 2: 200] in the place of an operational amplifier (e.g., see Paragraph 69).
Hwang, Jeon and Bhat are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of touch display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute Bhat’s touch processor in the place of Hwang’s touch circuit [Fig. 23: OP-AMP], so as to improve performance.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, because the substitution of Bhat’s touch processor in the place of Hwang’s operational amplifier 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).
Hwang, Jeon and Bhat don’t appear to expressly disclose a plurality of receiving circuits, as instantly claimed.
However, Kim discloses a plurality of receiving circuits [e.g., Fig. 3: AMP] configured to generate a plurality of touch sensing signals [e.g., Fig. 3: OUT1] by amplifying the plurality of touch signals [e.g., Fig. 3: Sse]; and
a touch processor [e.g., Fig. 3: 224, 226] configured to generate the plurality of pieces of touch information [e.g., Paragraph 84: signal processing result] (e.g., see Paragraphs 72-90).
Hwang, Jeon, Bhat and Kim are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of touch display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Kim’s amplifying receiving circuits with Hwang’s and Bhat’s combined touch processor, so as to improve sensitivity.
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 Kim’s receiving circuits with Hwang’s and Bhat’s combined touch processor 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-18 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 and Invention I in the reply filed on 11 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 February 2026.
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 display devices.
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
20 February 2026