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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on October 23, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-26 and 29 are canceled; claims 27 and 36-42 are amended; claims 43-48 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 27, 28, and 30-42 pending for examination.
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 27, 30, and 32-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US 2017/0066168, previously cited) in view of Ge et al. (US 2020/0363036, newly cited).
Regarding claims 27 and 30, Ludwig et al. teaches a multilayer body (1; laminate) comprising a conductive track layer (5; electrically conductive functional layer), a decorative ply (4), an optical auxiliary layer (3), and a plastic ply (7; laser protective layer), wherein the plastic ply is arranged between the optical auxiliary layer and the conductive track layer ([0107], [0115], [0118], [0121], see Fig. 10 reproduced below). The decorative ply and/or optical auxiliary ply can be taken either alone or in combination to correspond to the claimed decorative layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
201
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The plastic ply includes light-scattering particles (71), such that light from the LEDs (6) can be homogeneously distributed [0133]. The plastic ply is therefore configured to be shone through and serves as an optical scattering and/or diffusor layer. As shown in Fig. 10, the plastic ply adjoins the conductive track layer without a colored varnish layer lying in between. The plastic ply may be made of a plastic compound such as PMMA, ABS, PS, PE, PP, PC, POM, PA, ASA, SAN, or TPU ([0121]-[0122]), and thus protects the underlying layers from mechanical, physical, and chemical environmental influences and from damage by laser radiation.
Although Ludwig et al. teaches that the plastic ply (7; laser protective layer) includes diffuser particles (71) in order to achieve homogenization of the light emitted by the LEDs (6) ([0133], Fig. 10), the reference does not expressly teach a layer thickness or a haze value of the plastic ply.
However, in the analogous art of decorative light-emitting articles, Ge et al. teaches an optical diffusing covering useful in LED lighting applications, comprising a light source and a cover (i.e., a lens or diffuser) made of a plastic whose function is to mask and protect the light source while still ensuring good transmission of the light emitted by the light source ([0002], [0006]). Similar to the plastic ply in Ludwig et al., the diffusing cover taught by Ge et al. has the function of scattering the emitted light so that the illumination is softened and not dazzling, where the scattering of light may be achieved by dispersing scattering particles in the plastic [0006].
Ge et al. teaches that the diffusing material is translucent and has an optical transmission of greater than 40%, an optical haze of greater than 90%, and a diffuse light scattering of greater than 95% [0070]. The parameters of percent loading of particles, types of particles, and material thickness can be adjusted as appropriate to achieve the desired optical properties, e.g., where a thicker material could have a lower particle loading and still have the same transmission, haze, and light scattering as a thinner material with higher loading [0070]. Ge et al. teaches that such light-diffusing sheets may be in the thickness range of from 25 microns to 500 microns ([0069]), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer body of Ludwig et al. by setting a thickness and a haze value of the plastic ply within the claimed ranges, as taught by Ge et al., in order to achieve the desired optical properties such as a scattering of the emitted light to obtain a softened and not dazzling appearance. Furthermore, it is noted that Ge et al. teaches ranges for the layer thickness, haze value, and optical transmittance which overlap or fall within the ranges of claims 27 and 30. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 32, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above, and Ludwig et al. further teaches that colorants, in particular dyes and/or pigments, may be added to the plastic material used for the plastic ply [0057].
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above. As noted above, Ludwig et al. teaches that the plastic ply may be formed from a plastic compound such as PMMA, ABS, PS, PE, PP, PC, POM, PA, ASA, SAN, or TPU with diffuser particles embedded therein ([0034], [0133], Fig. 10). The plastic compounds taught by Ludwig et al. correspond to the claimed carbon-based polymeric matrix comprising polymers and/or copolymers, and the diffuser particles correspond the particles embedded therein.
Regarding claim 35, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above, and Ludwig et al. further teaches that the decorative ply (4) comprises at least one first area which is at least partially transparent, and at least one second area which is non-transparent, i.e., opaque [0050].
Regarding claims 36, 37, and 39, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above, and Ludwig et al. further teaches that the optical auxiliary layer (3) may be an absorption layer produced by applying a pigmented varnish ([0045], [0049]), thus corresponding to a dyed polymer layer or a layer comprising a polymeric matrix with pigment fillers.
Regarding claim 38, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above, and Ludwig et al. further teaches that the optical auxiliary layer (3) may be a reflective layer produced by vapor deposition or sputtering of a metal ([0045], [0047]).
Regarding claim 40, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above, and Ludwig et al. further teaches that the conductive track layer (5) is used for contacting the at least one illuminant (e.g., LEDs), and that further electronic components such as sensors, antenna structures, or the like can also be contacted by means of the conductive track layer ([0072]-[0073]). The conductive track layer therefore corresponds to the claimed electrode layer.
Regarding claim 41, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above, and Ludwig et al. further teaches that the conductive track layer (5) is produced by vapor deposition, sputtering, galvanic deposition, or lamination of a metal, wherein the layer thickness ranges from 1 nm to 500 µm [0074].
Claims 28 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US 2017/0066168, previously cited) in view of Ge et al. (US 2020/0363036, newly cited) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0142501, previously cited).
Regarding claim 28, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above, including that the plastic ply (7; laser protective layer) includes light-scattering particles (71) so as to homogeneously distribute light from the LEDs (6) [0133]. Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach that the plastic ply has pores.
However, in the analogous art of decorative laser-etched articles, Wang et al. teaches an electronic device (10) comprising a keyboard (12) having an array of keys (16), wherein each of the keys includes an outer layer (22; decorative layer) having patterned openings (38) formed by, e.g., laser-based techniques, and a touch sensor (66; electrically conductive functional layer) to detect touch input from a user ([0031]-[0032], [0040]-[0041], [0051], Figs. 1, 2, 8). The openings allow light (44) from light sources (40) to pass through the outer layer and illuminate the key, thus serving as a label for the key [0057]. Similar to Ludwig et al., Wang et al. teaches that a light-diffusing layer (68; laser protective layer) may be used to diffuse light to help minimize the appearance of signal lines (46) in the touch sensor, wherein the diffuser may be formed from one or more layers of polymer and may include light-scattering features such as voids (pores), light-scattering particles, dyes, pigments, etc. ([0060], Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer body taught by Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. to include voids or pores in the plastic ply along with the light-scattering particles, given that Wang et al. recognizes both pores and light-scattering particles as equivalent light-scattering features that may be used to diffuse light passing through a polymer layer.
Regarding claim 42, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above. Although Ludwig et al. teaches that the multilayer body may be used, e.g., as a switch element in a motor vehicle or for a control panel of a household appliance, and further teaches that the conductive track layer may be used to connect to additional electronic components such as sensors or the like ([0002], [0073]), the reference does not expressly teach that the electrically conductive functional layer comprises a touch sensor panel.
However, in the analogous art of decorative laser-etched articles, Wang et al. teaches an electronic device (10) comprising a keyboard (12) having an array of keys (16), wherein each of the keys includes an outer layer (22; decorative layer) having patterned openings (38) formed by, e.g., laser-based techniques, and a touch sensor (66; electrically conductive functional layer) to detect touch input from a user ([0031]-[0032], [0040]-[0041], [0051], Figs. 1, 2, 8). The openings allow light (44) from light sources (40) to pass through the outer layer and illuminate the key, thus serving as a label for the key [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer body taught by Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. to include a touch sensor panel along with the conductive track layer, as suggested by Wang et al., in order to enable the multilayer body to detect touch inputs from a user.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US 2017/0066168, previously cited) in view of Ge et al. (US 2020/0363036, newly cited) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Hahn et al. (WO 2020/064404, previously cited; citing US 2022/0048315 as the English equivalent).
Regarding claim 31, Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above. Although Ludwig et al. teaches that the light scattering particles in the plastic ply (7) serve to homogeneously distribute light from the back-light LEDs ([0133]), and Ge et al. further teaches a diffusing plastic cover having an optical transmission of greater than 40% and an optical haze of greater than 90% in order to provide soft illumination by scattering the emitted light ([0006], [0070]), the combination of references does not expressly teach that the laser protective layer deflects more than 30% of transmitted light by more than 2.5° from the direction of an incident light beam.
However, in the analogous art of decorative laser-etched articles, Hahn et al. teaches a decorative film (1) comprising a color varnish layer (4), a transparent laser protective varnish layer (5), and an electrical functional layer (10) which may be illuminated by a backlighting device (13) arranged behind the electrical functional layer ([0286], [0370], Figs. 1g, 8e). Similar to Ludwig et al. and Ge et al., Hahn et al. teaches that the transparent laser protective varnish layer (5) scatters transmitted light, such as by particles or inhomogeneities in the material ([0029], [0032]). The transparent protective varnish layer preferably has a transmittance of at least 25% in the wavelength range between 380 and 780 nm, so that the layers arranged underneath the transparent laser protective varnish layer are visible to an observer [0026]. The transparent laser protective layer may also have a milky-cloudy appearance achieved by deflecting more than 30% of the transmitted light by more than 2.5° from the direction of the incident light beam [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer body taught by Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. by setting an amount of light deflected by more than 2.5° by the plastic ply within the claimed range, as taught by Hahn et al. in order to achieve the desired optical effects with respect to light transmission, layer visibility, and aesthetic appearance of the plastic ply. Furthermore, Hahn et al. teaches light deflection values which overlap the range of claim 31. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 27 and 36-42 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed October 23, 2025.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-13 of the remarks filed October 23, 2025, with respect to independent claim 27 have been considered but are moot because they do not address the new combination of references being used in the rejections above.
In light of the amendments to claim 27, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Ludwig et al. are withdrawn, and Ge et al. is used as a secondary reference in combination with Ludwig et al. to address the new limitations directed to the layer thickness and haze value of the laser protective layer. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to Ludwig et al. will be addressed insofar as they apply to the current grounds of rejection presented above.
With respect to Ludwig et al., the Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that Ludwig relates to a multilayer body that is produced by injection molding and not a film that is provided as an intermediate product. The Applicant argues that all the figures in the Ludwig publication show a multilayer body (1), but not an independent decorative film that still has to be back-injected, and thus does not relate to an intermediate product in the form of a layered body, as set forth in claim 27.
These arguments are not persuasive. Although the Applicant argues that the multilayer body taught by Ludwig et al. is not an intermediate product in the form of a layered body, as required by claim 27, the Applicant does not specifically identify any claimed features that are not satisfied by the multilayer body of Ludwig et al. It is noted that the claim is drawn broadly to a “laminate” and does not include any limitations requiring that the laminate is capable of being back-injected. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore not commensurate in scope with the claims, and the multilayer body of Ludwig et al. in view of Ge et al. is considered to satisfy all of the features of the claimed invention, as explained in the prior art rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takai et al. (WO 2015/190202, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a light diffusing sheet used to achieve uniform brightness of a backlight device (p. 1-2). In order to obtain a high light diffusion property, conventional methods include changing the type, particle size, amount, etc. of resin particles (i.e., light diffusing material) in the light diffusing sheet to make a film with a high haze value (p. 2). The thickness of the light-diffusing sheet is preferably 10 to 500 µm to achieve sufficient strength and handling properties as well as the desired transparency (p. 18).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785