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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 with respect to claims 1 – 14 and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on pg. 7:
“Claim 1 has been amended. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection and submits that Xu does not disclose or suggest each and every element of amended claim 1. In particular, Xu does not disclose or suggest (1) first breaks that are arranged to form a dummy pattern, or (2) a dummy pattern comprising a plurality of polyline-shaped dummy repeating units, as recited in amended claim 1…
…Amended claim 1 recites "a plurality of first breaks" provided between the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode, and that "adjacent first breaks of the plurality of first breaks are arranged to form a dummy pattern, the dummy pattern comprising a plurality of polyline-shaped dummy repeating units." In the present application, the first breaks are isolation gaps that completely cut the conductive mesh lines apart. The dummy pattern is a virtual, non- physical pattern that emerges from the spatial arrangement of these isolation gaps. The dummy pattern is not itself a conductive electrode structure; rather, it is defined solely by the layout of breaks in the mesh…”
Examiner remarks that Xu clearly shows that the dummy patterns contains breaks (i.e. gaps that spatially separate one electrode from another, Figs. 4 – 6 and para. 41, note that the dummy lines are broken apart as indicated by dashed lines and that “...the dummy line 30 has a distance from the touch electrode 1 and is insulated from the touch electrode 1”. Therefore, the argument is rendered unpersuasive.
Applicant continues on pg. 8:
“Xu discloses a fundamentally different structure. In Xu, a "dummy line 030" is a physical conductive electrode structure formed by metal lines that extends between adjacent touch electrodes. Xu, paragraph [0028]. Specifically, Xu describes that "[t]he dummy line 030 includes two sawtooth-shaped lines connected with each other at top points to form a plurality of quadrilaterals," and that "[t]he dummy line 030 is insulated from the touch electrode 01 and continues a shape of the mesh structure of the touch electrode." Xu, paragraph [0028]. Xu further describes that the dummy line 30 "can continue a shape of the mesh structure of the touch electrode 1," and that "[t]he arrangement of the dummy line 30 can effectively shield the signal interference of the touch electrodes caused by wiring touch lines in active area." Xu, paragraph [0041]. Thus, Xu's dummy lines are physical conductive structures that replicate the mesh pattern of the touch electrodes for the purpose of shielding against signal interference.
In contrast, the first breaks recited in amended claim 1 are isolation gaps, not conductive structures. In Xu, the breaks between adjacent touch electrodes and the dummy lines merely define the boundaries of these structures. The breaks in Xu do not themselves form any pattern; they are simply the spaces where one electrode ends and another begins. In the present application, however, the claimed first breaks are intentionally arranged so that the arrangement of adjacent breaks defines a dummy pattern. This concept of arranging breaks to form a pattern is entirely absent from Xu.”
Examiner contends that it is incompatible for the dummy lines to be both conductive and insulating as it pertains to the touch electrodes. It is clear that Xu has designed the dummy patterns to insulate the touch electrodes from each other (para. 41, for example). Also, Examiner asserts that Xu’s dummy lines, and the breaks included within them, form a pattern (i.e. a repeating shape, Fig. 4, for example). Therefore, the argument is rendered unpersuasive.
Applicant continues on pg. 8:
“Even setting aside the structural distinction between physical conductive lines and virtual break patterns, Xu does not disclose "polyline-shaped dummy repeating units" as claimed. The Office Action cites Figure 4 of Xu for this feature without further explanation. However, Figure 4 of Xu shows the physical shape of the sawtooth dummy lines 30 between adjacent touch electrodes. The sawtooth shape is the shape of the physical conductive electrode, not a pattern formed by the arrangement of breaks.
In the present application, the dummy repeating units are polyline-shaped patterns formed by the arrangement of adjacent first breaks. As described in the present application, the first breaks extend successively in the form of a polyline, and the arrangement of adjacent first breaks defines a dummy pattern comprising polyline-shaped (e.g., W-like) repeating units. The purpose of this polyline arrangement is to increase the dispersion of breaks and thereby reduce the visibility of break shadows. Xu does not disclose or suggest arranging breaks to form any pattern, let alone a polyline-shaped pattern. In Xu, the breaks that separate the touch electrode from the dummy line extend along the straight-line boundary between these physical structures. Xu does not disclose that adjacent breaks are arranged in a polyline configuration to form repeating units. The sawtooth shape of Xu's dummy lines is a property of the physical conductive structure, not a pattern defined by break arrangement.”
Examiner contends, a stated above, that Xu’s dummy lines contain breaks (see arguments above). Also, the term “polyline” is given it plain meaning (i.e. a continues line composed of straight line segments), and Examiner asserts that Xu’s Fig. 4 shows that the saw-tooth shaped dummy line conforms to this definition. Examiner is not interpreting the term “polyline” to mean “W-like”, although Examiner believes that Xu’s dummy pattern can be described as “W-like”. Therefore, the argument is rendered unpersuasive.
Applicants arguments regarding obviousness in light of He are unpersuasive for the reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et. al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0285330 A1).
As to claim 1, Xu shows a touch panel (i.e. touch screen, Fig. 4 and para. 39), comprising: a mesh electrode layer (Figs. 4 and 11 and paras. 39 and 49), comprising a first touch electrode (middle 111, for example, Fig. 4 and para. 39), and a second touch electrode (leftmost 111 or rightmost 111, for example, Fig. 4 and para. 39) which are insulated from one another (Figs. 4 and paras. 27 and 41), and a plurality of first breaks (corresponding to touch line 10 and other blank areas of dummy lines, for example, Fig. 4 and para. 39), the first touch electrode, the second touch electrode having a part of the first breaks provided therebetween (Fig. 4 and paras. 39 and 41), wherein adjacent first breaks of the plurality of first breaks are arranged to form a dummy pattern (Fig. 4 and para. 41), the dummy pattern comprising a plurality of polyline-shaped dummy repeating units (Fig. 4).
As to claim 2, Xu shows that the dummy repeating unit comprises a first dummy polyline unit and a second dummy polyline unit connected end to end (Fig. 4 and para. 41), and the dummy repeating unit is a W-like pattern (Fig. 4 and para. 41).
As to claim 3, Xu shows that the number of first breaks distributed in the dummy repeating unit is 4 to 20 (Fig. 4 and para. 41).
As to claim 4, Xu shows that the number of first breaks in the first dummy polyline unit is the same as the number of first breaks in the second dummy polyline unit (Fig. 4 and para. 41); and a distribution density of the first breaks in the first dummy polyline unit is the same as a distribution density of all the first breaks in the second dummy polyline unit (Fig. 4 and para. 41).
As to claim 5, Xu shows that the number of first breaks in the first dummy polyline unit is 6 to 10 (Fig. 4 and para. 41).
As to claim 8, Xu shows that the mesh electrode layer comprises a plurality of conductive mesh lines (Figs. 4 and 11 and paras. 41 and 49); and the plurality of adjacent first breaks comprise a first break disposed at a vertex of a corresponding cell within the plurality of conductive mesh lines (Fig. 4), and another first break disposed at a midpoint of a side of a corresponding cell within the plurality of conductive mesh lines (Fig. 4).
As to claim 17, Xu shows that the mesh electrode layer comprises a first dummy electrode which is insulated from the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode (Fig. 4 and paras. 39 and 41), and any two of the first touch electrode, the second touch electrode and the first dummy electrode having a part of the first breaks provided therebetween (Fig. 4 and paras. 39 and 41).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 – 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of He et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0197439 A1).
As to claim 6, Xu does not show that the number of first breaks in the first dummy polyline unit is different from the number of first breaks in the second dummy polyline unit.
He shows that show that a number of first breaks in a first polyline unit is different from the number of first breaks in a second polyline unit (Fig. 6A and para. 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Xu with those of He because designing the system in this way allows the device to improve sensitivity (para. 97).
As to claim 7, Xu shows that the number of first breaks in the second dummy polyline unit is 4 to 10 (Fig. 4).
Xu does not show that the number of first breaks in the first dummy polyline unit is 2 to 4.
He shows that a number breaks in a polyline unit is 2 to 4 (Fig. 6A and para. 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Xu with those of He because designing the system in this way allows the device to improve sensitivity (para. 97).
As to claim 9, Xu shows that the dummy repeating unit comprises dummy line segments (Fig. 4), and each dummy line segment comprises three first breaks, the three first breaks being respectively located at two opposite vertices of at least two adjacent cells spanned by the dummy line segment, and at a midpoint of a shared side of the two adjacent cells (Fig. 4).
Xu does not show that the plurality of first breaks in the dummy line segments being arranged along a diagonal line of a pattern formed by at least two adjacent cells.
He shows that a plurality of breaks in the electrode line segments are arranged along a diagonal line of a pattern formed by at least two adjacent cells (Fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Xu with those of He because designing the system in this way allows the device to improve sensitivity (para. 97).
As to claim 10, Xu shows that the first touch electrode comprises a plurality of electrically connected first sub-electrodes (Fig. 4 and para. 39), the second touch electrode comprises a plurality of electrically connected second sub-electrodes (Fig. 4 and para. 39), parts of the plurality of conductive mesh lines of the first sub-electrodes, the second sub-electrodes and the first dummy electrodes having a plurality of second breaks provided thereon (Fig. 4 and paras. 39 – 41).
As to claim 11, Xu shows does not show that a distribution density of the second breaks close to the first breaks is greater than a distribution density of the second breaks remote from the first breaks; and the number of second breaks in a plurality of adjacent cells close to the first breaks is greater than the number of second breaks in a plurality of adjacent cells remote from the first breaks.
He shows that show that a distribution density of the breaks close to first breaks is greater than a distribution density of second breaks remote from the first breaks (Fig. 6A); and a number of second breaks in a plurality of adjacent cells close to the first breaks is greater than the number of second breaks in a plurality of adjacent cells remote from the first breaks (Fig. 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Xu with those of He because designing the system in this way allows the device to improve sensitivity (para. 97).
As to claim 13, Xu shows that a plurality of second dummy electrodes are provided in a first sub-electrode (Fig. 4 and para. 39), and the second dummy electrodes are insulated from the first sub-electrode (Fig. 11 and para. 49).
As to claim 14, Xu shows that a plurality of second dummy electrodes are provided in a second sub-electrode (Fig. 4 and para. 39), and the second dummy electrodes are insulated from the second sub-electrode (Fig. 11 and para. 49).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18 – 20 are allowable.
Specifically, claims 16 and 18 recite that “…the number of second breaks distributed in a square pattern formed by every four adjacent cells close to the first breaks is 5 to 8; and the number of second breaks distributed in a square pattern formed by every four adjacent cells remote from the first breaks is 0 to 4.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 19 and 20 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 18.
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 CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights