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 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 27, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tominaga et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0311578—hereinafter “Tominaga”).
As to Claim 1, Tominaga teaches an electronic device (Fig. 3 and Pg. 1, ¶ 5) comprising:
a display panel having an active area (Fig. 3 at DA) and a dead space (Fig. 3 at area surrounding DA);
a sensor unit comprising a plurality of patterns of which at least a portion overlaps the active area (Fig. 3 at 45); and
a controller configured to control the sensor unit (Fig. 3 at 43 and 44 and Pg. 2, ¶’s 23 and 28),
wherein the sensor unit comprises an edge pattern that overlaps the dead space (Fig. 3 at 47), is disposed adjacent to the active area, and has both ends electrically connected to the controller (Pg. 2, ¶’s 28-29).
As to Claim 3, Tominaga teaches that the edge pattern comprises a first edge pattern (Fig. 3 at 461) and a second edge pattern (Fig. 3 at 462), and the active area is disposed between the first edge pattern and the second edge pattern (Fig. 3, note DA between 461 and 462).
As to Claim 4, Tominaga teaches an electronic device (Fig. 3 and Pg. 1, ¶ 5) comprising:
a display panel having an active area (Fig. 4 at DA) and a dead space (Fig. 3 at area surrounding DA);
a sensor unit comprising a plurality of patterns of which at least a portion overlaps the active area (Fig. 4 at 45); and
a controller configured to control the sensor unit (Fig. 4 at 43 and 44 and Pg. 2, ¶’s 23 and 28),
wherein the sensor unit comprises a first edge pattern that overlaps the dead space and is disposed adjacent to one side of the active area (Fig. 4 at 47A1), and
the first edge pattern comprises:
a first-1 edge pattern having one end that is electrically floated and the other end that is electrically connected to the controller (See Fig. 4 at 47A1 where one end is connected to 44 on the left side and the other end is floated); and
a first-2 edge pattern (Fig. 4 at 47A2) disposed adjacent to the first-1 edge pattern (Fig. 4 at 47A1) and having one end that is electrically connected to the controller and the other end that is electrically floated (See Fig. 4 at 47A2 where one end is connected to 44 on the right side and the other end is floated).
As to Claim 6, Tominaga teaches that when an electrical signal is applied to the first-1 edge pattern and the first-2 edge pattern by the controller, capacitive coupling is formed between the first-1 edge pattern and the first-2 edge pattern (See Fig. 6 and Pg. 4, ¶ 48).
As to Claim 18, Tominaga teaches that the active area has a landscape shape in which a length in a horizontal direction is greater than a length in a vertical direction (See Figs. 3 and 4 at DA), and the edge pattern is disposed in the horizontal direction (See Figs. 3 and 4 at 46 and 47A).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga.
As to Claims 2 and 5, Tominaga fails to teach that the controller applies a driving signal for driving a stylus pen to the first edge pattern and patterns arranged in a direction parallel to the first edge pattern among the plurality of patterns. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art for touch panels to drive stylus pens. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to drive a stylus, in the electronic device taught by Tominaga, in order to effectively detect the position, pressure and tilt of the stylus.
As to Claim 19, Tominaga fails to teach that the display panel is folded about a reference line in the horizontal direction, which crosses a central portion of the active area. Examiner takes Official Notice that foldable display panels are well-known in the art. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the electronic device taught by Tominaga as a foldable device in order to make the device more compact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. U.S. Patent 11,630,543
Zhang et al. USPGPUB 2024/0361874
Zhang et al. USPGPUB 2025/0077016
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY AMADIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7762. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs; 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, 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.
/RODNEY AMADIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622