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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 11/30/2025. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims as provide din the amendment of 11/30/2025, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 5-8, have been fully considered and yielded the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has not added/canceled any claim into/from the application, thus the pending claims are still claims 1-12 in which claims 1-2, 4-7 and 12 are examined in the present office action, and claims 3 and 8-11 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 3 and 8-11 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
B) Regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the office action of 10/29/2025, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 11/30/2025, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 5-8, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the mentioned office action.
However, the amendments to the claims, in particular, to claims 1-2 raise new problem of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as provided in the present office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is 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.
The claim is rejected because the disclosure, as originally filed, does not provide support for a display module having a touch display area, a non-touch display area, a frame area, a cover plate, an ink layer and an optical matching layer wherein the display module satisfies the features thereof “both a difference of average reflectance … less than 1.5” as recited in the claim on lines 13-19.
Applicant is respectfully invited to review the specification, in particular, paragraphs [0039]-[0048], as originally filed, in which the specification discloses that: “a difference of average reflectance ΔR to the external light between any two of the touch display area 102, the non-touch display area 1-4 and the frame area 106 may be less than 1.5% (i.e., ΔR < 1.0%), and a chromaticity difference ΔE between any two of the touch display area 102, the non-touch display area 1-4 and the frame area 106 may be less than 1.5 (i.e., ΔE < 1.0).” (paragraph [0039] on lines 2-5 of the paragraph), for example. The similar teachings are provided in each of paragraphs [0041], [0043], [0044] and [0047].
The specification, as originally filed, has never disclosed that the sum of the average reflectance to the external light between the touch display area 102 and the frame area 106 and the average reflectance to the external light between the non-touch display area and the frame area 106 are less than 1.5% as claimed in claim 1 on lines 13-16, and specification, as originally filed, has never disclosed that the sum of the chromaticity difference to the external light between the touch display area 102 and the frame area 106 and the chromaticity difference to the external light between the non-touch display area and the frame area 106 are less than 1.5 as claimed in claim 1 on lines 16-19 (examiner’s emphasis).
Applicant is respectfully invited to review the features thereof “both a difference of average reflectance … less than 1.5” with claimed language as provided in claim 1 on lines 13-19 in which the mentioned features use the terms “both … and…” which is understood as a summation of two average reflectance (or chromaticity difference).
b) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for the similar reason as set forth in element a) above.
c) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claim is rejected because the disclosure does not provide support for a display module having a touch display area, a non-touch display area, a frame area, a cover plate, an ink layer and an optical matching layer wherein the display module satisfies the features thereof “both a difference of average reflectance … less than 1.5” as recited in the claim on lines 13-19.
Applicant is respectfully invited to review the specification, in particular, paragraphs [0039]-[0048] in which the specification discloses that: “a difference of average reflectance
ΔR to the external light between any two of the touch display area 102, the non-touch display area 1-4 and the frame area 106 may be less than 1.5% (i.e., ΔR < 1.0%), and a chromaticity difference ΔE between any two of the touch display area 102, the non-touch display area 1-4 and the frame area 106 may be less than 1.5 (i.e., ΔE < 1.0).” (paragraph [0039] on lines 2-5 of the paragraph), for example. The similar teachings are provided in each of paragraphs [0041], [0043], [0044] and [0047].
The specification has never disclosed that the sum of the average reflectance to the external light between the touch display area 102 and the frame area 106 and the average reflectance to the external light between the non-touch display area and the frame area 106 are less than 1.5% as claimed in claim 1 on lines 13-16, and specification has never disclosed that the sum of the chromaticity difference to the external light between the touch display area 102 and the frame area 106 and the chromaticity difference to the external light between the non-touch display area and the frame area 106 are less than 1.5 as claimed in claim 1 on lines 16-19 (examiner’s emphasis).
Applicant is respectfully invited to review the features thereof “both a difference of average reflectance … less than 1.5” with claimed language as provided in claim 1 on lines 13-19 in which the mentioned features use the terms “both … and…” which is understood as a summation of two average reflectance (or chromaticity difference).
b) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for the similar reason as set forth in element a) above.
c) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Conclusion
7. The US Patent No. 9,485,856 is cited as of interest in that it discloses a transparent electronic sheet having a metal thin wire wherein there is a difference between reflection chromaticity between two areas of the wire.
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights