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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (US 2021/0247859 A1) in view of Ganapathi et al. (US 2012/0092350 A1).
Considering claim 1, Gong discloses a contact sensor having a first film layer 6 having an inner surface, a second film layer 8 having a second inner surface, a generic touch sensor 5 mounted therebetween and in contact with the respective inner surfaces, and a failure detection electrode 713/723, disposed on at least one of the first and second inner surface, which is electrically isolated from the touch sensor 5 (Figures 2-5; [0032], general structure of the touch sensor and wires; [0038], touch sensor integrated into a display having an upper layer sandwiching the touch sensor with the lower substrate; [0040], wires 713/723 do not affect the normal function of the touch sensor and are spaced away from the touch sensor).
The invention by Gong, as stated above, generically discloses a touch sensor, but fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second film layers feature two electrode layers, respectively disposed on the first inner surface and the second inner surface and the two electrode layers that are separated by a gap.
However, Ganapathi teaches the use of a touch sensor (Figures 10A-10B; [0124]), configured for use with a display ([0132], display mentioned throughout document), that features a first 905 and second 910 film (Figures 10A-10B; [0118]; [0127-129]), having respective first 1015 and second 1030a electrode layers (Figures 10A-10B; [0124-127]) on their inner surfaces and being separated by a gap (Figures 10A-10B; [0126]).
The invention by Gong features a touch sensor integrated with a display element, wherein the touch sensor is within two film layers and complimented by a failure detection electrode, but fails to explicitly disclose the details of the touch sensor, as it is generic. The invention by Ganapathi features a touch sensor integrated with a display element and having the required first and second film layers, inner surfaces featuring electrode layers and the electrode layers being separated by a gap.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known touch sensor of Ganapathi for the generic touch sensor of Gong and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Both Gong and Ganapathi discuss the use of a touch sensor in combination with a display, as a means for providing touch based control, and therefore the techniques utilized in both are considered functionally equivalent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a touch sensor having a first and second film layers featuring, two electrode layers, respectively disposed on the first inner surface and the second inner surface, wherein the two electrode layers are separated by a gap, as taught by Ganapathi, in the invention by Gong.
Considering claim 2, Gong fails to disclose a sensing layer disposed on one of the two electrode layers.
However, Ganapathi teaches the use of a sensing layer 1035 disposed on one of the two electrode layers 1030a (Figures 10A-10B; [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a sensing layer disposed between the two electrode layers, as taught by Ganapathi, in the invention by Gong. The motivation for doing so is to provide a greater range of sensitivity to measure force applied, in addition to the location of the input, as suggested by Ganapathi ([0121], changes in FSR for light touches; [0125], changes in FSR for high force/pressure).
Considering claim 3, Gong fails to disclose that the sensing layer comprises a pressure sensitive material, the pressure sensitive material comprises at least one conductive substance therein.
However, Ganapathi teaches that the sensing layer 1035 is a pressure sensitive material ([0125]), the pressure sensitive material comprises at least one conductive substance therein ([0141], FSR fill particles are conductive materials added to provide resistivity to otherwise insulating materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a pressure sensitive material having at least one conductive substance therein, as taught by Ganapathi, in the invention by Gong. The motivation for doing so is to provide a greater range of sensitivity to measure force applied, in addition to the location of the input, as suggested by Ganapathi ([0121], changes in FSR for light touches; [0125], changes in FSR for high force/pressure).
Considering claim 4, Gong fails to disclose a gap layer, disposed between the two film layers, so that the gap is formed between the two electrode layers.
However, Ganapathi discloses a gap layer 1025, disposed between the two film layers, so that the gap 1065 is formed between the two electrode layers (Figures 10A-10B; [0127-128]; Figure 11A; [0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a gap layer disposed between the two film layers to provide a gap between the two electrode layers in the invention by Gong, as taught by Ganapathi. The motivation for doing so is to provide an “aid in enabling a measurable deflection” of the touch sensor film ([0129]) and to prevent switch areas from closing prior to a threshold force ([0132]).
Considering claim 5, Gong discloses that the failure detection electrode comprises:
- two sub-failure detection electrodes (721,722 or 711,721) disposed on at least one of the first inner surface 5 and the second inner surface (Figures 2, 3 or 5; [0032-34]; [0041]); and
- a conductive connecting portion (723 or 713) electrically connected to the two sub-failure detection electrodes (721,722 or 711,712) (Figures 2, 3 or 5; [0032-34]).
Considering claim 7, Gong discloses two signal ends respectively electrically connected to the two electrode layers ([0031], normal traces and normal pins of the touch sensor, which are unlabeled in Figures 2, 3 and 5, but shown in Figure 1), and two detection ends 621,622 or 611,612 respectively electrically connected to the two sub-failure detection electrodes (Figures 2, 3 and 5; [0032], [0034]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (US 2021/0247859 A1) in view of Ganapathi et al. (US 2012/0092350 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuji (US 2012/0261663 A1).
Considering claim 6, the invention by Gong, as modified by Ganapathi, presents a structure that incorporates a sub-failure detection electrode pair on a single surface of a two-film structure, and thus fails to disclose two sub-failure detection electrodes respectively disposed on the first inner surface and the second inner surface and a conductive connecting portion electrically connected to the two sub-failure detection electrodes.
However, Tsuji teaches the use of a sub-failure detection electrode pair 11,21 on respective inner surfaces of two surfaces 10,20, and a conductive connecting portion 30 electrically connected to the electrodes (Figure 4, exemplary; [0040-41]; [0053]; [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a sub-failure detection electrode pair, each electrode of the pair being on a respective inner surface of opposing first and second film layers with a conductive connection portion connecting the two electrodes, as taught by Tsuji, in the invention by Gong, as modified by Ganapathi. The motivation for doing so is to provide cracking, chipping or failure indication on both surfaces, not just one.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (US 2021/0247859 A1) in view of Ganapathi et al. (US 2012/0092350 A1), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Jonsson (US 2013/0063167 A1).
Considering claim 8, the invention by Gong, as modified by Ganapathi, fails to disclose a toggle switch with one end connected to the signal line and the other end selectively connected to the two signal ends or the two detection ends.
However, Jonsson teaches a toggle switch 28a,28b,28c,28d with one input end connected to a signal line 32 and the other ends selectively connected to two signal ends 34 or two detection ends (connected to 30) (Figure 2; [0025]; [0027]; [0031], as evidenced in the below comparison of Figure 2 of Jonsson with Figure 6 of the instant invention. The elements of a double-pull double-throw toggle switch being used to select between a two-wire testing mode, heading toward and from component 30 along path 32, and a two-wire sensing mode, heading toward and from touch screen 24 along path 34, with an end connection to the toggle being provided from a common controller are present in Jonsson, as claimed in the instant invention).
PNG
media_image1.png
748
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a toggle switch with one end connected to the signal line and the other end selectively connected to the two signal ends or the two detection ends, as taught by Jonsson, in the invention by Gong, as modified by Ganapathi. The motivation for doing so, as shown in Jonsson, is to provide selective control of current flow through a touch screen or a testing mode component related to the touch screen to provide an indication of the functionality of the component or touch screen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0196080 A1, JP 2014-21479 A1, US 11860204 B2, and EP 3796297 A1, respectively disclose display screen bonding connection integrity testing using electrodes or display panel cracking monitoring with electrodes.
US 7716992 B2 discloses a delamination sensor with vertical monitoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 December 20, 2025