DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/18/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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
Claims 1, 7, 9-13, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘759 et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0258759) in view of Kotala et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0249467).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘759 discloses a method comprising: applying a adhesive (120) to a facing surface of a touch film (130 film member of a touch screen panel); placing the facing surface against a compound curvature of a rigid surface, the rigid surface located on a component (window 110 having a curved surface having a plurality of curvature radii, R1 to Rn, of a compound curvature); rolling a roller (3) over the touch film, wherein the roller has an exterior layer of cushion formed of elastic material such as rubber, silicone, urethane, etc. and thus considered configured (as cushion and elastic) to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface; and activating by pressing the adhesive to adhere the touch film to the rigid surface (Figures 1, 2, 5, and 6 and Paragraphs 0048, 0049, 0051, 0053, 0090, 0100, and 0102).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “pressure sensitive adhesive”, Kim ‘759 teaches the adhesive adheres the touch film to the rigid surface by pressing with the roller so that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the adhesive taught by Kim ‘759 is pressure sensitive adhesive as pressing the touch film, adhesive, and rigid surface to adhere the touch film to the rigid surface is the only activation for adhesion disclosed by Kim ‘759. Alternatively the following rejection is made for the limitation. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to adhere a touch film (100 flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons) to a rigid surface (76) using pressure sensitive adhesive (130) as evidenced by Kotala (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0021, 0023, and 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the adhesive taught by Kim ‘759 is pressure sensitive adhesive as is the conventional and predictable adhesive as evidenced by Kotala and including consistent with adhesion by pressure as taught by Kim ‘759.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “wherein the touch film comprises a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons” and claims 7 and 22, Kim ‘759 teaches the touch film is a conventional touch screen panel so that detailed description is not repeated (Paragraph 0052) wherein a conventional touch screen panel comprises a flexible printed circuit board (100, 78) with touch buttons (124) as evidenced by Kotala (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0023 and 0026) and (regarding claim 7) the touch film/screen panel is operably connected with a user interface controller (50 and Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0017, 0019, and 0026) and (regarding claim 22) a button indicator film (84) is applied overlaying at last a portion of the touch film/screen panel to correspond with the touch buttons (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0022). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the touch film taught by Kim ‘759 comprises a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons (and user interface controller and button indicator film) as is the conventional and predictable touch screen panel as evidenced by Kotala.
Regarding claim 9, the roller taught by Kim ‘759 is wider than the rigid surface and thus wider than the touch film having the same width as the rigid surface (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0091).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, the rigid surface taught by Kim ‘759 is a surface of a window that is outwardly convex central portion (Figure 1) or inwardly convex central portion (Figure 5). Kim ‘759 does not require the window (i.e. component) is of a particular shape. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the window component taught by Kim ‘759 as modified by Kotala is a circular window as the shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed component/window is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 and “B. Changes in Shape”).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the rigid surface taught by Kim ‘759 is a window, and the touch film is part of a display so that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention the rigid surface and pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kim ‘759 as modified by Kotala is a transparent rigid surface and a transparent pressure sensitive adhesive so that the display is visible through the window.
Regarding claim 12, the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kim ‘759 as modified by Kotala is applied between the touch film and the rigid surface before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface which adhesive is necessarily either applied to the touch film and/or to the rigid surface so it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kim ‘759 as modified by Kotala is applied to the touch film before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface as is nothing more than choosing a solution from the finite number of solutions for applying the pressure sensitive between the touch film and the rigid surface before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface each with the same result/reasonable expectation of success of the pressure sensitive adhesive between the touch film and the rigid surface.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘759 and Kotala as applied to claims 1, 7, 9-13, 21, and 22 above, and further in view of Cecilio et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0125475).
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘759 as modified by Kotala above teach all of the limitations in claim 3 except for a specific teaching of the hardness of the exterior layer of elastic material such as rubber, urethane, etc. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art durometer hardness of a roller having an exterior layer of rubber, urethane, etc. used for adhering film with pressure sensitive adhesive to a substrate have a durometer hardness between about 30A and about 50A for sufficient flexibility and resiliency to better accommodate the topography of a substrate and including that is sufficiently deformable for uneven surfaces but firm enough to maintain pressure for bonding as taught by Cecilio (Paragraphs 0020, 0114, and 0116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the exterior layer of material of the roller taught by Kim ‘759 as modified by Kotala is a low durometer material in the range of 28A to 40A, inclusive of endpoints (it being noted 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)) as is not only consistent with the elastic material taught by Kim ‘759 but well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for sufficient flexibility and resiliency to better accommodate the topography of the rigid surface and including that is sufficiently deformable for uneven surfaces but firm enough to maintain pressure for bonding as taught by Cecilio.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotala in view of Kim ‘759 and/or Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0009025).
Regarding claim 1, Kotala discloses a method comprising: applying a pressure sensitive adhesive (130) to a facing surface of a touch film (100 flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons and considered a film including wherein the same is considered a film in the instant invention), wherein the touch film comprises a flexible printed circuit board (100, 78) with touch buttons (124); placing the facing surface against a compound curvature of a rigid surface, the rigid surface located on a component (panel 76 comprising two first portions 96 such as corresponding to 106 curved with an amount of curvature separated by a second portion such as corresponding with 110 having an amount of curvature less than the second amount of curvature see paragraph 0024); and activating the pressure sensitive adhesive to adhere the touch film to the rigid surface (Figures 3 and 5 and Paragraphs 0020, 0021, 0023, 0028, 0030, and 0126).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “rolling a roller over the touch film, wherein the roller has an exterior layer of material configured to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface”, Kotala does not expressly teach the apparatus to press the touch film and adhesive to the rigid surface. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to press a touch film and adhesive to a rigid surface by rolling a roller over the touch film, wherein the roller has an exterior layer of cushion formed of elastic/flexible material such as rubber, silicone, etc. and thus considered configured (as cushion and elastic/flexible) to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface, and including to minimize air bubbles as evidenced by Kim ‘759 (described above in full detail and see further paragraph 0104) and/or Lee (Figures 1 and 5 and Paragraphs 0035, 0061, 0081, and 0082). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Kotala further comprise rolling a roller over the touch film to conventionally and predictably press the touch film and adhesive to the compound curvature of the rigid surface and including to minimize air bubbles as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee.
Regarding claim 4, the component taught by Kotala is an outer door screen of an appliance (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 5, the outer door screen (formed from transparent material) taught by Kotala further comprises an interior surface having the compound curvature, a section thereof configured to enable viewing of the touch film (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 7, Kotala teaches operably connecting the touch film with a user interface controller (50 and Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0017, 0019, and 0026).
Regarding claim 9, the roller taught by Kotala as modified by Kim ‘759 (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0091) and/or Lee (Paragraph 0035) is wider than the rigid surface and the touch film.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the rigid surface taught by Kotala is a transparent rigid surface to illuminate the touch area of the touch panel (Paragraph 0034) so that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kotala as modified by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is a transparent pressure sensitive adhesive as is not only choosing one solution from the finite predictable solutions (i.e. transparent or not transparent) but so that the touch area of the touch panel is illuminated as directed by Kotala.
Regarding claim 12, the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kotala as modified by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is applied between the touch film and the rigid surface before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface which adhesive is necessarily either applied to the touch film and/or to the rigid surface so it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kotala as modified by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is applied to the touch film before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface as is nothing more than choosing a solution from the finite number of solutions for applying the pressure sensitive between the touch film and the rigid surface before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface each with the same result/reasonable expectation of success of the pressure sensitive adhesive between the touch film and the rigid surface.
Regarding claim 22, Kotala teaches a button indicator film (84) is applied overlaying at last a portion of the touch film to correspond with the touch buttons (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0022).
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotala in view of Cecilio and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Kotala is described above in full detail.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “rolling a roller over the touch film, wherein the roller has an exterior layer of material configured to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface” and claims 3, 8, and 12, Kotala does not expressly teach the apparatus to press the touch film and pressure sensitive adhesive to the rigid surface. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to press a film having pressure sensitive adhesive applied thereto to a surface of a substrate by rolling a roller over the film (wherein the rolling is done by hand in a single pass of the roller over the film) the roller having an exterior layer of low durometer material in the range between about 30A and about 50A for sufficient flexibility and resiliency to better accommodate the topography of the substrate and including that is sufficiently deformable for uneven surfaces but firm enough to maintain pressure for bonding as taught by Cecilio (Paragraphs 0020, 0114, and 0116) and optionally including wherein the film is specifically a touch film similarly such a roller is used as evidenced by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee (each described above in full detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Kotala further comprise rolling a roller over the touch film, wherein the roller has an exterior layer of material configured to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface (and regarding claim 3 the exterior layer of material is a low durometer material in the range of 28A to 40A, inclusive of endpoints, it being noted 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), and regarding claim 8 the rolling is done by hand in a single pass of the roller over the touch film and regarding claim 12 the pressure sensitive adhesive is applied to the touch film before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface) to conventionally and predictably press the touch film and pressure sensitive adhesive to the rigid surface and including the roller is sufficiently deformable for uneven surfaces but firm enough to maintain pressure for bonding as taught by Cecilio and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, and 22, Kotala is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the roller taught by Kotala as modified by Cecilio and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is wider than the touch film to accommodate using the roller with a wide variety of touch films as taught by Cecilio (Paragraphs 0122 and 0123) and as optionally taught by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee (each described above in full detail).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the rigid surface taught by Kotala is a transparent rigid surface to illuminate the touch area of the touch panel (Paragraph 0034) so that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kotala as modified by Cecilio and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is a transparent pressure sensitive adhesive as is not only choosing one solution from the finite predictable solutions (i.e. transparent or not transparent) but so that the touch area of the touch panel is illuminated as directed by Kotala.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-13, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘807 et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0008807) in view of Kotala and further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘807 discloses a method comprising: applying a adhesive (i.e. adhered) to a facing surface of a touch panel unit (27); placing the facing surface against the curvature of a rigid surface, the rigid surface located on a component (door member 21); and activating the adhesive to adhere the touch panel unit to the rigid surface (Figures 1 and 3 and Paragraphs 0053-0056).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “pressure sensitive adhesive”, Kim ‘807 does not expressly teach the adhesive adhering the touch panel unit and rigid surface. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to adhere the touch panel unit (100 flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons) to the rigid surface (76) using pressure sensitive adhesive (130) as evidenced by Kotala (described above in full detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the adhesive taught by Kim ‘807 is pressure sensitive adhesive as is the conventional and predictable adhesive for adhering as evidenced by Kotala.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “the touch film comprises a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons” and claims 7 and 22, Kim ‘807 does not expressly describe the touch panel unit structure. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art such a touch panel unit comprises a flexible printed circuit board (78, 100) with touch buttons (124), i.e. a touch film, and operably connected with a user interface controller and including a button indicator film (84) is applied overlaying at last a portion of the touch film to correspond with the touch buttons as evidenced by Kotala (described above in full detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the touch panel unit taught by Kim ‘807 is a touch film comprising a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons and operably connected with a user interface controller and a button indicator film is applied overlaying at last a portion of the touch film to correspond with the touch buttons as is the conventional and predictable structure well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Kotala.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “a compound curvature of the rigid surface”, Kim ‘807 teaches the rigid surface has a curvature (Paragraph 0053) without expressly specifying compound or uniform curvature. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the rigid surface being a portion of a appliance have a compound curvature as evidenced by Kotala (described above in full detail). Further, it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the rigid surface to which a touch film is adhered have a compound or uniform curvature as evidenced by Kim ‘759 (described above in full detail and see in particular paragraphs 0049 and 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the rigid surface taught by Kim ‘807 have a compound curvature as is nothing more than selecting a curvature from the finite number of predictable curvatures to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success as evidenced by Kotala and optionally further Kim ‘759 and including the shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed rigid surface is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 and “B. Changes in Shape”).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “rolling a roller over the touch film, wherein the roller has an exterior layer of material configured to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface”, Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala does not expressly teach the apparatus to adhere the touch film to the rigid surface. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to adhere a touch film and adhesive to a rigid surface by rolling a roller (and including the roller has an exterior layer of cushion formed of elastic/flexible material such as rubber, silicone, etc. and thus considered configured (as cushion and elastic/flexible) to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface) over the touch film and including to minimize air bubbles as evidenced by Kim ‘759 (described above in full detail) and/or Lee (described above in full detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala further comprise rolling a roller over the touch film, wherein the roller has an exterior layer of material configured to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface to conventionally and predictably adhere the touch film to the rigid surface and including to minimize air bubbles as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee.
Regarding claim 4, the component (door member 21) taught by Kim ‘807 is an outer door screen of an appliance (Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, the outer door screen (formed from transparent material) taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala and further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee further comprises an interior surface having the compound curvature, a section thereof configured to enable viewing of the touch film (Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 9, the roller taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala and further Kim ‘759 (described above in full detail) and/or Lee (described above in full detail) is wider than the rigid surface and the touch film.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, the component (door member 21) taught by Kim ‘807 is a circular component/window and the rigid surface is outwardly convex/with a outwardly convex central portion (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the rigid surface taught by Kim ‘807 as in Kotala is a transparent rigid surface and including so that the touch film is visible and illuminated so that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala and further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is a transparent pressure sensitive adhesive as is not only choosing one solution from the finite predictable solutions (i.e. transparent or not transparent) but so that the touch area of the touch film is visible and illuminated as directed by Kim ‘807 and Kotala.
Regarding claim 12, the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala and further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is applied between the touch film and the rigid surface before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface which adhesive is necessarily either applied to the touch film and/or to the rigid surface so it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala and further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is applied to the touch film before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface as is nothing more than choosing a solution from the finite number of solutions for applying the pressure sensitive between the touch film and the rigid surface before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface each with the same result/reasonable expectation of success of the pressure sensitive adhesive between the touch film and the rigid surface.
Claims 3, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘807, Kotala, and further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-13, 21, and 22 above, and further in view of Cecilio.
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala and further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee above teach all of the limitations in claim 3 except for a specific teaching of the hardness of the exterior layer of elastic/flexible material such as rubber, urethane, etc. Cecilio is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the exterior layer of material of the roller taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala and further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is a low durometer material in the range of 28A to 40A, inclusive of endpoints (it being noted 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)) as is not only consistent with the elastic/flexible material taught by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee but well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for sufficient flexibility and resiliency to better accommodate the topography of the rigid surface and including that is sufficiently deformable for uneven surfaces but firm enough to maintain pressure for bonding as taught by Cecilio.
Regarding claims 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23, Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala and further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee and further Cecilio above teach (regarding claim 14) a method of applying a touch film, the method comprising: applying a pressure sensitive adhesive to a facing surface of the touch film, the touch film comprising a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons; placing the facing surface against a rigid surface, the rigid surface being a portion of a laundry treating appliance (as taught by Kim ‘807) and the rigid surface having a compound curvature; and activating the pressure sensitive adhesive to adhere the touch film to the rigid surface by applying pressure via a roller configured to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface and having a durometer material in the range of 28A to 40A, inclusive of endpoints and (regarding claim 16) wherein the rigid surface is an outer door screen of the appliance and (regarding claim 17) the pressure sensitive adhesive is a transparent pressure sensitive adhesive and the rigid surface is a transparent rigid surface and (regarding claim 19) the roller is wider than the touch film and (regarding claim 20) the rigid surface is convex and (regarding claim 23) applying a button indicator film overlaying at least a portion of the touch film to correspond with the touch buttons.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘807 in view of Kotala and Cecilio and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Kim ‘807 discloses a method of applying a touch panel unit (27), the method comprising: applying a adhesive (i.e. adhered) to a facing surface of the touch panel unit; placing the facing surface against a curvature of a rigid surface, the rigid surface located on a component and being a portion of a laundry treating appliance (door member 21); and activating the adhesive to adhere the touch panel unit to the rigid surface (Figures 1 and 3 and Paragraphs 0053-0056).
As to the limitation in claims 1 and 14 of “pressure sensitive adhesive”, Kim ‘807 does not expressly teach the adhesive adhering the touch panel unit and rigid surface. Kotala is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the adhesive taught by Kim ‘807 is pressure sensitive adhesive as is the conventional and predictable adhesive for adhering as evidenced by Kotala.
As to the limitation in claim 1 and (similar in) 14 of “the touch film comprises a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons” and claims 7, 22, and 23, Kim ‘807 does not expressly describe the touch panel unit structure. Kotala is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the touch panel unit taught by Kim ‘807 is a touch film comprising a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons and operably connected with a user interface controller and a button indicator film is applied overlaying at last a portion of the touch film to correspond with the touch buttons as is the conventional and predictable structure well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Kotala.
As to the limitation in claims 1 and 14 of “compound curvature”, Kim ‘807 teaches the rigid surface has a curvature without expressly specifying compound or uniform curvature. Kotala and Kim ‘759 are each described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the rigid surface taught by Kim ‘807 have a compound curvature as is nothing more than selecting a curvature from the finite number of predictable curvatures to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success as evidenced by Kotala and optionally further Kim ‘759 and including the shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed rigid surface is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 and “B. Changes in Shape”).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “rolling a roller over the touch film, wherein the roller has an exterior layer of material configured to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface” and in claim 14 of “applying pressure via a roller configured to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface and having a durometer material in the range of 28A to 40A, inclusive of endpoints” and claims 3, 8, 12, and 18, Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala does not expressly teach an apparatus to adhere the touch film to the rigid surface. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to press a film having pressure sensitive adhesive applied thereto to a surface of a substrate by rolling a roller over the film (wherein the rolling is done by hand in a single pass of the roller over the touch film) the roller having an exterior layer of low durometer material in the range between about 30A and about 50A for sufficient flexibility and resiliency to better accommodate the topography of the substrate and including that is sufficiently deformable for uneven surfaces but firm enough to maintain pressure for bonding as taught by Cecilio (described above in full detail) and optionally including wherein the film is specifically a touch film similarly such a roller is used as evidenced by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee (each described above in full detail). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala further comprise rolling a roller over the touch film and applying pressure via the roller, wherein the roller has an exterior layer of material configured to conform to the compound curvature of the rigid surface and the exterior layer of material is a low durometer material in the range of 28A to 40A, inclusive of endpoints, it being noted 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) (and regarding claims 8 and 18 the rolling is done by hand in a single pass of the roller over the touch film and regarding claim 12 the pressure sensitive adhesive is applied to the touch film before the touch film is placed against the rigid surface) to conventionally and predictably adhere the touch film and pressure sensitive adhesive to the rigid surface and including the roller is sufficiently deformable for uneven surfaces but firm enough to maintain pressure for bonding as taught by Cecilio and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 16, 20, and 21, Kim ‘807 is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 5, the outer door screen (formed from transparent material) taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala, Cecilio and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee further comprises an interior surface having the compound curvature, a section thereof configured to enable viewing of the touch film (Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the roller taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala, Cecilio, and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is wider than the touch film to accommodate using the roller with a wide variety of touch films as taught by Cecilio (described above in full detail) and as optionally taught by Kim ‘759 and/or Lee (each described above in full detail).
Regarding claims 11, 13, and 17, the rigid surface taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala, Cecilio, and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee as in Kotala is a transparent rigid surface and including so that the touch film is visible and illuminated so that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention the pressure sensitive adhesive taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala, Cecilio, and optionally further Kim ‘759 and/or Lee is a transparent pressure sensitive adhesive as is not only choosing one solution from the finite predictable solutions (i.e. transparent or not transparent) but so that the touch area of the touch film is visible and illuminated as directed by Kim ‘807 and Kotala.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered.
The claims as amended are fully addressed above. As to applicants arguments generally directed to Kim ‘759, Kotala, Lee, Cecilio, and/or Kim ‘807 fail to disclose one or more of the claim limitations including the amended limitations these general arguments are not persuasive wherein each rejection set forth above including one or more of Kim ‘759, Kotala, Lee, Cecilio, and Kim ‘807 teach all of the limitations (including amended limitations) of each claim as expressly set forth.
Applicants argue, “The specification indicates that the window 110 may be formed to have a first curved surface with the curved surface having a uniform curvature radius or “the curved surface having the curvature radii R1 through R3.” See Kim ‘759, par. [0049]-[0050]. Based on the FIG. 6 it is clear that such radii are spaced from one another. See Kim ‘759, FIG. 6. The Examiner in the office action states that Kim ‘759 discloses a compound curvature. This is in error. Kim ‘759 merely teaches the curve having different radii spaced from one another. This is not the same as a compound curvature. A compound curve is a series of two or more arcs with different radii that bend in the same direction, connected tangentially at a point of compound curvature. As Kim ‘759 specifically teaches that the radii are spaced and not connected tangentially at a point of compound curvature it is impossible for Kim ‘759 to teach a surface having compound curvature with a common tangent point. Transition curves or spiral curves include a radius that gradually changes or blends and could accommodate the teachings of Kim ‘759 and the space between the radii markings.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Kim ‘759 does not specifically teach that radii are spaced. Kim ‘759 teaches in paragraph 0049 “The window 110 may be formed to include a curved surface having a plurality of curvature radii. For example, the window 110 may be formed to have a first curved surface having a first curvature radius R1 in a lengthwise direction or in a width direction, a second curved surface having a second curvature radius R2, and a third curvature radius R3 having a third curvature radius R3. In this regard, the window 110 may further include a curved surface having curvature radii R4, R5, . . . Rn (wherein n is a natural number), in addition to the curved surface having the curvature radii R1 through R3.”. Kim ‘759 does not describe different radii spaced from one another. Kim ‘759 does not describe transition curves or spiral curves include a radius that gradually changes or blends. Kim ‘759 describes a curved surface having a plurality of curvature radii Rn which is a compound curve of a series of two or more arcs with different radii, i.e. Rn wherein n≥2, that bend in the same direction, connected tangentially (i.e. from R1 to R2 to Rn) at a point of compound curvature. Applicants appear to assert Kim ‘759 teaches that the radii are spaced in Figure 6. Kim ‘759 does not describe spaced radii in Figure 6. Further, to the extent Figure 6 may be considered to scale (although Kim ‘759 does not expressly set this forth see MPEP 2125 wherein arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value when the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions) Figure 6 as is consistent with Kim ‘759 depicts a plurality of curvature radii Rn, i.e. R1, RbetweenR1andR2, R2, R betweenR2andR3, R3, as a compound curve in a series of two or more arcs with different radii that bend in the same direction, connected tangentially at a point of compound curvature.
Applicants further argue, “Cecilio et al. ‘475 merely teaches a tape applicator. Applicant believes that such reference is non-analogous art. One of ordinary skill simply would not have looked at a tape dispenser as being reasonably pertinent. The art is neither in the same field nor does it address the same problem of applying a touch film comprising a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons to a rigid surface having a compound curvature. Further still, there is no motivation, suggestion, or teaching to combine the references.”.
In response to applicant’s argument that Cecilio is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Cecilio is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor of adhering film with pressure sensitive adhesive to a surface of a component/substrate and further is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of adhering film with pressure sensitive adhesive to a component/substrate and further including wherein the roller has an exterior layer of material configured to conform to the surface of the component/substrate. Motivation, suggestion, and teaching to combine the references is expressly set forth in the rejections above (i.e. including to conventionally and predictably press the touch film and pressure sensitive adhesive to the rigid surface taught by Kotala and including the roller is sufficiently deformable for uneven surfaces but firm enough to maintain pressure for bonding as evidenced by Cecilio).
Applicants further argue, “In the office action, the Examiner asserts that inclusion of a compound curve is nothing more than “selecting a curvature from a finite number of predictable curvatures.” While there may be a set number of defined curves in mathematics this does not correlate to success in the application of films to such curves. Applicant asserts that the application of films to various curves does not have a reasonable expectation of success by merely substituting known types of curves. Instead, the application of film to various curved surfaces is as unpredictable and varied as the curves themselves. Respectfully, simple curves or curves having uniform curvature do not make obvious solutions or methods utilized with more complex curves.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein both Kotala and Kim ‘759 evidence application of films to compound curves of a rigid surface and including the rigid surface being a portion of an appliance having a compound curvature as evidenced by Kotala and as an alternative to uniform curvature as evidenced by Kim ‘759 so that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the rigid surface taught by Kim ‘807 have a compound curvature as is nothing more than selecting a curvature from the finite number of predictable curvatures to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success as evidenced by Kotala and optionally further Kim ‘759 (see MPEP 2143 and including example rationales (A), (B), and (E)) and further including the shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed rigid surface is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 and “B. Changes in Shape”).
Applicants further argue, “There is nothing to indicate in the reference that the touch panel is a touch film.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein the touch panel unit taught by Kim ‘807 as modified by Kotala comprising a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons is a touch film the same as a flexible printed circuit board with touch buttons considered a touch film in the instant invention.
Conclusion
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 JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746