DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhe et al. (US 2019/0302944) in view of Han et al. (US 2014/0139481) and further in view of Feng (US 2022/0050541)
Regarding claim 1:
Rhe discloses:
Claim 1
Rhe
1. (Currently Amended) A touch module, comprising a touch region, wherein a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer stacked with the first electrode layer are arranged in the touch region, the first electrode layer comprises:
Fig. 27, where elements X-TEL are a first electrode layer, and Y-TEL are a second set of electrodes, although both sets of electrodes are on the same layer
first touch electrodes arranged in a first direction and configured to transmit a touch detection signal, wherein each of the first touch electrodes comprises a first touch sub- electrode and a second touch sub-electrode, and a space is disposed between the first touch sub-electrode and the second touch sub-electrode in the first direction; and
e.g., X-TEL-2 is a first touch sub-electrode and X-TEL-8 is a second, where there is a space in between as can be seen in Fig. 27
first traces connected to the first touch electrodes and each comprising a first sub-trace and a second sub-trace, wherein each first touch sub-electrode is connected to one first sub- trace by a first connection point at an end of the first touch sub-electrode close to the second touch sub-electrode, each second touch sub-electrode is connected to one second sub-trace by a second connection point at an end of the second touch sub-electrode close to the first touch sub-electrode, all the first connection point- and the second connection point and all the first traces are disposed in the space,
In Fig. 27, X-TEL-2 is connected to the first sub-trace X-TL-2 by a first connection point at the end of X-TEL-2 close to the end of X-TEL-8, and X-TEL-8 is connected to the second sub-trace X-TL-8 similarly near the end of X-TEL-2.
so that none of the first traces, the first connection point and the second connection point is disposed on opposite sides of each of the first touch electrodes away from the touch region,
In Rhe only half the electrode lines are connected in this way -- the other half are on opposite sides away from the touch region.
and the first direction and a second direction intersect; and
As seen in Fig. 27
the second electrode layer comprises:
In Rhe the electrodes are all on the same layer
second touch electrodes arranged in the second direction and configured to receive the touch detection signal emitted by the first touch electrodes; and
Y-TEL-1 through Y-TEL-6
second traces each connected to ends of the second touch electrodes, wherein each of the second traces is connected to an upper end or a lower end of each of the second touch electrodes, and extends from the inside of the touch region toward the outside of the touch region.
As seen in Fig. 27 they are connected to the lower ends
wherein the touch module further comprises a first substrate and a second substrate, the first electrode layer is disposed on the first substrate, the second electrode layer is disposed on the second substrate, and a transparent optical adhesive layer is disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the transparent optical adhesive layer is disposed on a side of the second substrate away from the second traces and the second touch electrodes, and the transparent optical adhesive layer faces and is in contact with both the first traces and the first touch electrodes so that the transparent optical adhesive layer covers surfaces of both the first traces and the first touch electrodes facing the transparent optical adhesive layer and fills the space between the first touch sub-electrode and the second touch sub-electrode.
Not disclosed by Rhe because all the electrodes are on the same layer
So Rhe does not disclose:
(A) that the first and second electrode groups are on different layers (i.e., a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer)
(B) "that none of the first traces, the first connection point and the second connection point is disposed on opposite sides of each of the first touch electrodes away from the touch region"
(C) “wherein the touch module further comprises a first substrate and a second substrate, the first electrode layer is disposed on the first substrate, the second electrode layer is disposed on the second substrate, and a transparent optical adhesive layer is disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the transparent optical adhesive layer is disposed on a side of the second substrate away from the second traces and the second touch electrodes, and the transparent optical adhesive layer faces and is in contact with both the first traces and the first touch electrodes so that the transparent optical adhesive layer covers surfaces of both the first traces and the first touch electrodes facing the transparent optical adhesive layer and fills the space between the first touch sub-electrode and the second touch sub-electrode.”
Regarding (A) and (C):
Han discloses:
the first and second electrode groups are on different layers (Fig. 10, where Rx are on one layer and Tx are on another); and
wherein the touch module further comprises a first substrate and a second substrate (paragraph 111: film F1 and film F2), the first electrode layer is disposed on the first substrate (Fig. 10: Tx), the second electrode layer is disposed on the second substrate (Fig. 10: Rx), and a transparent optical adhesive layer is disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 10: AD1), wherein the transparent optical adhesive layer is disposed on a side of the second substrate away from the second traces and the second touch electrodes (as seen in Fig. 10, AD1 is away from the Rx side – the traces are not shown here but from Fig. 3 they are on the same layer as the electrodes)1, and the transparent optical adhesive layer faces and is in contact with both the first traces and the first touch electrodes so that the transparent optical adhesive layer covers surfaces of both the first traces and the first touch electrodes facing the transparent optical adhesive layer and fills the space between the first touch sub-electrode and the second touch sub-electrode (as seen in Fig. 10, where again the traces are on the same layer as the electrode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Rhe the elements taught by Han.
The rationale is as follows:
Rhe and Han are directed to the same field of art.
Han discloses that electrodes can be constructed as in Rhe, on a single layer (this is the embodiment of Fig. 9) but as an alternative can be on two layers (as in Fig. 10). These configurations are used in the same environment, for the same purpose, and achieve the same result. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the electrode structure taught by Han with predictable results.
Regarding (B):
Feng discloses:
that none of the first traces, the first connection point and the second connection point is disposed on opposite sides of each of the first touch electrodes away from the touch region (paragraph 76).
It would have been obvious to include in Rhe in view of Suzuki the elements taught by Feng.
The rationale is as follows:
Rhe, Han, and Feng are directed to the same field of art.
Feng discloses this allows for a narrow bezel (paragraph 76). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Rhe, etc., discloses:
wherein the first touch electrodes and the first traces are arranged at a same layer (follows from Rhe and Han as discussed above).
Regarding claim 3:
Rhe, etc., discloses:
wherein each of the first touch electrodes is disconnected from the middle to form the first touch sub-electrode and the second touch sub-electrode, the space is formed at the middle of each of the first touch electrode, and the first touch sub-electrode and the second touch sub-electrode are located on two sides of the touch region, respectively (Suzuki Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 4:
Rhe, etc., discloses a touch module as discussed above.
Rhe, etc., does not disclose:
“wherein a width of each of the first traces ranges from 5 μm to 10 μm.”
Nonethless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Rhe, etc., wherein a wherein a width of each of the first traces ranges from 5 μm to 10 μm.
The rationale is as follows:
The appropriate distance can easily be determined in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation. Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the relationships set forth in this claim are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 7:
Rhe, etc., discloses:
wherein the first traces are transparent (e.g., Feng paragraph 77)
Regarding claim 10:
Rhe, etc., discloses:
a cover plate covering the second electrode layer (Han Fig. 10: WC).
Regarding claims 11-14, 17, and 20:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 21:
Rhe, etc., discloses:
wherein the first traces extend in the second direction from inside of the touch region toward a first binding region, the second traces extend in the second direction from inside of the touch region toward a second binding region, and the first binding region and the second binding region are located on two opposite sides of the touch region in the second direction (Rhe Fig. 27, where the lines run to a left half of area X-TP and a right half of area X-TP).
Regarding claim 23:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhe in view of Han, and further in view of Feng, and further in view of Satou (US 2016/0349884)
Regarding claim 22:
Rhe, etc., discloses a touch module as discussed above.
Rhe, etc., does not disclose:
“wherein a distance between adjacent first touch electrodes is greater than 5 mm and less than 10 mm”
Satou discloses:
wherein a distance between adjacent one of the first touch electrodes ranges from 5 mm to 10 mm (paragraph 156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Rhe, etc., the dimensions taught by Satou.
The rationale is as follows:
Han, Feng, Rhe, and Satou are directed to the same field of art.
With a very similar electrode pattern Satou gives these dimensions and tests them to make sure there is touch accuracy. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results (as for balancing “load,” this is just a statement of intended use, and since the end result is the same dimension and has been tested for operational load this therefore follows).
Regarding claim 24:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with regards to earlier rejection. No further elaboration is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the new language of the claim related to the structure of the touch module renders it allowable over the prior art.
It is true that this was not disclosed by the art used in the previous rejection. However, this is a known configuration in the art as shown by Han, which is now relied upon. Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
1 Fig. 3 appears to show them in the same layer, but if this is not persuasive, note that the electrodes and the lines are already in the same layer in Rhe, and in Rhe the lines and electrodes are in the display area, so this is certainly known in the art.