DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to Applicant’s December 18, 2025, submission. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0018613 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a touch sensor (Title) comprising: a controller (440), a sensor electrode (142) connected to the controller (440), a touch panel (110) overlying the sensor electrode (142), and a dielectric (120; ¶ [0052]) covering separating the sensor electrode (142) from the touch panel (110).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses that the dielectric (120) covering is configured to protect the controller (440) from electrostatic discharge (inherent with the insulating material; ¶ [0052]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses that the controller (440) detects a change in capacitance relative to the sensor electrode (142) to sense a touch (¶¶ [0079-[0080]).
Claims 19 and 20 include language similar to that of Claims 1 and 2, respectively, and are rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
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 7-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sleeman.
Kim discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed PCB and display.
However, Sleeman discloses (i) a printed circuit board (PCB) to which the sensor electrode (505, X1, Y1) and the controller (502) are mounted (¶¶ [0023], [0028]), as recited in Claim 7, (ii) that the PCB comprises a trace and the sensor electrode (505, X1, Y1) is connected to the controller (502) via the trace (¶ [0023]), as recited in Claim 8, and (iii) a display mounted to the PCB and connected to the controller (502; via 705, inherently disclosed at (¶¶ [0008], [0033]), as recited in Claim 9. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide optical feedback to a device user.
Claim 14 includes language similar to that of Claim 1 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above. Regarding Claim 15, Kim discloses that the dielectric (120) covering is configured to protect the controller (440) from electrostatic discharge (inherent with the insulating material; ¶ [0052]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Kim discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed MCU. However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an MCU and provide signal detection and processing. It has been concluded that absent any convincing showing of the criticality of the design, this particular design is nothing more than the inventor choice without departing from the scope of the invention. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Kim discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed material. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide durability and increased device lifespan since it has been held to be within the general ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Kim discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a thickness and breakdown voltage to ensure proper electrostatic discharge since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm.
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, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights