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
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 8-16, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmgren (US 2013/0155027) in view of Jung (US 2012/0139866) and Kamijima (US 2008/0259975).
Regarding claims 8, Holmgren teaches A touch sensing apparatus comprising a panel that defines a touch surface extending in a plane having a normal axis and a back surface opposite the touch surface (Fig. 170 element 650), a display arranged proximal to the back surface and configured to display an image through a display portion of the touch surface (Fig. 170 element 642), and a plurality of emitters (emitters 200) and detectors (receivers 300) arranged along a perimeter of the panel and beneath the panel (Fig. 170), wherein the emitters are arranged to emit non-visible light and the at least one light directing surfaces is arranged to receive the light and direct the light across the touch surface substantially parallel to the touch surface ([0211-0212] Fig. 18 and other figures throughout the specification). Although Holmgren teaches the limitations as discussed above, he fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprising at least one optical filter arranged outside of the display portion of the touch surface and configured to filter visible light and wherein at least one light directing surface comprises a diffusive light scattering element.
However in the field of controlling light reflectance for a display device, Jung teaches at least one optical filter arranged outside of the display portion of the touch surface (touch surface panel 201) and which is non-transmissive to visible light, wherein the optical filter is positioned on a back surface of the panel (Figs. 8 show filter BM arranged on the backside of touch surface panel 201 passing IR light to sensor PS1 and blocking visible light as disclosed in [0056][0095][0111-0112]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the device as taught by Holmgren with the method of filtering visible light as taught by Jung. This combination would reduce the interference of the visible light when the sensors are detecting input. Although the combination teaches the limitations as discussed above they fail to teach at least one light direct surface comprises a diffusive light scattering element, wherein the diffusive light scattering element is anodized aluminum surface.
However in the same field of manufacturing light diffusive elements, Kamijima discloses a conventional method with at least one light direct surface comprises a diffusive light scattering element wherein the diffusive light scattering element is anodized aluminum surface of a metal frame element ([0056] teaches an IR absorber 16 with a diffusing surface 21, where the light absorbing material is made of metal such as anodized black aluminum plate with a titanium frame).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the device as taught by Holmgren with the method of filtering visible light as taught by Boer and the diffusive method as taught by Kamijima.
Regarding claim 9, Jung teaches wherein an optical filter is positioned on a touch surface of the panel (Fig. 8 filter BM positioned on the surface of panel 201).
Regarding claim 11, Holmgren teaches wherein the at least one light directing surface of the touch sensing apparatus comprises a first light directing surface proximal to the back surface (Fig. 18 and Figs. 40-52 surface below the panel).
Regarding claim 12, Holmgren teaches wherein an optical filter is positioned on the first light directing surface (Fig. 52 teaches daylight filter 641 in combination with plastic element 482 are on light directing surface 479.).
Regarding claim 13, Holmgren teaches wherein the at least one light directing surface of comprises a second light directing surface proximal to the touch surface(Fig. 18 and Figs. 40-52 surface on top of the panel).
Regarding claim 14, Holmgren teaches wherein an optical filter is positioned on the second light directing surface (Fig. 52 teaches daylight filter 641 in combination with plastic element 482 are on light directing surface 479. it is understood that a second light directing surface would be any location along the bezel of the device.).
Regarding claim 15, Holmgren teaches wherein the at least one light directing surface of the touch sensing apparatus further comprises a third light directing surface proximal to the back surface (Fig. 40 surface 450).
Regarding claim 16, Holmgren teaches wherein an optical filter is positioned on the third light directing surface (Fig. 52 teaches daylight filter 641 in combination with plastic element 482 are on light directing surface 479. it is understood that a second light directing surface would be any location along the bezel of the device.).
Regarding claim 21 Kamijima teaches wherein the diffusive light scattering element is configured to scatter light above wavelengths of 800nm ([0056] infrared light)
Regarding claim 22, Holmgren teaches wherein the a plurality of emitters and detectors are mounted on a substrate and the substrate is mounted in a plane parallel with the panel or in a plane perpendicular with the panel ([0301] teaches PCB 700 forms substrate for emitters 200 [0497]).
Regarding claim 23, Jung teaches wherein the optical filter extends from an edge of the panel toward the center of the panel until it is substantially parallel or overlapping with the display (Fig. 8 BM filter extending from edge of panel to center of panel).
Regarding claim 24, Jung teaches wherein the optical filter is configured to hide the plurality of emitters and detectors from view in the visible spectrum (Figs. 8 show filter BM arranged on the backside of touch surface panel 201 passing IR light to sensor PS1 and blocking visible light as disclosed in [0056][0095][0111-0112]).
Regarding claim 25, Jung teaches wherein the optical filter is configured to be non-transmissive to visible light and transmissive to near infra-red light spectrum ([0056][0095][0111-0112]).
Regarding claim 26, Holmgren teaches wherein the touch sensing apparatus comprises a frame element and frame element comprises the at least one light directing surface(Fig. 18 and Figs. 40-52).
Claims 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmgren (US 2013/0155027) in view of Jung (US 2012/0139866), and Kamijima (US 2008/0259975).
Regarding claim 27, Holmgren in view of Jung and Kamijima the filter system as taught by Jung teach the limitations as discussed above and but fail to teach wherein the frame element is extruded or made from brushed metal.
However in the field of manufacturing a touch sensing panel, Koh teaches a display panel wherein the frame element is extruded or made from brushed metal ([0021]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the device as taught by Holmgren with the method of filtering visible light as taught by Boer, the diffusive method as taught by Kamijima, and the filter method as taught by Jung. This combination would reduce the interference of the visible light when the sensors are detecting input by using a reflecting device to control light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks submitted the Applicant has argued the combination fails to teach the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Specifically the Applicant has argued there is no reason to combine Holmgren and Jung with Kamijima because Kamijima is non-analogous when teaching a diffusive light scattering element is anodized aluminum surface of a metal frame element and Holmgren does not teach or suggest to use diffusively scattered light but instead collimating light. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Holmgren teaches the general purpose of the Applicant’s invention in that Fig. 18 and Fig. 170 teach the idea of having an emitting element provide light to a waveguide/light guide structure integral to the housing/frame of a display device. With reference to Fig. 40 of Holmgren it is disclosed that a light guide 450 includes internal reflective surfaces 451 and 452 for projecting light beams 100 above the surface 637. Holmgren goes on to teach that a section 455 of light has a feather pattern for scattering incoming light beams 100 from an emitter 200 [0256][0283], where the light beams exit light guide 450 through flat surface 453 [0257]. Although Holmgren does not teach a method of diffusive light scattering he does teach the method of scattering incoming light from a light emission device.
In response to applicant's argument that Kamijima is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kamijima becomes analogous when considering the field of the manufacturing light guide/wave guide devices. When considering the field of light guide/ wave guides, Kamijima would be relied upon to teach a light guide/ wave guides integral to the housing of a device which comprises anodized aluminum surface of a metal frame element to provide scattered light through diffusion.
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 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 ANDRE L MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621