Office Action 2: Final Rejection (2023-01-09)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS

1\. (Original) An electronic device comprising:
a housing;
a cover substrate;
a touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of touch nodes that are configured to be driven with a first stimulation signal; and
one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing, wherein the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation and driven with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation.

2\. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second stimulation signal has a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal.

3\. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the one or more conductors is disposed at an edge of the cover substrate.

4\. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
one or more gaskets between the cover substrate and the housing;
wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets.

5\. (Original) The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
sensing circuitry configured to sense the plurality of touch nodes driven with the first stimulation signal.

6\. (Currently amended) The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
perform a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with \[\[a\]\] the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground; and
perform a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects contacting the cover substrate of the electronic device.

7\. (Previously Presented) The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and
exclude the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing.

8\. (Previously Presented) The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and
further processing the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects.

9\. (Currently amended) The electronic device of claim 1, , wherein the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed in a same layer.

10\. (Currently amended) The electronic device of claim 1, , wherein the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed on opposite sides of the cover substrate.

11\. (Previously Presented) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein a first conductor of the one or more conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate.

12\. (Currently amended) The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of touch nodes form an active touch area for the touch sensor panel and the cover substrate, and the one or more conductors are located at least partially outside the active touch area wherein the one or more conductors are an extension of one or more driven shield layers in proximity to the active touch area, the one or more conductors extending the one or more driven shield layers beyond the active touch area.

13\. (Previously Presented) A method comprising:
at an electronic device comprising a housing, a cover substrate, a touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of touch nodes that are configured to be driven with a first stimulation signal, and one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing:
biasing the one or more conductors at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation; and
driving the one or more conductors with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation to shield one or more objects contacting the cover substrate from capacitively coupling to ground through the housing.

14\. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 13, wherein the second stimulation signal has a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal.

15\. (Currently amended) The method of claim 13, further comprising:
performing a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with \[\[a\]\] the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground; and performing a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects.

16\. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 15, further comprising:
determining which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan;
and excluding the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing.

17\. (Previously Presented) A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by an electronic device comprising a housing, a cover substrate, a touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of touch nodes that are configured to be driven with a first stimulation signal, and one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing, cause the electronic device to:
bias the one or more conductors at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation; and
drive the one or more conductors with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation to shield one or more objects contacting the cover substrate from capacitively coupling to ground through the housing.

18\. (Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the second stimulation signal has a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal.

19\. (Currently amended) The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17, the instructions, when executed by the electronic device, further cause the electronic device to:
perform a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with \[\[a\]\] the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground; and
perform a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects.

20\. (Previously Presented) The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19, the instructions, when executed by the electronic device, further cause the electronic device to:
determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and
exclude the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing.
5 6 7 8 9 4874-6579-6654, v. 2

OFFICE 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 .
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 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 1, 3, 5-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maharyta et al., US Patent 10,725,591 hereinafter referenced as Maharyta in view of Wuerstlein et al., US PGPUG 2019/0237963 hereinafter referenced as Wuerstlein.
As to claim 1, Maharyta discloses an electronic device comprising: a housing (e.g. housing 1105, fig. 11);
a cover substrate (e.g. transparent substrate in front of the display, fig. 11);
a touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of touch nodes that are configured to be driven with a first stimulation signal (e.g. sensor array 1125, fig. 11); and
one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing (e.g. external transmission electrode 1210, fig. 12),
wherein the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation (at block 1035 of fig. 10, processing logic selects a second mode of capacitive touch detection from a plurality of modes of capacitive touch detection) and driven with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation (at block 1025 of fig. 10, processing logic rejects signal measurements of the second mode of capacitive touch indicating the touch in view of signal measurements of the first mode of capacitance touch detection indicating a non-touch).
Maharyta does not specifically discloses the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation.
However, in the same endeavor, Wuerstlein discloses the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation (e.g. sensor electrodes 20, fig. 2 and [0054], wherein the control unit 18 is correspondingly configured to detect an electrical resistance that forms between the two sensor electrodes 20 or a variable derived therefrom, and to compare it to a stored normal value that is measured between the two sensor electrodes 20 in the absence of water).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta to further include Wuerstlein’s water sensor electrodes in order to isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively.
As to claim 13, Maharyta discloses a method comprising: at an electronic device comprising a housing (e.g. housing 1105, fig. 11),
a cover substrate (e.g. transparent substrate in front of the display, fig. 11),
a touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of touch nodes that are configured to be driven with a first stimulation signal (e.g. sensor array 1125, fig. 11), and
one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing: biasing the one or more conductors at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation (at block 1035 of fig. 10, processing logic selects a second mode of capacitive touch detection from a plurality of modes of capacitive touch detection); and
driving the one or more conductors with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation to shield one or more objects contacting the cover substrate from capacitively coupling to ground through the housing (at block 1025 of fig. 10, processing logic rejects signal measurements of the second mode of capacitive touch indicating the touch in view of signal measurements of the first mode of capacitance touch detection indicating a non-touch).
Maharyta does not specifically discloses the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation.
However, in the same endeavor, Wuerstlein discloses the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation (e.g. sensor electrodes 20, fig. 2 and [0054], wherein the control unit 18 is correspondingly configured to detect an electrical resistance that forms between the two sensor electrodes 20 or a variable derived therefrom, and to compare it to a stored normal value that is measured between the two sensor electrodes 20 in the absence of water).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta to further include Wuerstlein’s water sensor electrodes in order to isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively.
As to claim 17, Maharyta discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by an electronic device comprising a housing (e.g. housing 1105, fig. 11),
a cover substrate (e.g. transparent substrate in front of the display, fig. 11),
a touch sensor panel comprising a plurality of touch nodes that are configured to be driven with a first stimulation signal (e.g. sensor array 1125, fig. 11), and
one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing, cause the electronic device to: bias the one or more conductors at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation (at block 1035 of fig. 10, processing logic selects a second mode of capacitive touch detection from a plurality of modes of capacitive touch detection); and
drive the one or more conductors with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation to shield one or more objects contacting the cover substrate from capacitively coupling to ground through the housing (at block 1025 of fig. 10, processing logic rejects signal measurements of the second mode of capacitive touch indicating the touch in view of signal measurements of the first mode of capacitance touch detection indicating a non-touch).
Maharyta does not specifically discloses the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation.
However, in the same endeavor, Wuerstlein discloses the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation (e.g. sensor electrodes 20, fig. 2 and [0054], wherein the control unit 18 is correspondingly configured to detect an electrical resistance that forms between the two sensor electrodes 20 or a variable derived therefrom, and to compare it to a stored normal value that is measured between the two sensor electrodes 20 in the absence of water).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta to further include Wuerstlein’s water sensor electrodes in order to isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively.
As to claim 3, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the electronic device of claim 1. The combination further discloses at least a portion of the one or more conductors is disposed at an edge of the cover substrate (Maharyta, e.g. external transmission electrode 1210, fig. 12).
As to claim 5, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the electronic device of claim 1. The combination further discloses sensing circuitry configured to sense the plurality of touch nodes driven with the first stimulation signal (Maharyta, as shown in fig. 11, Capacitance sense array 1125 illustrates row electrodes (horizontal rows) and column electrodes (vertical rows). Water 1130 illustrates capacitance sense array 1125 submersed underwater).
As to claim 6, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the electronic device of claim 1. The combination further discloses processing circuitry configured to: perform a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground (Maharyta, in one embodiment, using passive touch detection to detect a touch may include scanning a first plurality of electrodes of a capacitive sense array along a first axis (e.g., vertical columns) to generate a first plurality of signal measurements indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object, col. 3, lines 55-61); and
perform a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects contacting the cover substrate of the electronic device (Maharyta, passive touch detection to detect a touch may further include scanning a second plurality of electrodes along a second axis (e.g., horizontal columns) of the capacitive sense array to generate a second plurality signal measurements indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the second plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object, col. 4, lines 31-35).
As to claim 7, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the electronic device of claim 6. The combination further discloses the processing circuitry 1s further configured to: determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and exclude the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing  signal measurements from the second mode of capacitance touch detection indicating a touch may be rejected if corresponding signal measurements (e.g., signal measurement of the same electrode of the capacitive sense array) from the first mode of capacitance touch detection indicate a non-touch, col.5, lines 9-14).
As to claim 8, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the electronic device of claim 6. The combination further discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and further processing the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects (Maharyta, each row electrodes R0-Rm may be connected to row multiplexer 130, which may control the application of signal 135 (also referred to as a transmission signal) and or connect one or more row electrodes to a ground potential, such as common ground 150 shared by components of capacitance sensing system 100, col. 5, lines 35-40).
As to claim 9, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the electronic device of claim 1. The combination further discloses the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed in a same layer (capacitive sensor 1240 and electrode 1210, fig. 12).
As to claim 10, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the electronic device of claim 1. The combination further discloses the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed on opposite sides of the cover substrate (as shown in fig. 11, The conductive nature of water may couple the external transmission signal 1111 received through the second part of passive touch object 1115 to multiple receiving electrodes outside of the touch location).
As to claim 11, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the electronic device of claim 1. The combination further discloses a first conductor of the one or more conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate (Wuerstlein, [0057] the voltage divider circuit 30 includes, for example, three identical ohmic resistors 34 connected in series, the two sensor electrodes 20 being connected one on either side of the middle resistor 34).
As to claim 12, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the electronic device of claim 1. The combination further discloses the plurality of touch nodes form an active touch area for the touch sensor panel and the cover substrate, and the one or more conductors are located at least partially outside the active touch area wherein the one or more conductors are an extension of one or more driven shield layers in proximity to the active touch area, the one or more conductors extending the one or more driven shield layers beyond the active touch area (Maharyta ,the processing device 1410 is a microcontroller that obtains a capacitance touch signal data set from application processor 1450, such as from capacitive sense array 1425, and finger detection firmware executing on the microcontroller identifies data set areas that indicate touches, detects and processes peaks, calculates the coordinates, or any combination therefore, fig. 14).
As to claim 15, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the method of claim 13. The combination further discloses performing a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground; and
performing a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects (Maharyta, passive touch detection to detect a touch may further include scanning a second plurality of electrodes along a second axis (e.g., horizontal columns) of the capacitive sense array to generate a second plurality signal measurements indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the second plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object, col. 4, lines 31-35).
As to claim 16, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the method of claim 15. The combination further discloses determining which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and excluding the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing (Maharyta, e.g., signal measurement of the same electrode of the capacitive sense array) from the first mode of capacitance touch detection indicate a non-touch, col.5, lines 9-14).
As to claim 19, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17. The combination further discloses the instructions, when executed by the electronic device, further cause the electronic device to: perform a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground (Maharyta, in one embodiment, using passive touch detection to detect a touch may include scanning a first plurality of electrodes of a capacitive sense array along a first axis (e.g., vertical columns) to generate a first plurality of signal measurements indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object, col. 3, lines 55-61); and
perform a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects (Maharyta, passive touch detection to detect a touch may further include scanning a second plurality of electrodes along a second axis (e.g., horizontal columns) of the capacitive sense array to generate a second plurality signal measurements indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the second plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object, col. 4, lines 31-35).
As to claim 20, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19. The combination further discloses the instructions, when executed by the electronic device, further cause the electronic device to: determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and exclude the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing (Maharyta, e.g., signal measurement of the same electrode of the capacitive sense array) from the first mode of capacitance touch detection indicate a non-touch, col.5, lines 9-14).
Claims 2, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maharyta and Wuerstlein as applied to claims 1, 13 and 17 respectively above, and further in view of Mo et al., US Patent 10,073,562 hereinafter referenced as Mo.
As to claims 2, 14 and 18, the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein does not specifically disclose the second stimulation signal has a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal.
However, in the same endeavor, Mo discloses two signals having a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal (as shown in fig. 2 for example, the second signal may be a pulse signal with a same frequency, a same phase and a same amplitude as the first signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta and Wuerstlein to further include Mo’s method of electrodes driving in order to isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maharyta and Wuerstlein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuboyama et al., US PGPUB 2017/0090599 hereinafter referenced as Kuboyama.
As to claim 4, Maharyta and Wuerstlein does not disclose the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: one or more gaskets between the cover substrate and the housing; wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets.
However, in the same endeavor, Kuboyama discloses one or more gaskets between the cover substrate and the housing; wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets (gasket 6106, fig. 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta and Wuerstlein to further include Kuboyama’s gaskets in order to increase the durability of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/24/2022 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of REMARKS that ‘On page 4 of the Office Action, the above emphasized features of claim 1 were mapped to Maharyta's external transmission electrode 1210 of FIG. 12. External transmission electrode 1210 is described by Maharyta to be similar to external transmission electrode 1112 of FIG. 11 in both structure and function. In terms of structure, Maharyta teaches external transmission electrode 1210 is shown coupled to a conductive housing of electronic device 1200 (lines 20-22, column 18). In terms of function, Maharyta explains that the principle of operation for electronic device 1200 relies on the user (or passive touch object) to be coupled to the external transmission electrode 1210 by gripping the housing of the electronic device 1200 (lines 28-32, column 18), which is only possible when electrode 1210 is conductively coupled to the housing of device 1200. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that Maharyta fails to show or suggest one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing and electrically insulated from the housing (emphasis added), as recited by claim 1’.
In accordance with MPEP, “USPTO personnel to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure.
For instant case, applicant does not claim a specific condition the one or more conductors are electrically insulated from the housing. Examiner pointed out the breadth of the claim and suggested to further limit the function of the one or more detectors and the claimed modes to pinpoint applicant’s invention during the interview.
Maharyta discloses a multimodal capacitance touch detection technique which are first mode of capacitance touch detection (e.g., passive touch detection) and second mode of capacitance touch detection (e.g., mutual capacitance touch detection) maybe selected in view of the presence or absence of noise signal. As shown in fig. 12, the transmission electrode 1210 is outside of the touch sensor area and not directly connected to the housing 1200 so electrical insulation between 1210 and 1200 is depending on the operating situation of the touchscreen.
Even if there is an electrical transmission between the two, it just one embodiment. In other embodiment, the housing may not be conductive, as shown in fig. 13. Therefore, the current 103 rejection will be sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  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 extension fee 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.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-20 stand rejected and have been rejected twice, making this application eligible for appeal. Appellant requests reversal for the reasons outlined below.
3 See, e.g., id. at paragraphs [0056]-[0067] and [0076]-[0084] and FIGs. 7A and 10.
4 See, e.g., id. at paragraph [0076] and FIG. 10.
5 See, e.g., id. at paragraphs [0079]-[0085] and FIG. 10.
6 See, e.g., id. at paragraph [0038] and FIG. 2.
7 See, e.g., id. at paragraphs [0056]-[0067] and [0076]-[0084] and FIGs. 7A and 10.
8 See, e.g., id. at paragraph [0076] and FIG. 10.
9 See, e.g., id. at paragraphs [0079]-[0085] and FIG. 10.
The claims do not all stand and fall together. For purposes of this appeal, the following groups of claims are argued separately:
Group A - independent claims 1, 13, and 17 and dependent claims 3, 5, 12, 16, and 20.
Group B - dependent claims 2, 14, and 18.
Group C - dependent claim 4.
Group D - dependent claims 6, 15, and 19.
Group E - dependent claims 7 and 8.
Group F - dependent claims 9-11.
While the groups of claims do not stand and fall together, Appellant submits that that the separate rejections for each group of claims share common errors that warrant reversal. Notably, each rejection is fundamentally based, at least in part, on (a) failure of the Examiner's cited combination of prior art references to disclose each and every recitation of the claims, and/or (b) reliance on non-analogous art, and/or (c) failure of the Examiner to provide reasoning explaining how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would arrive at a conclusion of obviousness for the specific combination without hindsight, as described in more detail below.
A. Group A - independent claims 1, 13, and 17 and dependent claims 3, 5, 12,
16, and 20.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 17, from which dependent claims 3, 5, 12, 16, and 20 depend, are directed, at least in part, to a conductor located between a cover substrate and a housing. A non-limiting embodiment may be found at paragraphs [0056]-[0057] and FIG. 7A (reproduced below) of the Application as filed. As an example, at least a portion of the conductor (e.g. conductor 708) can be disposed partially or fully between the cover substrate (e.g., touch surface 700) and the housing (e.g., housing 704), outside or beyond the active touch area. The conductor can be distinct from the touch nodes (e.g. touch nodes 710), and can be configurable, depending on the mode of touch operation, to be biased at a first potential or driven with a
stimulation signal (e.g., with the same characteristics as the stimulation signal being applied to some of the touch nodes).
SVG {EMBED HERE} 2.6574.387 HOUSING
704
FIG. 7A
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims. In the Final Office Action dated January 9, 2023 ("Office Action"), the Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for allegedly being unpatentable over Maharyta (U.S. Patent No. 10,725,591) and Wuerstlein (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0237963). However, independent claims 1, 13, and 17 recite "one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing" (emphasis added), which is not taught, disclosed, or suggested by the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein. To establishprimafacie obviousness, all the claim elements must be taught, disclosed, or suggested by the prior art.10 Therefore, the Examiner fails to establish primafacie obviousness of the claimed invention because the cited combination of prior art references fails to disclose all the elements of the claimed invention.
For example, the Examiner maps "a housing" to Maharyta's housing 1105 of FIG. 11
(reproduced below, left), "a cover substrate" to Maharyta's "transparent substrate in front of the display" of FIG. 11, and "one or more conductors" to Maharyta's external transmission electrode
SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.242.00 SPQ 580 (CCPA 1974).
1210 of FIG. 12 (reproduced below, right).11 However, the Examiner fails to map any part of the disclosure of Maharyta to the recitation of "one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing" (emphasis added). FIGs. 11-12 of Maharyta do not show-and the Examiner does not provide further explanation or citation to support a showing of-external transmission electrode 1210 disposed between the transparent substrate in front of the display (e.g., corresponding to capacitive sense array 1125) and housing 1105.
SVG {EMBED HERE} 2.4775.693states "TX lectro SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1171.153 hihMh SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1530.483 uae it1 SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1170.593 102 uthr h
Exmie doe no ci SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1070.253 n or otews eyo n icoueo utli to reed thi
SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1536.42SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1536.33SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1776.413SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1536.023deficiency. As such, Wuerstlein fails to cure the deficiencies of Maharyta. Therefore, the Examiner' s mapping of "one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing" (emphasis added) is incomplete.
" Office Action at 2-3.
1 Maharytaat 17:1-3.
To the extent the Office Action includes additional comments in the Response to
Arguments section,13 the additional mapping (to non-conductive housing of FIG. 13) and the reasoning presented are directed only to "one or more conductors... electrically insulated from the housing," and do not address the "one or more conductors disposed between the cover substrate and the housing" (emphasis added).
Moreover, the mapping of Maharyta is incomplete, and indeed incorrect, with respect to
another recitation of the claims; that is, the claims require "wherein the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation and driven with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation." The Examiner first asserts Maharyta discloses the entirety of this recitation by mapping the claim recitations to two blocks of FIG. 10 of Maharyta,14 but the Examiner ultimately concedes at least the first half of the recitation (i.e. "wherein the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation") is not disclosed in Maharyta.15 However, the entirety of the mapping, not just half, is incomplete and incorrect because FIG. 10 is directed to the capacitive sensing at capacitive sense array 125 (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1) and has nothing to do with the external transmission electrodes (e.g., external transmission electrodes 1112, 1210, 1341-1344) and touch detection in the presence of water as described with reference to FIGs. 11-13.
In fact, regarding FIG. 10, Maharyta describes and "illustrat[es] touch detection using multimodal capacitance touch detection." The two modes are "passive touch detection" and "mutual capacitance touch detection," and method 1000 of FIG. 10 is described with reference to FIGs. 1-SC.16 The external transmission electrodes (e.g., external transmission electrodes 1112) of Maharyta are only described subsequently in the context of FIGs. 11-13 because method 1000 is unable to differentiate between touch and water, and method 1000 cannot detect touch when thecapacitive sense array is submerged underw SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.140.39 Thus, the cited portions of FIG. 10 of Maharytacannot properly be mapped as functionality of the "one or more conductors," which the Examiner
SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.7531.013 15-16.
ta at 17:7-16 and 17:44-46.
maps to external transmission electrodes (e.g., external transmission electrode 1210) that are different and distinct from the touch electrodes of sensor array 1125 (equivalent to capacitance sense array 12518). As such, Maharyta fails to disclose the one or more conductors "are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation" and fails to disclose the one or more conductors are "driven with a second stimulation signal in a second mode of touch operation," as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts, in error, that Wuerstlein discloses "the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation."19 However, Wuerstlein fails to disclose any touch operation or even a touch sensor panel. Instead, Wuerstlein discloses a resistance sensor to detect water penetration into the housing of an electronic system.20 For example, Wuerstlein discloses "detect[ing] an electrical resistance that forms between the two sensor electrodes 20 or a variable derived therefrom, and to compare it to a stored normal value that is measured between the two sensor electrodes 20 in the absence of water."21 Additionally, the Examiner concedes that Wuerstlein does not disclose different operation for the water sensor depending on a mode of operation (let alone touch operation). Furthermore, the cited portion of Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest biasing the one or more conductors at a first potential. Thus, the Examiner's mapping of Wuerstlein's resistance sensor electrodes to the recitation of "the one or more conductors are configured to be biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation" is incomplete, improper, and cannot support a conclusion of prima facie obviousness.
Accordingly, the Examiner fails to show that the cited references-alone or in
combination-disclose each and every recitation of the claimed invention. As such, the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependents) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper.
18 Id. at 16:42-45.
19 Office Action at 3.
20 See, e.g., Wuerstlein at [0009].
21 Office Action at 3; see also Wuerstlein at [0054].
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
The Examiner also fails to establish prima facie obviousness by improperly relying on non- analogous art. In order for a reference to be proper for use in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention.22 A reference can only be considered analogous art to the claimed invention if it is (a) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention or (b) is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.23 Wuerstleinfails to qualify as analogous art because it is from a different field of endeavor and not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors of the Application.
Wuerstlein and the Application are in entirely different fields of endeavor. For example, Wuerstlein provides electronic control devices (e.g., for actuating motors in dampers, doors, seats, ventilation devices) for vehicles and includes resistance sensors for detecting the interior penetration of water to enhance reliability of the electronic systems. Specifically, Wuerstlein defines its field of invention as relating to "an electronic control device for use in a motor vehicle," and "a motor vehicle that includes the electronic control device."24 In contrast, the Application describes the field as relating to "touch sensor panels, and more particularly to techniques for rejecting water droplets located near the edges of the touch sensor panels."25 The Examiner identifies no overlap between these fields.
Additionally, Wuerstlein's solution-a resistance sensor to detect penetration of water into an electronic housing-is not reasonably pertinent to identifying and ignoring floating water on a surface of a touch sensor panel. For example, as described in the Application, "[a] water droplet 608 at the edge of a touch surface 600 capacitively couples to a grounded housing, bezel, or other grounded conductor... As a result, water droplet 608 can appear to be a touching object, and device operations can be adversely impacted."26
22 MPEP § 2141.01(a); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 23 Id.
24 Wuerstlein at [0002].
25 Application at [0002].
26Id. at [0051].
An inventor looking to solve this problem would not look at Wuerstlein, which does not
disclose capacitive input devices or touch sensor panels, and which is not concerned with water on an exterior surface. In contrast to touch sensor panels, Wuerstlein only mentions electronic control devices including actuating motors for automatically adjusting vehicle parts (e.g. dampers, doors, seats, etc.) or motors of ventilation devices, as discussed above. Wuerstlein's solution is concerned with water penetration into the interior of the housing and is not relevant to water on an exterior surface. Finally, Wuerstlein's solution relies on a change in resistance measured by a resistance sensor which is inapplicable to the problem of floating water on a capacitive touch surface faced by the inventors.
Thus, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art, and the Examiner's reliance Wuerstlein is improper, indicative of hindsight bias, and undercuts the effort to establish prima facie obviousness.
3. The Examiner relies on a conclusory statement rather than reasoned explanation for its obviousness conclusion.
The Examiner also fails to provide an explicit, reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention without hindsight, and therefore fails to establish a primafacie case of obviousness.27 Obviousness rejections cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, which should be made explicit.28 Even assuming arguendo that the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein discloses all of the elements of claim 1 (it does not per Section 1, above), and that Wuerstlein is in the same field of endeavor (it is not per Section 2, above), the Examiner's entire analysis for the conclusion of obviousness is a conclusory statement: "Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta to further include Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes in order to isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively."29 The Examiner cannot meet the Office's burden with such a conclusory
27 To establish aprimafacie case of obviousness under MPEP §§ 2141-43, Office personnel are required to provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP § 214327; see also MPEP § 2142. 28 See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 418 (2007). 29 Office Action at 4.
statement because the conclusory statement lacks-and the Examiner otherwise fails to provide any rationale providing a link between the earlier findings and the conclusion of obviousness.
For example, the conclusory statement fails to make clear what exactly the Examiner is proposing as a combination of the references. The Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to "modify the disclosure of Maharyta to further include Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes."30 However, the Examiner fails to link this conclusory statement to the prior mapping of the references to the claims. The statement is ambiguous about what "disclosure of Maharyta" is being modified, and implies Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes as an addition to Maharyta's "disclosure," independent from the capacitive sense array 1125 and external transmission electrodes 1210 (or 1112 or 1341-1344) of Maharyta. As such, this statement is insufficient to establish obviousness because the Examiner maps "the one or more conductors" to both the external transmission electrodes of Maharyta and Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes (at least the recitation of the one or more conductors biased at a first potential in a first mode of touch operation).
Assuming instead that the Examiner's intended modification is to modify the external
transmission electrodes of Maharyta with the functionality Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes, there is no support for why a POSITA would make such a modification or would link the operation of Wuerstlein's water sensor electrodes to a mode of touch operation. Maharyta's external transmission electrode 1210 is design to enable touch detection for a capacitive sense array submersed underwater using an external transmission signal. By contrast Wuerstlein's water sensor is a resistive sensor that is internal to the housing to detect water penetration within the housing. A POSITA would not integrate these disparate features of Maharyta and Wuerstlein using the same electrodes given the differences between Maharyta and Wuerstlein including sensors with: (a) different operating principles (e.g., resistive versus capacitive); (b) different purposes (underwater touch detection versus water penetration); and (c) different placement (e.g., electrodes interior to the housing versus implemented in the housing for external transmission). Indeed, a POSITA would not implement the resistive sensor of Wuerstlein using the external transmission electrodes of Maharyta because the combination would not be able to detect water
o Id.
penetration into the interior of the housing (and Maharyta already can detect submersion in waterusing the electrodes of the capacitive sense array3 SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1730.123 The Examiner also fails to provide any reasoning or explanation why a POSITA would be motivated to combine the cited references to arrive at the claims without hindsight based on the proffered rationale. The Examiner suggests a rationale, without providing any reasoning or explanation, for combining Wuerstlein with Maharyta to "isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively."32 However, this purported rationale is not found in either of the cited references, and even if the source of the rationale is extrinsic to the cited references, its relevance to the mapping and/or the combination is not explained. Without a link to the cited references or the factual findings (or any other explanation), the rationale is ambiguous about the meaning of an "unwanted signal" or "activating desired functions effectively," or their relationship to the combination. This irrelevant and ambiguous rationale, unmoored from the mapping, cannot possibly justify applying such disparate, incompatible, and non-analogous art. Rather than support a conclusion of obviousness, the aforementioned errors are further evidence of hindsight reasoning.
For the reasons explained above, the Examiner fails to establish a primafacie case of
obviousness by failing to meet the threshold burden of establishing that each and every recitation of the claims is disclosed in the cited references (see Group A, Section 1); improperly relying on non-analogous art for the combination (see Group A, Section 2); and failing to provide a reasoned explanation as to how the combination of references meets the claims and why the claims would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention without hindsight (see Group A, Section 3).
Therefore, independent claims 1, 13, and 17 and their respective dependents are patentable over the cited combination of prior art references. Appellant therefore requests that the Board overturn the rejections of these claims.
31 Maharyta at 17:12-32 and 19:22-27.
32 Office Action at 4.
B. Group B - dependent claims 2, 14, and 18.
Claims 2, 14, and 18 depend from independent claims 1, 13, and claim 17, respectively. As discussed above,33 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 17. Mo fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 17. Accordingly, claims 2, 14, and 18 are patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claims 2, 14, and 18 recite additional subject matter directed to the second stimulation signal having a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal.
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims.
The Examiner concedes that Maharyta and Wuerstlein fail to disclose "the second
stimulation signal has a same frequency, a same phase and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal."34 Instead, the Examiner relies on a mapping to FIG. 2 of Mo as allegedly disclosing "the second signal may be a pulse signal with a same frequency, a same phase and a same amplitude as the first signal."35 However, Mo discloses, with reference to FIG. 2, "a circuit diagram of a sub- pixel unit in a liquid crystal display" and does not describe any pulse signals in the context of FIG. 2.36 To the extent that Mo discloses driving the common electrodes, gate lines, and data lines of the display with pulse signals having similar characteristics,37 the signals are applied to display electrodes (common electrode, gate line, data line) to reduce display interference with touch detection, which is irrelevant to the stimulation applied to the claimed one or more conductors (mapped by the Examiner to external transmission electrodes 1210). Thus, the Examiner's cited portions of Mo fail to disclose "wherein the second stimulation signal [driving the one or more conductors] has a same frequency, a same phase and a same amplitude as the first stimulation signal."
s3 Supra Section IV(A).
34 Office Action at 13.
35 Id. at 14.
36 Mo at 1:48-50.
7 Id. at FIGs. 5-6 and 8:16-9:18.
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.38 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
3. The Examiner relies on a conclusory statement rather than reasoned explanation for its obviousness conclusion.
Even assuming arguendo that the combination of Maharyta, Wuerstlein, and Mo discloses all of the elements of the claims (it does not, per Section 1, above), and that Wuerstlein is in the same field of endeavor (it is not, per Section 2, above), the Examiner fails to provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention. In fact, the Examiner's entire analysis for the conclusion of obviousness is another conclusory statement: "[t]herefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta and Wuerstlein to further include Mo's method of electrodes driving in order to isolate unwanted signal with intention of activating desired functions effectively."39
The conclusory statement fails to make clear what exactly the Examiner is proposing as a combination of the references. To the extent the Examiner is suggesting overloading the "one or more conductors" in the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein with respect to the independent claims with yet another driving scheme (in addition to the driving scheme for submerged touch detection of Maharyta and water penetration detection of Wuerstlein), a POSITA would not do so. Specifically, a POSITA would not apply Mo's method of driving display electrodes to the "one or more conductors" (mapped by the Examiner to Maharyta's external transmission electrodes). Additionally, Mo's driving scheme is applied during touch sensing, not limited just to one specific mode of touch operation.
The Examiner's conclusory statement also includes the identical rationale provided to justify the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein with respect to the independent claims. As
38 Supra Section IV(A)(2).
39 Office Action at 14.
discussed above,40 this irrelevant and ambiguous rationale, unmoored from the mapping, cannot possibly justify applying disparate, incompatible, and non-analogous art as the Examiner does for the independent claims. The rationale is no more relevant, clear, or linked to the mapping to justify applying the disparate, incompatible, and non-analogous art as the Examiner does for the dependent claims.
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 14, and 18 are patentable over the cited combination of prior art references. Appellant therefore requests that the Board overturn the rejections of these claims.
C. Group C - dependent claim 4.
Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1. As discussed above,41 the Examiner's
combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of independent claim 1. The cited portion of Kuboyama (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0237963) fails to cure the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 4 is patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claim 4 recites additional subject matter directed to one or more gaskets
between the substrate and the housing, wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets.
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims.
The Examiner concedes that Maharyta and Wuerstlein fail to disclose "one or more gaskets between the cover substrate and the housing; wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets."42 Instead, the Examiner relies on a mapping to gasket 6106 of FIG. 61 of Kuboyama as allegedly disclosing "one or more gaskets between the cover substrate and the housing; wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets."43 However,
4o See, e.g., supra Section IV(A)(3).
41 Supra Section IV(A).
42 Office Action at 14.
43 Id.
the Examiner's citation to gasket 6106 of FIG. 61 is merely a mapping to the "one or more gaskets" and does not address the claim recitation of "the one or more conductors formed in the one or more gaskets." Thus, the cited portions of Kuboyama relied upon by the Examiner cannot disclose "wherein the one or more conductors are formed in the one or more gaskets."
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.44 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
3. The Examiner relies on a conclusory statement rather than reasoned explanation for its obviousness conclusion. Even assuming arguendo that the combination of Maharyta, Wuerstlein, and Kuboyama
discloses all of the elements of the claims (it does not, per Section 1, above), and that Wuerstlein is in the same field of endeavor (it is not, per Section 2, above), the Examiner fails to provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention. In fact, the Examiner's entire analysis for the conclusion of obviousness is another conclusory statement: "[t]herefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Maharyta and Wuerstlein to further include Kuboyama's gaskets in order to increase the durability of the device."45
At best, the Examiner's conclusory statement supports some incorporation of a gasket of Kuboyama into the combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein to increase durability. The Examiner fails to provide any reasoning or explanation why a POSITA would be motivated to form the one or more conductors in the one or more gaskets.
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is patentable over the Examiner's combination of cited references. Appellant therefore requests that the Board overturn the rejections of this claim.
\* Supra Section IV(A)(2).
4 Office Action at 14.
D. Group D - dependent claims 6, 15, and 19.
Claims 6, 15, and 19 depend from independent claims 1, 13, and 17, respectively. As
discussed above,46 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 17. Accordingly, claims 6, 15, and 19 are patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claims 6, 15, and 19 recite additional subject matter directed to performing a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground, and performing a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects.
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims. The Examiner fails to establish prima facie obviousness of the claimed invention because the cited combination of prior art references fails to disclose all the elements of the claimed invention.
For example, the Examiner maps "perform a first scan in the first mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal in one or more scan steps, the first scan including first touch signals grouped into first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground" (emphasis added) and "perform a second scan in the second mode of touch operation by driving the plurality of touch nodes of the touch sensor panel with the first stimulation signal while shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing, the second scan including second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects contacting the
46 Supra Section IV(A).
cover substrate of the electronic device" (emphasis added) to column scanning and row scanning of Maharyta's passive touch detection.47
However, the Examiner fails to establish that the column and row scanning of Maharyta are two different modes of touch operation. Indeed, Maharyta refers to these as steps of passive touch detection (a first mode distinct from the second mode of touch detection - mutual capacitance touch detection).48 Furthermore, this mapping is inconsistent with the Examiner's mapping of the first mode and the second mode of touch operation with respect to claim 1, which the Examiner maps to the passive touch detection and the mutual capacitance touch detection.49
Moreover, the column scanning portion of passive touch detection of Maharyta enables
only determination of an X coordinate and the row scanning portion of the passive touch detection of Maharyta enables only determination of an Y coordinate.50 Thus, in the Examiner's mapping of claim 6, Maharyta's first scan or second scan independently do not provide first or second patches. Nor does the Examiner's mapping of claim 6 account for the differences between the claimed first scan and second scan. The first scan includes "first touch signals grouped intofirst patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground" and the second scan includes "second touch signals grouped into second patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects contacting the cover substrate of the electronic device" (emphasis added). The Examiner does not explain why the column scan of Maharyta includes patches indicative of capacitive coupling of objects to ground whereas the row scan includes patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through one or more objects contacting the cover substrate of the electronic device.
Finally, the Examiner fails to map any part of the disclosure of Maharyta to the recitations of "shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing." That is, Maharyta's passive touch detection does not disclose-and the Examiner does not provide further
47 Office Action at 7-8.
48 Maharyta at 3:55-4:63.
49 Office Action at 3.
s Maharyta at 4:28-30; 4:54-57.
explanation or citation to support a showing of-shielding against capacitive coupling paths to ground through the housing.
Therefore, the Examiner's mapping of the claims is incorrect and incomplete. The Examiner does not cite to or otherwise rely on any disclosure of Wuerstlein to remedy this deficiency. As such, Wuerstlein fails to cure the deficiencies of Maharyta.
Accordingly, the Examiner fails to show that the cited references-alone or in
combination-disclose each and every recitation of the claimed invention. As such, the rejections of dependent claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their respective dependents) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper.
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.51 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
E. Group E - dependent claims 7 and 8.
Claims 7 and 8 depend from dependent claim 6, which depends from independent claim 1. As discussed above,52 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of independent claim 1. Moreover, As discussed above,53 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the recitations of dependent claim 6. Accordingly, claims 7 and 8 are patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites additional subject matter directed to determining which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan, and excluding the first patchesSVG {EMBED HERE} 0.562.00
indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing.
Furthermore, claim 8 recites additional subject matter directed to determining which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects using results of the first scan and results of the second scan, and further processing the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects.
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims.
The Examiner fails to establish prima facie obviousness of the claimed invention because the cited combination of prior art references fails to disclose all the elements of the claimed invention. For example, regarding claim 7, the Examiner maps "determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and exclude the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing" (emphasis added) to Maharyta's disclosure of rejecting signal measurements of mutual capacitance touch detection when passive touch detection indicate a non-touch.54 The mapping is facially inconsistent as the claims require using "results of the first scan and results of the second scan" to determine which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device. The cited portion of Maharyta is explicitly rejecting the signal measurements of the second mode (mutual capacitance touch detection) based on the results of the first mode (passive touch detection), not using them both for another purpose. Furthermore, this mapping of claim 7 is inconsistent with the mapping of claim 6. The mapping of claim 6 equates the first and second scans to column and row scanning of Maharyta's passive touch detection, but now the Examiner in claim 7 maps the first and second scans to passive touch detection and mutual capacitance touch detection.
Moreover, the Examiner fails to map any part of the disclosure of Maharyta to the recitations of "determin[ing] which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively
s Office Action at 8.
coupled to ground through the electronic device" (emphasis added) and "exclud[ing] the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device from further touch processing" (emphasis added). The cited portion of Maharyta rejects signal measurements from the second mode (mutual capacitance touch detection), when there is a non- touch detected in the first mode (passive touch detection). This cited portion therefore implies no identification of patches that are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the electronic device, and therefore also does not exclude said patches.
Similarly, the mapping of claim 8 is facially deficient. The cited portion of Maharyta
describes multiplexer circuitry for row electrodes for coupling to transmission signal or SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1730.613 This cited portions of Maharyta has no relationship to the claim which requires "determin[ing] which of the first patches are indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects using results of the first scan and results of the second scan; and further processing the first patches indicative of objects capacitively coupled to ground through the one or more objects."
Accordingly, the Examiner fails to show that the cited references-alone or in
combination-disclose each and every recitation of the claimed invention. As such, the rejections of dependent claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper.
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.56 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
F. Group F - dependent claims 9, 10, and 11.
Claims 9, 10, and 11 depend from independent claim 1. As discussed above,57 the Examiner's combination of Maharyta and Wuerstlein fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the
s Id. at 9; Maharyta at 5:35-40.
56 Supra Section IV(A)(2).
s Supra Section IV(A).
recitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, claims 9, 10, and 11 are patentable for at least the above reasons.
Furthermore, claim 9 recites additional subject matter directed to the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed in a same layer.58 Further, claim 10 recites additional subject matter directed to the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed on opposite sides of the cover substrate.59 Further, claim 11 recites additional subject matter directed to a first conductor of the one or more conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate.60
1. The cited combination of prior art references does not teach, disclose, or suggest all elements of the claims.
The Examiner fails to establish prima facie obviousness of the claimed invention because the cited combination of prior art references fails to disclose all the elements of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 9, the Examiner maps "the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed in a same layer" to Maharyta's capacitive sensor 1240 and electrode 1210 in FIG. 12."61 However, FIG. 12 is "a circuit diagram of a capacitive sense array of an electronic device submersed underwater."62 As such, FIG. 12 cannot show (and the corresponding paragraphs do not describe) where the touch nodes or conductors are formed, let alone that they are in the same layer. Thus, the cited portions of Maharyta relied upon by the Examiner cannot disclose "the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed in a same layer," as recited in claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, the Examiner maps "the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed on opposite sides of the cover substrate" to Maharyta's disclosure at FIG. 11, asserting "as shown in fig. 11, The conductive nature of water may couple the external
58 See, e.g., non-limiting example of FIG. 7C of the Application. 59 See, e.g., non-limiting example of FIG. 7D of the Application. 60 See, e.g., non-limiting examples of FIGs. 7A-7B of the Application. 61 Office Action at 9.
62 Maharyta at 18:13-14.
transmission signal 1111 received through the second part of passive touch object 1115 to multiple receiving electrodes outside of the touch location."63 The conductive nature of water is irrelevant to the formation of touch nodes or conductors on opposite sides of the cover substrate. Thus, the cited portions of Maharyta relied upon by the Examiner cannot disclose "the plurality of touch nodes and the one or more conductors are formed on opposite sides of the cover substrate," as recited in claim 10.
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner maps "a first conductor of the one or more
conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate" to Wuerstlein. Specifically, the Examiner maps to "[t]he voltage divider circuit 30 includes, for example, three identical ohmic resistors 34 connected in series, the two sensor electrodes 20 being connected one on either side of the middle resistor 34."64 However, the cited portion of Wuerstlein shows a resistance sensor within the housing, and are irrelevant to the recitation of "a first conductor of the one or more conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate." Even if Wuerstlein were relevant (and it is not), there is no explanation or reasoning for the combination or conclusion of obviousness for this aspect of the combination. Thus, the cited portions of Wuerstlein relied upon by the Examiner cannot disclose "a first conductor of the one or more conductors wraps around from a first surface of the cover substrate to a second surface of the cover substrate," as recited in claim 11.
2. The cited combination of prior art references improperly relies on non-analogous art.
As discussed above, Wuerstlein is non-analogous art.65 Thus, the Examiner's continued reliance on Wuerstlein to establish of a primafacie case of obviousness is improper.
63 Office Action at 9.
M Id. at 7.
65 Supra Section IV(A)(2).
V. CONCLUSION
For at least the reasons above, the Examiner fails to establish aprimafacie case of obviousness for claims 1-20. Accordingly, Appellant respectfully requests reversal of the rejections.
The Commissioner is authorized to charge the cost of any fees due in connection with the filing of this document to Deposit Account No. 602925 referencing Docket No. 106842173701 (P43264USC1).
Dated: July 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
Electronic signature: /Jonathan Statman/ Jonathan Z. Statman Registration No.: 71,638KUBOTA & BASOL LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2140 Los Angeles CA 90071 (213) 408-0794

NEXT OFFICE 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshida, US PGPUB 20220058355 discloses a plurality of electrodes detected by a change in a physical quantity detected by a touch panel by bringing it into contact with or by substantially into contact with the touch panel connected to a first information processing apparatus is arranged on a bottom surface of a housing, and the apparatus comprises a communication processing unit that is equipped with a housing formed of a conductive member connected to the plurality of electrodes and that enters a connected state based on at least a part of an electrode code with the first information processing apparatus that recognizes the electrode code formed based on electrodes detected by the touch panel among the plurality of electrodes.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US10725591: Claims:
1. A method comprising:
scanning a capacitive sense array to determine a characteristic of a noise signal; and
detecting, by a processing device, a location of a touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by a passive touch object using a first mode of capacitance touch detection that uses a capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the capacitive sense array through the passive touch object to detect the touch;
wherein detecting the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection further comprises:
comparing a first plurality of signal measurements to a touch threshold, the first plurality of signal measurements being indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to a first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object; and
determining, for signal measurements of the first plurality of signal measurements of mixed polarity that exceed the touch threshold, if a majority of the signal measurements have a same polarity.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting the first mode of capacitance touch detection from a plurality of modes of capacitance touch detection if the characteristic of the noise signal indicates a presence of the noise signal;
selecting a second mode of capacitance touch detection from the plurality of modes of capacitance touch detection if the characteristic of the noise signal indicates an absence of the noise signal; and
detecting, by the processing device in view of the characteristic of the noise signal, a touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by a passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection or the second mode of capacitance touch detection.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein detecting the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by a passive touch object using the second mode of capacitance scanning, during a third operation, a first plurality of electrodes along a first axis of the capacitive sense array to determine a third plurality of signal measurements corresponding to a mutual capacitance at electrode intersections of the capacitive sense array;
scanning, during a fourth operation, a second plurality of electrodes along a second axis of the capacitive sense array to determine a fourth plurality of signal measurements corresponding to the mutual capacitance at electrode intersections of the capacitive sense array, wherein the third operation and the fourth operation occur at a different window of time;
identifying a touch position equation from a plurality of touch position equations for use in determining a third coordinate and a fourth coordinate of the touch by the passive touch object proximate to the capacitive sense array; and
determining the third coordinate in view of the third plurality of signal measurements and the fourth coordinate in view of the fourth plurality of signal measurements.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting the first mode and a second mode of capacitance touch detection from a plurality of modes of capacitance touch detection if the characteristic of the noise signal indicates a presence of the noise signal;
rejecting signal measurements of the second mode of capacitance touch detection indicating the touch, in view of signal measurements of the first mode of capacitance touch detection indicating a non-touch; and
detecting the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the second mode of capacitance touch detection.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the passive touch object is a part of a human body.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection, further comprises:
scanning, during a first operation, a first plurality of electrodes along a first axis of the capacitive sense array to determine a first plurality of signal measurements indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object; and
determining a first coordinate of the touch by the passive touch object proximate to the capacitive sense array in view of the first plurality of signal measurements.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein scanning the first plurality of electrodes comprises:
configuring a second plurality of electrodes along a second axis to a ground potential; and determining, at the first plurality of electrodes along the first axis, the first plurality of signal measurements corresponding to the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein detecting the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection, further comprises:
scanning, during a second operation, a second plurality of electrodes along a second axis of the capacitive sense array to determine a second plurality of signal measurements indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the second plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object;
comparing the second plurality of signal measurements to a touch threshold;
determining, for signal measurements of the second plurality of signal measurements exceeding the touch threshold, if the signal measurements are a same polarity; and
determining a second coordinate of the touch by the passive touch object proximate to the capacitive sense array in view of the second plurality of signal measurements.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein scanning the second plurality of electrodes comprises:
configuring the first plurality of electrodes along the first axis to a ground potential; and
determining, at the second plurality of electrodes along the second axis, the second plurality of signal measurements corresponding to the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the second plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object.
10. An apparatus comprising:
a processing device configured to:
scan a capacitive sense array to determine a characteristic of a noise signal; and
detect a location of a touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by a passive touch object using a first mode of capacitance touch detection that uses a capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the capacitive sense array through the passive touch object to detect the touch;
wherein to detect the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection, the processing device is further configured to:
compare a first plurality of signal measurements to a touch threshold, the first plurality of signal measurements being indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to a first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object; and
determine, for signal measurements of the first plurality of signal measurements of mixed polarity that exceed the touch threshold, if a majority of the signal measurements have a same polarity.
11. The apparatus of claim 10, the processing device further configured to:
select the first mode of capacitance touch detection from a plurality of modes of capacitance touch detection if the characteristic of the noise signal indicates a presence of the noise signal;
select a second mode of capacitance touch detection from the plurality of modes of capacitance touch detection if the characteristic of the noise signal indicates an absence of the noise signal; and
detect, in view of the characteristic of the noise signal, a touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by a passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection or the second mode of capacitance touch detection.
12. The apparatus of claim 10, the processing device further configured to:
select the first mode and a second mode of capacitance touch detection from a plurality of modes of capacitance touch detection if the characteristic of the noise signal indicates a presence of the noise signal;
reject signal measurements of the second mode of capacitance touch detection indicating the touch, in view of signal measurements of the first mode of capacitance touch detection indicating a non-touch; and
detect the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the second mode of capacitance touch detection.
13. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein to detect the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection, the processing device further configured to:
scan, during a first operation, a first plurality of electrodes along a first axis of the capacitive sense array to determine a first plurality of signal measurements indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object; and
determine a first coordinate of the touch by the passive touch object proximate to the capacitive sense array in view of the first plurality of signal measurements.
14. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein to scan the first plurality of electrodes, the processing device further configured to:
configure a second plurality of electrodes along a second axis to a ground potential; and
determine, at the first plurality of electrodes along the first axis, the first plurality of signal measurements corresponding to the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object.
15. A system comprising:
a capacitive sense array;
a memory device; and
a processing device coupled to the memory device and the capacitive sense array, the processing device configured to:
scan a capacitive sense array to determine a characteristic of a noise signal; and
detect a touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by a passive touch object using a first mode of capacitance touch detection that uses a capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the capacitive sense array through the passive touch object to detect the touch,
wherein to detect the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection, the processing device is further configured to:
compare a first plurality of signal measurements to a touch threshold, the first plurality of signal measurements being indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to a first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object; and
determine, for signal measurements of the first plurality of signal measurements of mixed polarity that exceed the touch threshold, if a majority of the signal measurements have a same polarity.
16. The system of claim 15, the processing device further configured to:
select the first mode of capacitance touch detection from a plurality of modes of capacitance touch detection if the characteristic of the noise signal indicates a presence of the noise signal; select a second mode of capacitance touch detection from the plurality of modes of capacitance touch detection if the characteristic of the noise signal indicates an absence of the noise signal; and
detect, in view of the characteristic of the noise signal, a touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by a passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection or the second mode of capacitance touch detection.
17. The system of claim 15, the processing device further configured to:
select the first mode and a second mode of capacitance touch detection from a plurality of modes of capacitance touch detection if the characteristic of the noise signal indicates a presence of the noise signal;
reject signal measurements of the second mode of capacitance touch detection indicating the touch, in view of signal measurements of the first mode of capacitance touch detection indicating a non-touch; and
detect the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the second mode of capacitance touch detection.
18. The system of claim 15, wherein to detect the touch proximate to the capacitive sense array by the passive touch object using the first mode of capacitance touch detection, the processing device further configured to:
scan, during a first operation, a first plurality of electrodes along a first axis of the capacitive sense array to determine a first plurality of signal measurements indicative of the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object; and
determine a first coordinate of the touch by the passive touch object proximate to the capacitive sense array in view of the first plurality of signal measurements.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein to scan the first plurality of electrodes, the processing device further configured to:
configure a second plurality of electrodes along a second axis to a ground potential; and
determine, at the first plurality of electrodes along the first axis, the first plurality of signal measurements corresponding to the capacitive coupling of the noise signal to the first plurality of electrodes through the passive touch object.
Ref US10073562: Claims:
1. A touch display apparatus for realizing touch sensing and displaying, comprising:
a first substrate;
a second substrate arranged opposite to the first substrate, wherein gate lines, data lines and thin film transistors are arranged on a surface of the second substrate facing towards the first substrate;
a liquid crystal layer arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate;
a common electrode arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate and used as a touch sensing electrode during a touch sensing stage; and
a driving circuit configured to provide a first signal to the common electrode for realizing touch detection during the touch sensing stage,
wherein the driving circuit is further configured to provide a second signal to the gate line during the touch sensing stage, wherein the second signal is used to control the thin film transistor to be switched off and is used to decrease charge and discharge capacity of a capacitor formed by the common electrode and the gate line;
wherein the driving circuit is further configured to provide a third signal during the touch sensing stage, wherein the third signal is used to decrease charge and discharge capacity of a capacitor formed by the common electrode and the data line;
wherein the second signal is a pulse signal with a same frequency and a same phase as the first signal, but has a different voltage level from the first signal, or the second signal is a pulse signal with a same frequency, a same phase, and a same amplitude as the first signal, but has a different voltage level from the first signal;
wherein the driving circuit provides the third signal to the data line, and the third signal is a pulse signal with a same frequency, a same phase, and a same voltage level as the first signal, or the third signal is a pulse signal with a same frequency, a same phase, a same voltage level, and a same amplitude as the first signal; and
wherein the first signal, the second signal or the third signal is a square signal, a sine wave signal or a stair-step signal.
2. The touch display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the driving circuit is further configured to: provide a driving signal to the gate line, provide a display signal to the data line, and provide a common voltage signal to the common electrode, during a display stage.
3. The touch display apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the driving circuit comprises:
a common electrode driving unit configured to generate the common voltage signal and the first signal;
a gate driving unit connected to a plurality of gate lines, wherein the gate driving unit is configured to generate the driving signal, and is further configured to generate the second signal;
a data line driving unit connected to a plurality of data lines, and configured to generate the display signal; and
a timing control unit connected to the common electrode driving unit, the gate driving unit and the data line driving unit,
wherein the timing control unit is configured to, during the display stage, control the gate driving unit to provide the driving signal to the plurality of gate lines sequentially, control the data line driving unit to provide the display signal to the data line, and control the common electrode driving unit to provide the common voltage signal to the common electrode; and
wherein the timing control unit is further configured to, during the touch sensing stage, control the common electrode driving unit to provide the first signal to the common electrode for realizing touch detection, and control the gate driving unit to provide the second signal to the plurality of gate lines.
4. The touch display apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the data line driving unit is further configured to generate the third signal; and
the timing control unit is further configured to control the data line driving unit to provide the third signal to the plurality of data lines during the touch sensing stage.
5. The touch display apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the driving circuit comprises:
a common electrode driving unit configured to generate the common voltage signal and the first signal;
a gate driving unit connected to a plurality of gate lines, and configured to generate the driving signal;
a data line driving unit connected to a plurality of data lines, wherein the data line driving unit is configured to generate a display signal, and is further configured to generate the third signal; and
a timing control unit connected to the common electrode driving unit, the gate driving unit and the data line driving unit,
wherein the timing control unit is configured to, during the display stage, control the gate driving unit to provide the driving signal to the plurality of gate lines sequentially, control the data line driving unit to provide the display signal to the data line, and control the common electrode driving unit to provide the common voltage signal to the common electrode; and
wherein the timing control unit is further configured to, during the touch sensing stage, control the common electrode driving unit to provide the first signal to the common electrode for realizing touch detection, and control the data line driving unit to provide the third signal to the plurality of data lines.
6. The touch display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the driving circuit is directly connected to the gate line; or
the driving circuit is connected to the gate line in a capacitive coupling manner.
7. A driving circuit for driving a touch display apparatus, wherein the touch display apparatus comprises: a first substrate; a second substrate arranged opposite to the first substrate, wherein gate lines, data lines and thin film transistors are arranged on a surface of the second substrate facing towards the first substrate; a liquid crystal layer arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate; and a common electrode arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate and used as a touch sensing electrode during a touch sensing stage;
wherein the driving circuit comprises:
a first driving module configured to provide a first signal to the common electrode for realizing touch detection during the touch sensing stage;
a second driving module configured to provide a second signal to the gate line during the touch sensing stage, wherein the second signal is used to control the thin film transistor to be switched off and is used to decrease charge and discharge capacity of a capacitor formed by the common electrode and the gate line; and
a third driving module configured to provide a third signal during the
[Truncated to input limit]