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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in the current application.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from consideration in the current application.
Claim 1 is amended in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on February 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Kirsch, Wu, and Kishioka fail to disclose the new limitations of amended claim 1.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. New grounds of rejection have been set forth below as necessitated by the present claim amendments. Khoshkava is newly applied and teaches that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to form display devices comprising a transparent cover window, a display panel, haptic actuators located in a non-viewing area (i.e., located to not overlap the display panel and to be spaced apart from a side surface of the display panel), and adhesives to secure the haptic actuators to achieve localized haptic effects, to prevent obscuring any viewing portion of the display screen, and to efficiently communicate haptic feedback (Khoshkava, Abstract, [0001], [0023], [0041]-[0047], Figs 3-A-3B). In view of the foregoing, the applied prior art of record as set forth in the grounds of rejection below is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed invention with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch et al. (US 2020/0026357 A1), in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0388276 A1), and in view of Khoshkava et al. (US 2019/0378382 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kirsch teaches a display device comprising a display panel and touch panel 60+62, a bonding mass 64+20 (i.e., an adhesive layer having a plurality of adhesive components 64+20) disposed on the display panel and touch panel 60+62, a cover pane 18 (i.e., a cover window) disposed on the adhesive layer 64+20, and actuators 24 disposed on the cover window 18 (Kirsch, Abstract, [0073], [0078]-[0080], [0112]-[0147], Fig 13). Kirsch teaches the actuators 24 are disposed on a lower surface of the cover window 18 and are spaced apart from a side surface of the adhesive layer component 20 (Kirsch, [0067]-[0073], [0078], [0088], [0120]-[0147], Figs 4, 5, 13). Kirsch teaches the adhesive layer 64 can be an optical bonding mass which does not significantly damp flexures or waves propagating through the cover window 18 (Kirsch, [0079]).
PNG
media_image1.png
210
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kirsch – Figure 13
PNG
media_image2.png
439
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kirsch – Figure 4
PNG
media_image3.png
169
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kirsch – Figure 5
Kirsch remains silent regarding the adhesive layer including a plurality of layers having different loss modulus.
Wu, however, teaches a display device comprising input-output devices that include haptic output devices, where a multilayer adhesive 42 is interposed between the display device cover glass 14CG and display panel 14P, and adhesive layers 42A/42B are formed to have different properties to optimize performance (Wu, [0038]-[0040], [0049], [0054]-[0057], [0064]-[0068], [0092]-[0095], Figs 4, 7-15). Wu teaches the different properties include shear loss modulus G” (Wu, [0064], [0067]-[0068], [0093]).
PNG
media_image4.png
255
597
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wu – Figure 4
PNG
media_image5.png
134
434
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wu – Figure 15
Since Kirsch and Wu both disclose display devices comprising adhesive layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Wu’s multilayer adhesive as Kirsch’s bonding mass 64 adhesive layer component to yield a display device that can have optimized performance, allows for decoupling during deformation forces, prevents denting during impact events, allows for performance across a wide temperature range, provides ultraviolet light blocking effects, and can be optimized for damping and cushioning as taught by Wu (Wu, [0056], [0074], [0085], [0093]-[0098]).
Modified Kirsch remains silent regarding the actuator being located to not overlap the display panel and to be spaced apart from a side surface of the display panel.
Khoshkava, however, teaches a display device comprising a transparent cover window 301, a display panel 303, haptic actuators 105 located in a non-viewing area 110 (i.e., located to not overlap the display panel 303 and to be spaced apart from a side surface of the display panel 303), and an adhesive (not depicted) to secure the haptic actuators 105 to the transparent cover window 301 (Khoshkava, Abstract, [0041]-[0047], Figs 3-A-3B).
PNG
media_image6.png
359
691
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Khoshkava – Figure 3B
Since modified Kirsch and Khoshkava both disclose display devices comprising actuators secured to cover windows with adhesives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned modified Kirsch’s actuators to not overlap the display panel and to be spaced apart from a side surface of the display panel in a non-viewing area to yield a display device that provides localized haptic effects, does not obscure any viewing portion of the display screen, and efficiently communicates haptic feedback as taught by Khoshkava (Khoshkava, [0001], [0023]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kirsch teaches the actuators 24 are disposed on a lower surface of the cover window 18 (Kirsch, [0073], [0078], [0088], Fig 13; Khoshkava, [0041]-[0047], Fig 3B).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kirsch teaches the adhesive layer 42 can include a first adhesive layer 42A disposed on the display panel 14P, and a second adhesive layer 42B disposed on the first adhesive layer 42B (Wu, [0049], Figs 4, 8, 14-15). Modified Kirsch teaches the second adhesive layer 42B can have a loss modulus higher than the first adhesive layer 42A to provide optimized elastic-viscous performance, prevent denting from impact events, provide ultraviolet light blocking, and optimize impact energy absorption and dissipation (Wu, [0064], [0067]-[0074], [0093]-[0098]; MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, modified Kirsch teaches the second adhesive layer 42B can be a hard polymer having a loss modulus G” of between 0.01 and 0.5 MPa (between 10,000 to 500,000 Pa), and the first adhesive layer 42A can be a soft polymer having a loss modulus G” of between 0.001 to 0.1 MPa (between 1,000 to 10,000 Pa) (Wu, [0078]-[0081]). Modified Kirsch’s first adhesive layer 42A loss modulus range overlaps the claim 5 range of 8,000 to 13,000 Pa, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Modified Kirsch’s second adhesive layer 42B loss modulus range encompasses the claim 5 range of 18,000 to 25,000 Pa, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Modified Kirsch teaches the first adhesive layer 42B hard polymer has a loss modulus greater than the second adhesive layer 42A soft polymer by a factor of 2 or more (Wu, [0079]). These teachings yield embodiments that render obvious the claim 4 loss modulus difference of 5000-10000 Pa; for example, a first adhesive layer 42A having a loss modulus of 10,000 Pa yields a second adhesive layer 42B of 20,000 Pa that is a factor of 2 larger. Modified Kirsch remains silent regarding a damping ratio of 0.5 or less. However, modified Kirsch teaches the multilayer adhesive is optimized for damping and cushioning, and may have a high loss modulus to storage modulus ratio to optimize energy absorption and dissipation (Wu, [0098]). In view of the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the damping ratio performance of modified Kirsch’s display device within the claimed range of 0.5 or less by controlling and adjusting a ratio between loss modulus and storage modulus with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143, MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kirsch teaches the first adhesive layer 42A has a thickness that is smaller than the second adhesive layer 42B (Wu, [0071], [0090]-[0095], Fig 14).
PNG
media_image7.png
173
440
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Wu – Figure 14
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kirsch teaches the first adhesive layer 42A has a thickness T42A that is less than 50% of the thickness T42B of the second adhesive layer 42B (Wu, [0092]). This range yields a total thickness % of the first adhesive layer 42A of ([≤0.5*T42B]/[≤0.5*T42B + T42B])*100, ([≤0.5]/[≤0.5 + 1])*100 = ≤33%. Modified Kirsch’s range encompasses the claimed range of 10-30%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kirsch teaches the adhesive layer 42 can include a second adhesive layer 42B disposed on the display panel 14P, and a first adhesive layer 42A disposed on the second adhesive layer 42B (Wu, [0049], Figs 4, 8, 14-15). Modified Kirsch teaches the second adhesive layer 42B can have a loss modulus higher than the first adhesive layer 42A to provide optimized elastic-viscous performance, prevent denting from impact events, provide ultraviolet light blocking, and optimize impact energy absorption and dissipation (Wu, [0064], [0067]-[0074], [0093]-[0098]; MPEP 2143).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch et al. (US 2020/0026357 A1), in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0388276 A1), and in view of Khoshkava et al. (US 2019/0378382 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kishioka et al. (US 2004/0191509 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kirsch teaches the display device as discussed above for claim 1.
Modified Kirsch remains silent regarding the adhesive layer including an optical adhesive formed from a basic monomer as recited by claim 9 and a comonomer as recited by claim 9.
Kishioka, however, teaches a multilayered adhesive sheet exhibiting optical properties formed from a composition comprising a basic monomer and a comonomer, where the basic monomer is a (meth)acrylic acid C1-18 alkyl ester that includes butyl(meth)acrylate and 2-ethylhexyl(meth)acrylate, and the comonomer includes (meth)acrylamide, (meth)acrylonitrile, or styrene (Kishioka, [0006], [0054]-[0057]).
Since modified Kirsch and Kishioka both disclose display devices comprising multilayer adhesives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed modified Kirsch’s adhesive layer from Kishioka’s adhesive compositions and guidance to yield an adhesive that exhibits enhanced durability, enhanced weather resistance, and excellent reworkability as taught by Kishioka (Kishioka, [0007]-[0008], [0054]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious the invention of claim 10. In view of the foregoing, claim 10 is considered to recite allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782