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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 13 and 31 both recite the negative limitations wherein the “optical touch sensor is configured to discriminate… without pattern recognition circuitry” and “… without relying upon a pattern recognition algorithm,” respectively. The applicant is reminded that negative limitations recited to overcome prior art can be considered new matter. Ex Parte Grasselli et al. 231 USPQ 393. There is no recitation of the newly claimed negative limitations in the originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 20-21, 23-24, 26-27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (hereinafter “Ryu” US 2020 / 0105828).
As pertaining to Claim 15, Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) an electronic device (i.e., a display device; see Page 1, Para. [0002]) configured to gather touch input from a finger (20), comprising:
a display (11) having a display cover layer (102) with a surface (i.e., a top surface), wherein the surface (i.e., the top surface) has a surface normal; and
an optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) configured to (i.e., arbitrarily) discriminate between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by a water droplet, the optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) comprising:
light sources (ELD) configured to emit light into the display cover layer (102);
light detectors (PD) that are configured to detect reflections of the light when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20); and
angular filters (LS), wherein each angular filter (LS) blocks light at a first subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis and/or off-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) from a respective light source (ELD) of the light sources (ELD) and passes light at a second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis and/or on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) from the respective light source (ELD), wherein the second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis and/or on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes light that is parallel to the surface normal (see the structural configuration of (ELD, LS) for a light source (ELD) that is not covered by an angular filter (LS)), and wherein each angular filter (LS) is positioned over and aligned with a respective light source (ELD) of the light sources (ELD), and wherein the second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis and/or on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) is configured to improve (i.e., arbitrarily) the discrimination between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by a water droplet (see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269]).
As pertaining to Claim 20, Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) that the second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis and/or on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between a negative angle (i.e., any arbitrary angle) having a given magnitude and a positive angle (i.e., any arbitrary angle) having the given magnitude and wherein the given magnitude is between 5 degrees and 20 degrees (see Fig. 20A and note that the second subset of incident angles includes light that is parallel to the surface normal, which implicitly has an incident angle between any arbitrary negative angle and any arbitrary positive angle, namely 0 degrees, relative to the surface normal; again, see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269]).
As pertaining to Claim 21, Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) that the second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis and/or on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between -10 degrees and 10 degrees (see Fig. 20A and note that the second subset of incident angles includes light that is parallel to the surface normal, which implicitly has an incident angle between -10 degrees and 10 degrees, namely 0 degrees, relative to the surface normal; again, see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269]).
As pertaining to Claim 23, Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) an electronic device (i.e., a display device; see Page 1, Para. [0002]) configured to gather touch input from a finger (20), comprising:
a display (11) having an array of pixels (see (DP) in Fig. 1 corresponding to (ELD) in Fig. 20A) configured to display an image and a display cover layer (102) with a surface (i.e., a top surface), wherein the surface (i.e., the top surface) has a surface normal; and
an optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) comprising:
light sources (ELD) configured to emit light into the display cover layer (102);
light detectors (PD) that are configured to detect reflections of the light off the finger (20) when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20), wherein at least one of the light detectors (PD) is interposed between at least two of the pixels (see (ELD) in Fig. 20A) of the array of pixels (again, see (DP) in Fig. 1 corresponding to (ELD) in Fig. 20A);
first angular filters (see any (LS)), wherein each first angular filter (again, see any (LS)) overlaps and is aligned with a respective light source (ELD) of the light sources (ELD) in a direction (i.e., a vertical direction) parallel to the surface normal (see Fig. 20A); and
second angular filter (see any (LS)), wherein each second angular filter (again, see any (LS)) overlaps a respective light detector (PD) of the light detectors (PD), wherein a combination of the first angular filters (see any (LS)) and the second angular filters (see any (LS)) is configured to distinguish between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the water droplet (see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269]).
As pertaining to Claim 24, Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) that each first angular filter (see any (LS)) passes light that is parallel to the surface normal (see the structural configuration of (ELD, LS) for a light source (ELD) that is not covered by an angular filter (LS)) and wherein each second angular filter (see any (LS)) blocks light that is parallel to the surface normal (see the structural configuration of (PD, LS); and again, see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269]).
As pertaining to Claim 26, Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) that the reflections of the light off the finger (20) pass through the display cover layer (102) and towards the light detectors (PD; again, see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269]).
As pertaining to Claim 27, Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) a substrate (101) that is parallel to the display cover layer (102), wherein the light sources (ELD) and the light detectors (PD) are mounted on the substrate (101) and wherein the reflections of the light off the finger (20) pass through the display cover layer (102) and towards the substrate (101; again, see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269]).
As pertaining to Claim 31, Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) that the optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) is configured to discriminate between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the water droplet without relying upon a pattern recognition algorithm (again, see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269] and note that Ryu does not explicitly describe any algorithm for performing pattern recognition, but rater relies upon an amount of received light to determine touch input).
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-11, 13, 28, and 30 are rejected, and Claims 15, 20-21, 23-24, 26-27, and 31 are additionally rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bang et al. (hereinafter “Bang” US 2020 / 0105841).
As pertaining to Claim 1, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) an electronic device (i.e., a display device; see Page 1, Para. [0002]) configured to gather touch input from a finger (20), comprising:
a display (11) having a display cover layer (102) with a surface (i.e., a top surface), wherein the surface (i.e., the top surface) has a surface normal and wherein the display (11) has an array of light-emitting didoes (ELD) configured to display an image (see Page 3, Para. [0047] and [0050]; Page 4, Para. [0076]-[0077]; Page 5, Para. [0091], and Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0120]); and
a direct illumination optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) configured to (i.e., arbitrarily) discriminate between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by a water droplet, the direct illumination optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) comprising:
light sources (ELD) configured to emit light into the display cover layer (102);
light detectors (PD) that are configured to detect reflections of the light off the finger (20) when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20); and
angular filters (LS), wherein each angular filter (LS) blocks light at a first subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) from reaching a respective light detector (PD) of the light detectors (PD) and passes light at a second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) to the respective light detector (PD), wherein the first subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes light that is parallel to the surface normal (see (PD) and (LS) and note that (LS) blocks light that is parallel to the surface normal), and wherein the first subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) is configured to improve (i.e., arbitrarily) the discrimination between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by a water droplet (see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 2, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the direct illumination optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) is configured to discriminate between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the water droplet using only image intensity thresholding circuitry (again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096] and note that Bang relies upon an amount of received light (i.e., image intensity thresholding) to determine touch input).
As pertaining to Claim 4, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) a substrate (101), wherein the light sources (ELD), the light detectors (PD), and the array of light-emitting diodes (see (ELD)) are mounted on the substrate (101; see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088]).
As pertaining to Claim 8, Bang discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) additional angular filters (see any (LS)), wherein each additional angular filter (see any (LS)) overlaps a respective light source (ELD) of the light sources (ELD; see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 9, Bang discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) that each additional angular filter (see any (LS)) blocks light at a third subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) from a respective light source (ELD) of the light sources (ELD) and passes light at a fourth subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) from the respective light source (ELD), wherein the fourth subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes light that is parallel to the surface normal (see (ELD) and (LS) and note that (LS) blocks light from the light sources (ELD) that is not parallel to the surface normal and passes light that is parallel to the surface normal), and wherein the third subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) is configured to improve (i.e., arbitrarily) the discrimination between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the water droplet (also see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 10, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the fourth subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between a negative angle (i.e., any arbitrary angle) having a given magnitude and a positive angle (i.e., any arbitrary angle) having the given magnitude and wherein the given magnitude is between 5 degrees and 20 degrees (see Fig. 5 and note that the fourth subset of incident angles includes light that is parallel to the surface normal, which implicitly has an incident angle between any arbitrary negative angle and any arbitrary positive angle, namely 0 degrees, relative to the surface normal; again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 11, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the fourth subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between -15 degrees and 15 degrees (see Fig. 5 and note that the fourth subset of incident angles includes light that is parallel to the surface normal, which implicitly has an incident angle between any arbitrary negative angle and any arbitrary positive angle, namely 0 degrees, relative to the surface normal; again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 13, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the direct illumination optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) is configured to discriminate between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the water droplet without pattern recognition circuitry (again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096] and note that Bang does not explicitly describe any circuitry for performing pattern recognition, but rater relies upon an amount of received light to determine touch input).
As pertaining to Claim 15, Bang discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) an electronic device (i.e., a display device; see Page 1, Para. [0002]) configured to gather touch input from a finger (20), comprising:
a display (11) having a display cover layer (102) with a surface (i.e., a top surface), wherein the surface (i.e., the top surface) has a surface normal (see Page 3, Para. [0047] and [0050]; Page 4, Para. [0076]-[0077]; Page 5, Para. [0091], and Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0120]); and
an optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) configured to (i.e., arbitrarily) discriminate between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by a water droplet, the optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) comprising:
light sources (ELD) configured to emit light into the display cover layer (102);
light detectors (PD) that are configured to detect reflections of the light off the finger (20) when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20); and
angular filters (see any (LS)), wherein each angular filter (again, see any (LS)) blocks light at a first subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) from a respective light source (ELD) of the light sources (ELD) and passes light at a second subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) from the respective light source (ELD), wherein the second subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes light that is parallel to the surface normal (see the structural configuration of (ELD, LS) for a light source (ELD) that is not covered by an angular filter (LS)), wherein each angular filter (LS) is positioned over and aligned with a respective light source (ELD) of the light sources (ELD), and wherein the second subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) is configured to improve (i.e., arbitrarily) the discrimination between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by a water droplet (see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 20, Bang discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) that the second subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between a negative angle (i.e., any arbitrary angle) having a given magnitude and a positive angle (i.e., any arbitrary angle) having the given magnitude and wherein the given magnitude is between 5 degrees and 20 degrees (see Fig. 5 and note that the second subset of incident angles includes light that is parallel to the surface normal, which implicitly has an incident angle between any arbitrary negative angle and any arbitrary positive angle, namely 0 degrees, relative to the surface normal; again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 21, Bang discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) that the second subset of incident angles (i.e., on-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between -10 degrees and 10 degrees (see Fig. 5 and note that the second subset of incident angles includes light that is parallel to the surface normal, which implicitly has an incident angle between -10 degrees and 10 degrees, namely 0 degrees, relative to the surface normal; again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 23, Bang discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5) an electronic device (i.e., a display device; see Page 1, Para. [0002]) configured to gather touch input from a finger (20), comprising:
a display (11) having an array of pixels (see (DP) in Fig. 1 corresponding to (ELD) in Fig. 5) configured to display an image and a display cover layer (102) with a surface (i.e., a top surface), wherein the surface (i.e., the top surface) has a surface normal (see Page 3, Para. [0047] and [0050]; Page 4, Para. [0076]-[0077]; Page 5, Para. [0091], and Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0120]); and
an optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) comprising:
light sources (ELD) configured to emit light into the display cover layer (102);
light detectors (PD) that are configured to detect reflections of the light off the finger (20) when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20), wherein at least one of the light detectors (PD) is interposed between at least two of the pixels (see (ELD) in Fig. 5) of the array of pixels (again, see (DP) in Fig. 1 corresponding to (ELD) in Fig. 5);
first angular filters (see any (LS)), wherein each first angular filter (again, see any (LS)) overlaps and is aligned with a respective light source (ELD) of the light sources (ELD) in a direction (i.e., a vertical direction) parallel to the surface normal (see Fig. 5 and note that each angular filter (LS) overlaps the light source layer (ELD) in a vertical direction and is aligned with edges of respective light sources (ELD)); and
second angular filter (see any (LS)), wherein each second angular filter (again, see any (LS)) overlaps a respective light detector (PD) of the light detectors (PD), wherein a combination of the first angular filters (see any (LS)) and the second angular filters (see any (LS)) is configured to distinguish between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the water droplet (see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 24, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that each first angular filter (see any (LS)) passes light that is parallel to the surface normal (see the structural configuration of (ELD, LS)) and wherein each second angular filter (see any (LS)) blocks light that is parallel to the surface normal (see the structural configuration of (PD, LS); and again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 26, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the reflections of the light off the finger (20) pass through the display cover layer (102) and towards the light detectors (PD; again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 27, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) a substrate (101) that is parallel to the display cover layer (102), wherein the light sources (ELD) and the light detectors (PD) are mounted on the substrate (101) and wherein the reflections of the light off the finger (20) pass through the display cover layer (102) and towards the substrate (101; again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 28, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the reflections of the light off the finger (20) pass through the display cover layer (102) and towards the light detectors (PD; again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]).
As pertaining to Claim 30, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) an index-matching layer (120) interposed between at least one light source (ELD) of the light sources (ELD) and the display cover layer (102; see Page 5, Para. [0092] and [0094]).
As pertaining to Claim 31, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the optical touch sensor (see (ELD, PD, LS)) is configured to discriminate between when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20) and when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the water droplet without relying upon a pattern recognition algorithm (again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096] and note that Bang does not explicitly describe any algorithm for performing pattern recognition, but rater relies upon an amount of received light to determine touch input).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen” US 2016 / 0041663).
As pertaining to Claim 5, while Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the array of light-emitting diodes (ELD) comprises organic and/or inorganic materials (see Page 6 through Page 7, Para. [0120]), Bang does not explicitly disclose that the array of light-emitting diodes comprises an array of crystalline semiconductor light-emitting diode dies.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) an electronic device (10) comprising a display that includes an optical touch sensor (see (14)), wherein the display has an array of light-emitting diodes (22) configured to display an image (see Page 2, Para. [0025]-[0028] and [0033]), and wherein the array of light-emitting diodes (22) comprises an array of crystalline semiconductor light-emitting diode dies (see Page 3, Para. [0041]). It is a goal of Chen to provide an electronic device with an improved display and touch sensor that takes advantage of the high contrast ratios and efficiency offered by light-emitting diode displays comprising an array of crystalline semiconductor light-emitting diode dies (see Page 2, Para. [0002]-[0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bang with the teachings of Chen, such that the display disclosed by Bang has an array of light-emitting diodes comprising an array of crystalline semiconductor light-emitting diode dies, as suggested by Chen, in order to provide an electronic device with improved display having high contrast ratios and efficiency.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang.
As pertaining to Claim 6, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between -90 degrees and an arbitrary negative angle having a given magnitude, wherein the second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between an arbitrary positive angle having the given magnitude and 90 degrees (see Fig. 5 and note that the light at the second subset of angles that is passed to the light detectors (PD) is based on the distance between the angular filter (LS) and the light detector (PD), a width of the angular filter (LS), and a width of the light detector (PD); see Page 6, Para. [0103]-[0107]).
Bang does not explicitly state that the given magnitude is between 50 degrees and 70 degrees, such that the light at the second subset of incident angles that is passed to the light detectors is between -90 degrees and -50 to -70 degrees and between 90 degrees and 50 to 70 degrees, relative to the surface normal.
However, it is an expressed goal of Bang to provide a structural arrangement of a light source (ELD), a light detector (PD), and an angular filter (LS) that allows for light at a selectable second subset of incident angles, corresponding to off-axis light relative to the surface normal, to be passed to the light detectors (PD) in order to support the detection of light that is reflected from a finger contacting the surface of the cover layer while reducing the light from noise sources (see Page 2, Para. [0018]-[0021]). It is further a goal of Bang to provide a display device and optical touch sensor that is suitable for a wide scope of applications with improved detection ability (see Page 1, Para. [0002] and [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Bang, to modify the base optical touch sensor of Bang, namely by adjusting the distance between the angular filter (LS) and the light detector (PD), the width of the angular filter (LS), and/or the width of the light detector (PD), as suggested by Bang, such that the given magnitude is between 50 degrees and 70 degrees, in order to provide an improved touch sensor that is suitable for a desired application, and provides the predictable results of reduced noise light and improved finger detection.
As pertaining to Claim 7, Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between -90 degrees and an arbitrary negative angle and wherein the second subset of incident angles (i.e., off-axis incident angles relative to the surface normal) includes angles relative to the surface normal between an arbitrary positive angle 90 degrees (see Fig. 5 and note that the light at the second subset of angles that is passed to the light detectors (PD) is based on the distance between the angular filter (LS) and the light detector (PD), a width of the angular filter (LS), and a width of the light detector (PD); see Page 6, Para. [0103]-[0107]).
Bang does not explicitly state that the second subset of incident angles includes angles between -90 degrees and -60 degrees and between 60 degrees and 90 degrees, relative to the surface normal.
However, it is an expressed goal of Bang to provide a structural arrangement of a light source (ELD), a light detector (PD), and an angular filter (LS) that allows for light at a selectable second subset of incident angles, corresponding to off-axis light relative to the surface normal, to be passed to the light detectors (PD) in order to support the detection of light that is reflected from a finger contacting the surface of the cover layer while reducing the light from noise sources (see Page 2, Para. [0018]-[0021]). It is further a goal of Bang to provide a display device and optical touch sensor that is suitable for a wide scope of applications with improved detection ability (see Page 1, Para. [0002] and [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Bang, to modify the base optical touch sensor of Bang, namely by adjusting the distance between the angular filter (LS) and the light detector (PD), the width of the angular filter (LS), and/or the width of the light detector (PD), as suggested by Bang, such that the second subset of incident angles includes angles between -90 degrees and -60 degrees and between 60 degrees and 90 degrees, relative to the surface normal, in order to provide an improved touch sensor that is suitable for a desired application, and provides the predictable results of reduced noise light and improved finger detection.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Tortora (US 8,942,069).
As pertaining to Claim 12, while Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the light detectors (PD) are configured to detect the reflections of the light off the finger (20) when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20; again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]), Bang does not expressly disclose an application in which the display cover layer is immersed in water.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tortora suggests (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that a display device comprising an optical touch sensor is ideal in water-immersion applications, wherein a display cover layer is fully immersed in water (see Col. 2, Ln. 57-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-5; and Col. 4, Ln. 26-49). It is a goal of Tortora to provide an optical touch sensor for a water-immersion application that is reliable, inexpensive, and simple (again, see Col. 2, Ln. 57-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-5; and see Col. 1, Ln. 33-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bang with the teachings of Tortora in order to provide an optical touch sensor for a water-immersion application that is reliable, inexpensive, and simple.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Krah et al. (hereinafter “Krah” US 10,541,280).
As pertaining to Claim 14, Bang does not expressly disclose an application in which the direct illumination optical touch sensor is configured to distinguish between when the surface is contacted by the finger and when the finger hovers over the surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Krah discloses (see Fig. 3E and Fig. 5) an optical touch sensor application in which light sources (see (354) in Fig. 3E) and light detectors (see (358) in Fig. 3E) are used in combination with signal processing to distinguish between touch events when a surface is contacted by the finger, when the finger hovers over the surface, and when the surface is contacted by a water droplet (see Col. 8, Ln. 28-53 and Col. 14, Ln. 13-27). It is a goal of Krah to provide a means of discerning between different touch events using an optical touch sensor in order to accurately distinguish between those touch events and selectively process, accept, reject, or classify touch events based on a desired application (again, see Col. 14, Ln. 13-23, for example).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bang with the teachings of Krah, such that the direct illumination optical touch sensor is configured to distinguish between when the surface is contacted by the finger and when the finger hovers over the surface, in order to provide an optical touch sensor that can accurately distinguish between touch events to selectively process, accept, reject, or classify those touch events based on a desired application.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Tortora (US 8,942,069).
As pertaining to Claim 22, while Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) that the light detectors (PD) are configured to detect the reflections of the light off the finger (20) when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20; again, see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269]), Ryu does not expressly disclose an application in which the display cover layer is immersed in water.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tortora suggests (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that a display device comprising an optical touch sensor is ideal in water-immersion applications, wherein a display cover layer is fully immersed in water (see Col. 2, Ln. 57-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-5; and Col. 4, Ln. 26-49). It is a goal of Tortora to provide an optical touch sensor for a water-immersion application that is reliable, inexpensive, and simple (again, see Col. 2, Ln. 57-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-5; and see Col. 1, Ln. 33-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Tortora in order to provide an optical touch sensor for a water-immersion application that is reliable, inexpensive, and simple.
As pertaining to Claim 25, while Ryu discloses (see Fig. 20A) that the light detectors (PD) are configured to detect the reflections of the light off the finger (20) when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20; again, see Page 13 through Page 14, Para. [0257]-[0258], [0260]-[0262], and [0264]-[0269]), Ryu does not expressly disclose an application in which the display cover layer is immersed in water.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tortora suggests (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that a display device comprising an optical touch sensor is ideal in water-immersion applications, wherein a display cover layer is fully immersed in water (see Col. 2, Ln. 57-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-5; and Col. 4, Ln. 26-49). It is a goal of Tortora to provide an optical touch sensor for a water-immersion application that is reliable, inexpensive, and simple (again, see Col. 2, Ln. 57-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-5; and see Col. 1, Ln. 33-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ryu with the teachings of Tortora in order to provide an optical touch sensor for a water-immersion application that is reliable, inexpensive, and simple.
Claim 25 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Tortora (US 8,942,069).
As pertaining to Claim 25, while Bang discloses (see Fig. 5) that the light detectors (PD) are configured to detect the reflections of the light off the finger (20) when the surface (i.e., the top surface) is contacted by the finger (20; again, see Page 4 through Page 5, Para. [0088], [0091]-[0093], [0095]-[0096]), Bang does not expressly disclose an application in which the display cover layer is immersed in water.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tortora suggests (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that a display device comprising an optical touch sensor is ideal in water-immersion applications, wherein a display cover layer is fully immersed in water (see Col. 2, Ln. 57-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-5; and Col. 4, Ln. 26-49). It is a goal of Tortora to provide an optical touch sensor for a water-immersion application that is reliable, inexpensive, and simple (again, see Col. 2, Ln. 57-67 through Col. 3, Ln. 1-5; and see Col. 1, Ln. 33-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bang with the teachings of Tortora in order to provide an optical touch sensor for a water-immersion application that is reliable, inexpensive, and simple.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that none of the references relied upon by the examiner in the prior Office Action, particularly Ryu and Bang, teach or fairly suggest an “optical touch sensor” that is “configured to discriminate between when the surface is contacted by the finger and when the surface is contacted by a water droplet” and/or subsets of incident angles that are “configured to improve the discrimination between when the surface is contacted by the finger and when the surface is contacted by the water droplet” as newly recited, in varying form, in a number of the pending claims (see Remarks at Pages 13 through 19). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully points out that the newly recited features of the claimed invention are directed to functional features that may be provided by the claimed structural configuration of the “optical touch sensor” of independent Claims 1, 15, and 23. That is, each of independent Claims 1, 15, and 23 is directed to an apparatus comprising an “optical touch sensor” which is structurally defined by the features respectfully recited in each of independent Claims 1, 15, and 23. As newly recited, the claimed structural configuration of the “optical touch sensor” of independent Claims 1, 15, and 23 is “configured to” provide the functional features “to discriminate between when the surface is contacted by the finger and when the surface is contacted by a water droplet.” As such, any structural configuration of an optical touch sensor in the prior art that reads on the claimed structural configuration of the claimed optical touch sensor would, necessarily, be “configured to” provide the claimed functional features of independent Claims 1, 15, and 23. Likewise, any structural configuration of an optical touch sensor in the prior art that reads on the claimed structural configuration of the claimed “angular filters” having the claimed “subsets of incident angles” would, necessarily, be “configured to” provide the claimed improvement in “discrimination” as recited in independent Claims 1, 15, and 23. There is nothing recited in the claims that defines the manner in which any of the newly claimed functions is performed using the claimed structural configuration that would distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-15, 20-28, and 30-31 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wassvik (US 2016 / 0334942) discloses an optical touch sensor implementing angular filters.
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 JASON M MANDEVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3136. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JASON M MANDEVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623