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 .
This office action is a response to the amendment filed on 5/19/2026.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunage (US PAT. 11,495,397) in view of Harada (PGPub 2022/0041775 A1).
Matsunage teaches a process of fabricating an input-sensing unit, comprising: forming a first conductive layer (41, Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 52-60) on an inorganic layer (11, col. 3, lines 8-17); supplying and curing an organic layer compound (32, Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 52-60) on the first conductive layer to form a first organic layer; forming a second conductive layer (42, Fig. 2) on the first organic layer (32); and supplying and curing the organic layer compound (34) on the second conductive layer to form a second organic layer as shown in Fig. 2, wherein at least one of the first conductive layer or the second conductive layer can be a part of a sensing electrode of the input-sensing unit. (col. 3, lines 52-60 and col. 7, lines 56-64).
Matsunage also teaches that the organic layer compound is an epoxy resin (as a base resin, as per claim 2, col. 5, lines 13-18). However, Matsunage silent a hollow polymer used for the organic layer compound. Harada teaches a hollow polymer particles used for a resin compositions in order to provide an excellent mechanical strength (paragraphs [0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify an organic layer compound in a process of fabricating an input-sensing unit of Matsunage by a hollow polymer used for the organic layer compound as taught by Harada in order to provide an excellent mechanical strength.
Re. claim 3: Harada also teaches that the hollow polymer comprises a shell that defines a hollow therein; and the shell comprises epoxy resin (paragraph [0070]).
Re. claim 4: Harada also teaches that a content of the hollow polymer in the organic layer compound ranges from about 10 wt % to about 70 wt % (paragraph (0071) and [0076]).
Re. claim 5: Harada also teaches that the organic layer compound is cured using heat (paragraph [0085]).
Re. claim 6: Matsunage also teaches that a plurality of penetration hole (51, 52) is formed in the first organic layer, after the forming of the first organic layer, thereby via wires (51, 52) are formed to connect between conductor layers as shown in Fig. 2 (col. 3, lines 52-65 and col. 4, lines 25-51).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunage as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Harada, and further in view of Kinsho et al. (PGPub 2005/0031871 A1).
Matsunage, modified by Harada, teaches all limitations as set forth above, but silent a dispersing agent or a curing initiator for the organic layer compound. Kinsho et al. teach a composite resin particle including a dispersing agent or a curing initiator in order to provide the well-known benefit of curing the resin when the resin composition is coated on an electronic part (see also abstract and paragraph [0177]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify an organic layer compound in a process of fabricating an input-sensing unit of Matsunage, modified by Harada, by a dispersing agent or a curing initiator for the organic layer compound as taught by Kinsho et al. in order to cure the resin when the resin composition is coated on an electronic part.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunage as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Harada, and further in view of Yuri et al. (PGPub 2006/0283547 A1).
Matsunage, modified by Harada, teaches all limitations as set forth above, but silent the hollow polymer, which is configured to adjust a dielectric constant of at least one of the first organic layer or the second organic layer. Yuri et al. teach a laminated wiring board including “The dielectric layers B11-B14, B21-B24 are comprised of polymer material such as an epoxy resin, which contains an inorganic filler, such as silica powders, that can be used to adjust dielectric constant and isolation voltage. The dielectric layers B11-B13, B21-B23 are referred to as so-called build-up resin insulating layers which insulate the conductor layers M11-M14, M21-M24 where the via conductor 6 for connecting the conductor layers is formed therein. On the other hand, the dielectric layers B14, B24 are solder resist layers having the openings for exposing the pads 55, 56” (paragraph [0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify an organic layer compound in a process of fabricating an input-sensing unit of Matsunage, modified by Harada, by the hollow polymer, which is configured to adjust a dielectric constant of at least one of the first organic layer or the second organic layer as taught by Yuri et al. in order to store electrical energy and screen electric charges in the at least one of the first organic layer or the second organic layer when an external field is applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Matsunaga do not appear to disclose or even suggest at least a "method of fabricating an input-sensing unit" as recited in claim 1. Examiner disagrees with the argument. When there are no statements in the patent or file history to indicate that the preamble term represents anything more than a label or descriptive name for the invention as a whole, then the term is less likely to be construed as a claim limitation. Since there is no structural definition what the input-sensing unit is, the input-sensing unit can be broadly interpreted as any unit, device or electronic device, etc. Applicant also argues that the prior art of record fails to teach "wherein at least one of the first conductive layer or the second conductive layer comprises a part of a sensing electrode of the input-sensing unit" in the amend claim 1. Examiner disagrees with the argument. The examiner asserts that the claims have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation, without reading limitations from the specification into the claims. In re Zletz, 893 F. 2d 319, 312-322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Since there is no structural definition what the sensing electrode of the input-sensing unit is, the sensing electrode of the input-sensing unit can be broadly interpreted as a whole or in part of the first conductive layer or the second conductive layer. Therefore, Matsunage, modified by Harada, teaches all limitations as set forth above, examiner maintains his rejection.
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 PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights