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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 05/11/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office action dated 02/12/2026 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 1.
With respect to the rejections of claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office action, Applicant has amended these claims and requested the withdrawal of these rejections. In order to best respond, see the below detailed rejections of the currently amended claims.
The rejections of claim 1 and 17 and the additional rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to claims 1, 7 and 17.
With respect to the rejections of claims 5, 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the previous Office action, Applicant has amended these claims and requested the withdrawal of these rejections. In order to best respond, see the below detailed rejections of the currently amended claims.
In response to the rejection of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe, Applicant has amended claim 17 to include new limitations and provided on page 12 of the amendment an argument, which has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. In order to best respond, Examiner respectfully directs the Applicant to the below detailed rejection of the newly amended claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claim 5, this claim recites limitations, “wherein a capacitance formed by the first connection line with other conductive elements within the circuit board is 0.9 times or greater and 1.1 times or less of a capacitance formed by the second connection line with other conductive elements within the circuit board.” Since it is unclear whether two “other conductive elements” in the above underlined limitations is same or different, it is considered that the invention of this claim is not clearly defined.
As per claim 16, this claim recites limitations, “wherein a capacitance formed by the first connection line with other conductive elements within the circuit board is 0.9 times or greater and 1.1 times or less of a capacitance line with other elements is 0.9 times or greater and 1.1 times or less of a capacitance formed by the second connection line with other conductive elements within the circuit board.” First, it is unclear whether two “other conductive elements” in the above underlined limitations is same or different. Second, it is unclear what the subject for a second verb “is” is, e.g., “a capacitance formed by the first connection line with other conductive elements within the circuit board”, “a capacitance line with other elements” or other, it is considered that the invention of this claim is not clearly defined.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 5 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”).
As per claim 5, this claim recites a limitation, “wherein a capacitance formed by the first connection line with other conductive elements within the circuit board is 0.9 times or greater and 1.1 times or less of a capacitance formed by the second connection line with other conductive elements within the circuit board,” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure provides as much information as recited in this claim and does not explicitly discuss what two “other conductive elements” in the above underlined limitation are, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note.
As per claim 9, this claim recites limitations, “wherein the first sensor is configured to form a capacitance with objects approaching from outside and the second sensor is configured to form a capacitance with objects approaching from outside” in lines 3-4, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 7, discloses a sensor [SN] forming a corresponding capacitance with a single object, such as a finger, approaching from outside. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail the first/second sensor forming a corresponding capacitance with plural objects, of the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note.
As per claims 10-16, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 9 above.
In addition to claim 16, this claim further recites limitations, “wherein a capacitance formed by the first connection line with other elements is 0.9 times or greater and 1.1 times or less of a capacitance line with other elements is 0.9 times or greater and 1.1 times or less of a capacitance formed by the second connection line with other conductive elements within the circuit board.” See the discussion in the above rejection of claim 5 for similar reason. Further, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail “a capacitance line,” “other elements,” and “other conductive elements,” and, specifically, the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Examiner notes that the specification is not the measure of invention. Therefore, limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. See In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968).
Further, the names/ terms of the features/elements used in the pending application or pending claims may be different from the names/terms of the matching features/ elements of the prior arts; however, the matching features/ elements of the prior arts contain all characteristics/ functions of the features/elements DEFINED by the pending claims.
Note that in order to avoid confusion, the below citations in the below rejection(s) are mere one or more places in the reference to disclose the "claimed" limitation(s) and/or are directed to one or more of embodiments disclosed by the cited reference(s). In other words, the “claimed” features/limitations may be read in other places in the reference or other embodiments of the reference. In order to better understand how the claimed limitations are taught by the reference(s), a review of the entire reference(s) is suggested by the examiner. Applicant is reminded a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention as not all relevant paragraphs may have been cited in the rejection. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 5,870,163; hereinafter Watanabe.)
As per claim 17, Watanabe discloses an electronic part (see at least Figs. 3, 8, 9) comprising:
a first substrate layer [123] (see at least Fig. 9;)
a first substrate insulating layer (see at least Fig. 9, disclosing a layer including elements 121a-121c disposed below the first substrate layer 123;)
a second substrate layer [102] disposed below the first substrate insulating layer (see at least Fig. 9;) and
a plurality of connection lines (see at least Figs. 3, 8, 9, disclosing a plurality of connection lines [122a, 122b, 122c],) wherein each of the plurality of connection lines includes a portion disposed on the first substrate layer (see at least Fig. 9,)
wherein the plurality of connection lines comprises a first connection line electrically connected to a first external part and having a first length and a second connection line electrically connected to a second external part and having a second length, the first length being different from the second length (see at least Figs. 3, 8, 9, disclosing the plurality of connection lines comprising a first connection line [e.g., 122b] electrically connected to a first external part of a TCP [106A/106B/106C] and having a first length and a second connection line [e.g., 122c] electrically connected to a second external part of a TCP [106A/106B/106C] and having a second length being different from the first length; note that the above mapping is a mere example, i.e., a first connection line being a line connected to a [[first]] external part of a TCP 106A and a second connection line being a line connected to a [[second]] external part of another TCP [106B/ 106C], wherein a first length of the first connection line is different from a second length of the second connection line,)
wherein a portion of the second connection line is disposed on the first substrate layer (Fig. 9 showing a portion of the second connection line [122c] disposed on the first substrate layer [123],) and
wherein a top surface of another portion of the second connection line interfaces with the first substrate insulating layer and a bottom surface of the another portion interfaces with the second substrate layer (Fig. 9 showing that another portion of the second connection line [122c] disposed in the hole of the first substrate layer [123] [[indirectly]] interfaces with a top surface of the element [121c] of the first substrate insulating layer via the bottom surface of the another portion of the second connection line [122c], and a bottom surface of the another portion [[indirectly]] interfaces with a top surface of the second substrate layer [102] via the element [121c].)
As per claim 18, Watanabe discloses the another portion of the second connection line is disposed between the first substrate insulating layer and the second substrate layer (see at least Fig. 9.)
As per claim 19, Watanabe discloses the first external part being a first multiplexor and the second external part is a second multiplexor spaced apart from the first multiplexor (note that this claim does not explicitly recite a particular function and/or a detailed structure of a multiplexor and limitations contained in the specification can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. See In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968); see the above discussion regarding to the claimed first and second external parts and further at least Fig. 3, disclosing, e.g., the first external part of the TCP 107A being a first multiplexor and the second external part of the TCP 107B being a second multiplexor spaced apart from the first multiplexor.)
As per claim 20, Watanabe discloses a first input detection driving circuit electrically connected to the first multiplexor; and a second input detection driving circuit electrically connected to the second multiplexor (see at least Fig. 3, disclosing the first multiplexor [e.g., 107A] electrically connected to a first input detection driving circuit of the driving circuit 108 by a signal line 108 and the second multiplexor [e.g., 107B] electrically connected to a second input detection driving circuit of the driving circuit 108 by another signal line 108.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are allowed. Note that claim 5 is not allowed because of the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claimed invention is directed to a display module, comprising a plurality of sensors including a first sensor and a second sensor disposed adjacent to the first sensor, capable of at least effectively preventing a problem in the touch detection in the first sensor and the second sensor due to a difference in a resistance or capacitance formed with other elements. Independent claim 1 identifies the uniquely distinct limitations, “a first spider line electrically connected to the first multiplexor, provided on the non-display region, and having a first length; a second spider line electrically connected to the second multiplexor, provided on the non-display region, and having a second length shorter than the first length; a first connection line having a third length; and a second connection line having a fourth length longer than the third length.” The closest prior art, RHE et al. (US 2020/0026384 A1 discussed in the previous Office action dated 02/12/2026, either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations in combination with all of the other claimed limitations particularly recited by this claim.
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 Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. 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.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights