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 papers filed on 07/03/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wu et al (US 12,026,332 B2 or WO2022/198774; see citations in US 12,026,332 B2; hereinafter Wu) in the first set of rejections or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (US 11,537,252 B2; hereinafter Lee) discussed in the below second/alternative set of rejections.
FIRST SET OF REJECTIONS:
Claims 1-3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wu.
As per claim 1, Wu discloses a sensing device (see Fig. 9) comprising:
sensors [40] arranged in a matrix form in a sensing area (note that the reference number for the touch electrodes [[as the claimed sensors]] in Fig. 9 must be “40” instead of “10” which is used to designate the driver chip 10; see Col. 24:27-28 “… referring to FIG. 9 … the driver chip 10 … the multiple touch electrodes 40 …”; also see Fig. 3/5, if necessary; further Fig. 9 showing the touch electrodes [[as the claimed sensors]] arranged in a matrix form in a sensing area including at least two touch areas [20/21];)
sensing lines [30] electrically connected to the sensors [40], respectively (see the above discussion regarding to the correct reference number “40” for touch electrodes; further note that the reference for the touch wires [[as the claimed sensing lines]] in Fig. 9 must be “30” instead of “20” which is used to designate the touch area 20 shown in any of Fig. 1/3/5;) and
a first multiplexer [51, 61] electrically connected between the sensing lines [30] and pads (see at least Fig. 9, disclosing a first multiplexer including elements [51, 61] electrically connected between the touch wires [30] [[as the claimed sensing lines]] and the driver chip 10 via the elements [In1], connection wires between the elements [In1, 10], and pads in order to connect the connection wires to the driver chip 10,)
wherein the sensing area includes a first area and a second area (see at least Fig. 3/5/9, disclosing the sensing area includes two areas [20/21], e.g., the top area 20 as the claimed first area and the bottom area 20 as the claimed second area; or the leftmost area 21 as the claimed first area and the adjacent/rightmost area 21 as the claimed second area,)
wherein the first multiplexer [50, 60; Fig. 9] includes:
a first sub-multiplexer [50] electrically connected to the sensors in the first area (see at least Fig. 9,) and
a second sub-multiplexer [60] electrically connected to the sensors in the second area (see at least Fig. 9,) and
wherein the first sub-multiplexer [50] is disposed on one/top side of the sensing area and the second sub-multiplexer [60] is disposed on another/bottom side of the sensing area (see at least Fig. 9.)
As per claim 2, Wu discloses: wherein the first sub-multiplexer [50] and the second sub-multiplexer [60] are spaced apart from each other in a first/vertical direction with the sensing area interposed therebetween (see at least Fig. 9,) and wherein the first area and the second area are arranged along a second/horizontal direction intersecting the first/vertical direction (see at least Fig. 9.)
As per claim 3, Wu discloses: wherein the first sub-multiplexer [50] is disposed on one side of the first area but not on one side of the second area (see at least Fig. 9,) and wherein the second sub-multiplexer [60] is disposed on another side of the second area but not on another side the first area (see at least Fig. 9.)
As per claim 13, Wu discloses: wherein the first multiplexer selectively couples the sensors disposed in two columns to one of the pads (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1 for the pads; further see Fig. 9, disclosing the first multiplexer [50, 60] selectively coupling the sensors [40] disposed in two rows [as the claimed two columns] to one of the pads.)
As per claim 14, Wu discloses: wherein the first sub-multiplexer [50] and the second sub-multiplexer [60] are spaced apart from each other in a first/vertical direction with the sensing area interposed therebetween, and wherein the first area and the second area are arranged along the first direction (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1 for the first area and the second area; further see Fig. 9.)
Claims 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lee.
As per claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 for similar limitations. Wu further discloses a touch organic light-emitting display device [101] (see at least Fig. 10; Col. 22:54-56; Col. 25:18) comprising: a touch organic light-emitting display panel [100] including the sensing unit (see the sensing device discussed in the rejection of claim 1; further see at least Fig. 9; Col. 22:54-64.) Wu is silent to the specific structure of the touch organic light-emitting display panel including a display unit separated from the sensing unit and including a base layer and a light-emitting element disposed on the base layer, wherein the sensing unit is disposed on the display unit, as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses a touch organic light-emitting display device [DD] (see at least Figs. 18; 22) comprising: a touch organic light-emitting display panel [a touch organic light-emitting display panel shown in Fig. 22] including a sensing unit [ISP]; and an organic light-emitting display unit [a display unit including elements from the element BL to the element TFE, as shown in Fig. 22] separated from the sensing unit [ISP] and including a base layer [BL] and a light-emitting element [LDL] disposed on the base layer [BL], wherein the sensing unit [ISP] is disposed on the display unit (see at least Fig. 22.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to recognize that Lee remedying for the deficiency of the Wu reference, the specific structure of the touch organic light-emitting display panel, in the arrangement manner, as required by this claim, or to modify the touch organic light-emitting display panel of Wu, in view of the teaching in the Lee reference, to obtain the same predictable result from the modified touch display device of the Wu reference. Accordingly, the combination of Wu and Lee obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2 for similar limitations.
As per claim 19, the above modified Wu in view of Lee obviously renders: wherein the display unit includes a light-emitting element layer including a light-emitting device and an encapsulation layer disposed on the light-emitting element layer, and wherein the sensing unit is disposed directly on the encapsulation layer (see Lee at least Fig. 22, the display unit including a light-emitting element layer [LDL with or without PCL] including a light-emitting device [OLED] and an encapsulation layer [TFE] disposed on the light-emitting element layer, and wherein the sensing unit [ISP] is disposed directly on the encapsulation layer [TFE].) Accordingly, the combination of Wu and Lee obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 20, see the rejection of claim 15 for similar limitations. Wu further discloses an electronic device, such as laptops, tablet computers, and more (see Wu Col. 25: 18-26) comprising: a processor providing input image data; a display device displaying an image based on the input image data; and a power supply supplying power to the display device (Wu’s an electronic device, such as laptops, tablet computers, inherently or obviously comprising a processor providing input image data; the display device, discussed in the rejection of claim 15, displaying an image based on the input image data; and a power supply supplying power to the display device; also see Lee Col. 33:16-22, disclosing an electronic device, such as a tablet, a mobile phone, and more, inherently or obviously comprising a processor providing input image data (see at least Col. 15:5-16); a display device displaying an image based on the input image data (see at least Col. 15:5-16); and a power supply supplying power to the display device.) Accordingly, the combination of Wu and Lee obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
SECOND/ ALTERNATIVE SET OF REJECTIONS:
Claims 1-3, 13-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lee.
As per claim 1, Wu discloses a sensing device (see Fig. 9) comprising:
sensors [40] arranged in a matrix form in a sensing area (note that the reference number for the touch electrodes [[as the claimed sensors]] in Fig. 9 must be “40” instead of “10” which is used to designate the driver chip 10; see Col. 24:27-28 “… referring to FIG. 9 … the driver chip 10 … the multiple touch electrodes 40 …”; also see Fig. 3/5, if necessary; further Fig. 9 showing the touch electrodes [[as the claimed sensors]] arranged in a matrix form in a sensing area including at least two touch areas [20/21];)
sensing lines [30] electrically connected to the sensors [40], respectively (see the above discussion regarding to the correct reference number “40” for touch electrodes; further note that the reference for the touch wires [[as the claimed sensing lines]] in Fig. 9 must be “30” instead of “20” which is used to designate the touch area 20 shown in any of Fig. 1/3/5;) and
a first multiplexer [51, 61] electrically connected between the sensing lines [30] and the connection wires [In1] connected to the driver chips [10] (see at least Fig. 9,)
wherein the sensing area includes a first area and a second area (see at least Fig. 3/5/9, disclosing the sensing area includes two areas [20/21], e.g., the top area 20 as the claimed first area and the bottom area 20 as the claimed second area; or the leftmost area 21 as the claimed first area and the adjacent/rightmost area 21 as the claimed second area,)
wherein the first multiplexer [50, 60; Fig. 9] includes:
a first sub-multiplexer [50] electrically connected to the sensors in the first area (see at least Fig. 9,) and
a second sub-multiplexer [60] electrically connected to the sensors in the second area (see at least Fig. 9,) and
wherein the first sub-multiplexer [50] is disposed on one/top side of the sensing area and the second sub-multiplexer [60] is disposed on another/bottom side of the sensing area (see at least Fig. 9.)
Accordingly, Wu, discussed above, discloses all limitations of this claim and further discloses the connection wires [In1] connected to the driver chips [10], but is silent to pads, as claimed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses a related sensing device (see Fig. 20) comprising: connection wires [SL2-1 - SL2-4] connected to the driver chips [IS-C/PCB] via pads [SL-p] (see at least Figs. 20, 19; Col. 37:17-24.)
Wu, discussed above, discloses the connection wires connected to the driver chips [10], but is silent to pads, as claimed. Lee, discussed above, remedies for the deficiency of Wu by explicitly disclosing the connection wires connected to the driver chips via pads. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to recognize that Lee remedying for the deficiency of the Wu reference, by explicitly disclosing the connection wires connected to the driver chips via pads, or to modify the sensing device of Wu to include pads so as to connect the connection wires connected to the driver chips via pads, in view of the teaching in the Lee reference, to obtain the same predictable result. Accordingly, the combination of Wu and Lee obviously renders all limitations of this claim including “the first multiplexer electrically connected between the sensing lines and pads.”
As per claim 2, Wu discloses: wherein the first sub-multiplexer [50] and the second sub-multiplexer [60] are spaced apart from each other in a first/vertical direction with the sensing area interposed therebetween (see at least Fig. 9,) and wherein the first area and the second area are arranged along a second/horizontal direction intersecting the first/vertical direction (see at least Fig. 9.)
As per claim 3, Wu discloses: wherein the first sub-multiplexer [50] is disposed on one side of the first area but not on one side of the second area (see at least Fig. 9,) and wherein the second sub-multiplexer [60] is disposed on another side of the second area but not on another side the first area (see at least Fig. 9.)
As per claim 13, Wu discloses: wherein the first multiplexer selectively couples the sensors disposed in two columns to one of the pads (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1 for the pads; further see Fig. 9, disclosing the first multiplexer [50, 60] selectively coupling the sensors [40] disposed in two rows [as the claimed two columns] to one of the pads.)
As per claim 14, Wu discloses: wherein the first sub-multiplexer [50] and the second sub-multiplexer [60] are spaced apart from each other in a first/vertical direction with the sensing area interposed therebetween, and wherein the first area and the second area are arranged along the first direction (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1 for the first area and the second area; further see Fig. 9.)
As per claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 for similar limitations. Wu further discloses a touch organic light-emitting display device [101] (see at least Fig. 10; Col. 22:54-56; Col. 25:18) comprising: a touch organic light-emitting display panel [100] including the sensing unit (see the sensing device discussed in the rejection of claim 1; further see at least Fig. 9; Col. 22:54-64.) Wu is silent to the specific structure of the touch organic light-emitting display panel including a display unit separated from the sensing unit and including a base layer and a light-emitting element disposed on the base layer, wherein the sensing unit is disposed on the display unit, as claimed.
However, Lee further discloses a touch organic light-emitting display device [DD] (see at least Figs. 18; 22) comprising: a touch organic light-emitting display panel [a touch organic light-emitting display panel shown in Fig. 22] including a sensing unit [ISP]; and an organic light-emitting display unit [a display unit including elements from the element BL to the element TFE, as shown in Fig. 22] separated from the sensing unit [ISP] and including a base layer [BL] and a light-emitting element [LDL] disposed on the base layer [BL], wherein the sensing unit [ISP] is disposed on the display unit (see at least Fig. 22.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to recognize that Lee remedying for the deficiency of the Wu reference, the specific structure of the touch organic light-emitting display panel, in the arrangement manner, as required by this claim, or to modify the touch organic light-emitting display panel of Wu, in view of the teaching in the Lee reference, to obtain the same predictable result from the modified touch display device of the Wu reference. Accordingly, the combination of Wu and Lee obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2 for similar limitations.
As per claim 19, the above modified Wu in view of Lee obviously renders: wherein the display unit includes a light-emitting element layer including a light-emitting device and an encapsulation layer disposed on the light-emitting element layer, and wherein the sensing unit is disposed directly on the encapsulation layer (see Lee at least Fig. 22, the display unit including a light-emitting element layer [LDL with or without PCL] including a light-emitting device [OLED] and an encapsulation layer [TFE] disposed on the light-emitting element layer, and wherein the sensing unit [ISP] is disposed directly on the encapsulation layer [TFE].) Accordingly, the combination of Wu and Lee obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
As per claim 20, see the rejection of claim 15 for similar limitations. Wu further discloses an electronic device, such as laptops, tablet computers, and more (see Wu Col. 25: 18-26) comprising: a processor providing input image data; a display device displaying an image based on the input image data; and a power supply supplying power to the display device (Wu’s an electronic device, such as laptops, tablet computers, inherently or obviously comprising a processor providing input image data; the display device, discussed in the rejection of claim 15, displaying an image based on the input image data; and a power supply supplying power to the display device; also see Lee Col. 33:16-22, disclosing an electronic device, such as a tablet, a mobile phone, and more, inherently or obviously comprising a processor providing input image data (see at least Col. 15:5-16); a display device displaying an image based on the input image data (see at least Col. 15:5-16); and a power supply supplying power to the display device.) Accordingly, the combination of Wu and Lee obviously renders all limitations of this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12, 17 and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claimed invention is directed to a sensing device and a display device including the sensing device, capable of minimizing a border or a dead space, a non-sensing area. Claims 4 and 17 identify the uniquely distinct limitations, “a second multiplexer electrically connected between the first multiplexer and the pads, wherein the second multiplexer and the pads are arranged along the second direction from the sensing area.” The closest prior arts, discussed above, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations in combination with all of the other claimed limitations particularly recited by these claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2017/0108970 A1; see at least Fig. 7; ¶ 3) and Park et al. (US 2023/0106322 A1; see at least Figs. 1-3; ¶ 2,) both discloses a related sensing device and a display device including the sensing device comprising sensors arranged in a matrix form in a sensing area; sensing lines electrically connected to the sensors, respectively; and a first multiplexer electrically connected to the sensing lines.
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