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 .
Specification Objection
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly
indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 18 and 21-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 18: “… and / or ..." should be changed to --... and/or ...--;
In line 1 of claim 21: “… A touch sensing display ..." should be changed to --... The touch sensing display ...--;
In line 2 of claim 22: “… the second interlocking corner parts each comprise ..." should be changed to --... the second interlocking corner part each comprises ...--; and
In line 2 of claim 23: “… each comprise ..." should be changed to --... each comprises...--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows in view of Chen (CN Pub. No. CN 103123556 A).
As to claim 1, Meadows (Figs. 1-3) teaches a touch sensing display (an integrated liquid crystal display and optical touch panel apparatus 10; Fig. 1) comprising:
a frame (an extension 76) positioned around a periphery of the touch sensing display (Figs. 1-3);
a panel (an optical touch panel; col. 6, line 6 and line 12) defining a touch surface (a touch surface) on a first side (an upper side) and being mounted to the frame (the extension 76) around a periphery of the panel (the (optical) touch panel) (Figs. 1-3);
at least one touch detector (an X-detector 70 and an Y-detector 64) configured to detect a touch event (an interruption) on the touch surface (the touch surface) (the outputs of the X-detectors are monitored to detect an interruption in any X-emitter beam, the interruption being indicative of the presence of a finger or stylus near the display screen; col. 1, lines 37-41) (Figs. 1-3); and
a display apparatus (a display apparatus including a display panel 12, row electrodes 22, glass plates 14 and 15, a liquid crystal material 13, column electrodes 16 and a light source 40) mounted to the frame (the extension 76) and facing rear surface on a second side (a bottom side) of the panel (the optical touch panel), the display apparatus (the display apparatus) being configured to receive a touch event signal from the at least one touch detector (whenever a stylus is placed near the display screen, the location of the interrupted X-emitter beam and the interrupted Y-emitter beam is transmitted to the display device controller as an input representing the stylus X and Y position coordinates; col. 1 lines 46-50) (Figs. 1-3).
Meadows does not expressly teach comprising at least one surface mounting; wherein the frame comprises a touch panel slot extending along the periphery and being configured to receive the panel and fix the panel with respect to the frame, whereby the frame is load bearing and arranged to support a weight of the panel, the at least one touch detector and the display apparatus, when the at least one surface mounting is attached to a surface.
Chen (Figs. 1-9) teaches
comprising at least one surface mounting (a bezel connection structure 500) (Figs. 2, 5 and 7);
wherein the frame (the frame 100) comprises a touch panel slot (a panel slot) extending along the periphery and being configured to receive the panel (the touch panel 20) and fix the panel (the touch panel 20) with respect to the frame (the frame 100), whereby the frame (the frame 100) is load bearing and arranged to support a weight of the panel (the touch panel 20), the at least one touch detector (the sensor assembly 3) and the display apparatus (the display of the electronic whiteboard), when the at least one surface mounting (the bezel connection structure 500) is attached to a surface (a surface of the frame 200) (Figs. 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a panel slot as taught by Chen in a touch display apparatus of Meadows because the panel slot keeps the touch panel stable without shaking when a user performs touch operations on the touch display apparatus.
As to claim 2, Chen teaches
wherein the frame (the frame 100) and the panel (the touch panel 20) are load bearing and arranged to support the weight of the touch sensing display (the electronic whiteboard) when the at least one surface mounting (the bezel connection structure 500) is attached to the surface (a surface of the frame 200) (Figs. 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a panel slot as taught by Chen in a touch display apparatus of Meadows because the panel slot keeps the touch panel stable without shaking when a user performs touch operations on the touch display apparatus.
As to claim 3, Chen teaches
wherein the panel (the touch panel 20) is fixed to the frame (the frame 100) along a periphery of the panel (the touch panel 20) and on the rear surface on the second side (the rear side) of the panel (the touch panel 20) (Figs. 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a panel slot as taught by Chen in a touch display apparatus of Meadows because the panel slot keeps the touch panel stable without shaking when a user performs touch operations on the touch display apparatus.
As to claim 5, Meadows teaches
wherein the panel (the optical touch panel) comprises a side surface (a side surface) extending between the touch surface (the touch surface) and the rear surface (the rear surface) (Figs. 1-3), and
wherein the touch panel slot (the space under the left mirror 74 and the right mirror 80) extends over the side surface (the side surface) and at least partly over the touch surface (the side surface included in the touch surface) and at least partly over the rear surface (the rear surface of the optical touch panel) (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 7, Meadows teaches
wherein a back plate (a panel housing 78) is mounted to the frame (the extension 76) such that the display apparatus (the display apparatus) is between the panel (the optical touch panel) and the back plate (the panel housing 78) (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 14, Meadows teaches
wherein the at least one touch detector is a plurality of light emitters and detectors (X-emitter 58, Y-emitter 52, Y-detector 64) arranged along a perimeter of the panel (the optical touch panel) and the light emitters (the X-emitter 58, the Y-emitter 52) are arranged to emit a respective beam of emitted light (light 53) above the touch surface (the touch surface), and the light emitters (the Y-detector 64) are arranged to receive detection light from the emitted light (the light 53) (Figs. 1-3).
As to claim 25, Meadows (Figs. 1-3) teaches a touch sensing apparatus (an integrated liquid crystal display and optical touch panel apparatus 10; Fig. 1), comprising:
a frame (an extension 76);
a panel (an optical touch panel; col. 6, line 6 and line 12) defining a touch surface (a touch surface) on a first side (an upper side) and being mounted to the frame (the extension 76) around a periphery of the panel (the (optical) touch panel) (Figs. 1-3);
at least one touch detector (an X-detector 70 and an Y-detector 64) configured to detect a touch event (an interruption) on the touch surface (the touch surface) (the outputs of the X-detectors are monitored to detect an interruption in any X-emitter beam, the interruption being indicative of the presence of a finger or stylus near the display screen; col. 1, lines 37-41) (Figs. 1-3); and
at least one display apparatus (a display apparatus including a display panel 12, row electrodes 22, glass plates 14 and 15, a liquid crystal material 13, column electrodes 16 and a light source 40) mounting fixed to the frame (the extension 76) and facing rear surface on a second side (a bottom side) of the panel (the optical touch panel), the at least one display apparatus (the display apparatus) being configured to receive a touch event signal from the at least one touch detector (whenever a stylus is placed near the display screen, the location of the interrupted X-emitter beam and the interrupted Y-emitter beam is transmitted to the display device controller as an input representing the stylus X and Y position coordinates; col. 1 lines 46-50) (Figs. 1-3).
Meadows does not expressly teach comprising at least one surface mounting; wherein the frame comprises a touch panel slot extending along the periphery of the panel and being configured to receive the panel and fix the panel with respect to the frame, whereby the frame is load bearing and arranged to support a weight of the touch sensing apparatus when the at least one surface mounting is attached to a surface.
Chen (Figs. 1-9) teaches
comprising at least one surface mounting (a bezel connection structure 500) (Figs. 2, 5 and 7);
wherein the frame (the frame 100) comprises a touch panel slot (a panel slot) extending along the periphery of the panel (the touch panel 20) and being configured to receive the panel (the touch panel 20) and fix the panel (the touch panel 20) with respect to the frame (the frame 100), whereby the frame (the frame 100) is load bearing and arranged to support a weight of the touch sensing apparatus (the electronic whiteboard), when the at least one surface mounting (the bezel connection structure 500) is attached to a surface (a surface of the frame 200) (Figs. 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a panel slot as taught by Chen in a touch display apparatus of Meadows because the panel slot keeps the touch panel stable without shaking when a user performs touch operations on the touch display apparatus.
6. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows in view of Chen as applied to claim 7/1, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent. No. US 8,896,558 B2).
As to claim 8, Meadows and Chen teach the touch sensing display according to claim 7.
Meadows and Chen do not expressly teach wherein the back plate is fixed to the frame and both the frame and the back plate are load bearing and arranged to support the weight of the touch sensing display when the at least one surface mounting is attached to the surface.
Lee (Figs. 1-3 and 6) teaches
wherein the back plate (the display face 22) is fixed to the frame (the frame of the display module 20) and both the frame (the frame of the display module 20) and the back plate (the display face 22) are load bearing and arranged to support the weight of the touch sensing display (the portable computer 1) when the at least one surface mounting (the support element 30) is attached to the surface (the support plane 23) (Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a supporting element as taught by Lee in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because the support element keeps the touch display apparatus stable without shaking when a user performs touch operations on the touch display apparatus.
As to claim 20, Meadows and Chen teach the touch sensing display according to claim 1.
Meadows and Chen do not expressly teach wherein the surface is an upright surface (an upright surface of the display module 20) (Fig. 2).
Lee (Figs. 1-3 and 6) teaches
wherein the surface is an upright surface (an upright surface of the display module 20) (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an upright surface as taught by Lee in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because placing the surface in an upright position and at eye level promotes a neutral, comfortable posture by aligning with the natural movement of the eye.
7. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows in view of Chen as applied to claim 7/1, and further in view of Yano (U.S. Pub. No. US 2020/0001645 A1).
As to claim 9, Meadows and Chen teach a touch sensing display according to claim 7.
Meadows and Chen do not expressly teach wherein the frame and/or the back plate is made from carbon fibre and / or aluminum.
Yano (Figs. 1-29) teaches
wherein the frame and/or the back plate (the surface of the writing board 10a) is made from carbon fibre and / or aluminum (an aluminum plate) ([0055], lines1-6) (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used aluminum as taught by Yano in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because aluminum is lightweight, strong, and corrosion-resistant, with a high strength-to-weight ratio.
As to claim 10, Meadows and Chen teach a touch sensing display according to claim 1.
Meadows and Chen do not expressly teach wherein at least one tensioning connecting element is mounted between a first part of the frame and a second part of the frame and arranged to fix the first part of the frame with respect to the second part of the frame.
Yano (Figs. 1-29) teaches
wherein at least one tensioning connecting element (a reinforcement plate 111) is mounted between a first part of the frame (an upper bezel 110b) and a second part of the frame (a lower bezel 110a) and arranged to fix the first part of the frame (the upper bezel 110b) with respect to the second part of the frame (the lower bezel 110a) (Figs. 14 and 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a reinforcement plate as taught by Yano in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because a reinforcement plate is fixed screwed at a lower end and an upper end to the lower bezel and the upper bezel to provide enhanced stability and protect the mounting surface of the touch display apparatus.
As to claim 11, Yano teaches
wherein the first part of the frame (the upper bezel 110b) and the second part of the frame (the lower bezel 110a) are positioned on different sides (upper side and lower side) of the frame (the bezel) (Figs. 14 and 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a reinforcement plate as taught by Yano in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because a reinforcement plate is fixed screwed at a lower end and an upper end to the lower bezel and the upper bezel to provide enhanced stability and protect the mounting surface of the touch display apparatus.
8. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows in view of Chen as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Imamura (U.S. Pub. No. US 2011/0310537 A1).
As to claim 12, Meadows and Chen teach a touch sensing display according to claim 1.
Meadows and Chen do not expressly teach wherein the frame comprises a projecting lip configured to engage one or more internal components and the projecting lip is configured to clamp the one or more internal components against the touch panel.
Imamura (Figs. 1-47) teaches
wherein the frame comprises a projecting lip (an enclosure 22) configured to engage one or more internal components (e.g., an elastic bushing 28) and the projecting lip (the enclosure 22) is configured to clamp (by a support bracket portion 22c) the one or more internal components (the elastic bushing 28) against the touch panel (the touch panel unit 23) (Fig. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an enclosure as taught by Imamura in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because an enclosure provides crucial protection for the touch display apparatus, shielding it from physical damage, environmental elements, and tampering.
As to claim 13, Imamura teaches
wherein one or more internal components (the enclosure 22) are the display apparatus (the display 24) and/or the at least one touch detector (Fig. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an enclosure as taught by Imamura in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because an enclosure provides crucial protection for the touch display apparatus, shielding it from physical damage, environmental elements, and tampering.
9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows in view of Chen as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Katsuta (U.S. Pub. No. US 2022/0100345 A1).
As to claim 15, Meadows and Chen teach a touch sensing display according to claim 14.
Meadows and Chen do not expressly teach wherein the plurality of touch detectors are mounted on a substrate and the substrate is mounted within a slot in the frame.
Katsuta (Figs. 1-2) teaches
wherein the plurality of touch detectors (the plurality of touch detection electrodes TDL) are mounted on a substrate (a substrate 31) and the substrate (the substrate 31) is mounted within a slot in the frame (the frame region 10b) (Figs.1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mounted a plurality of touch detection electrodes as taught by Katsuta on a substrate of a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because the touch detection electrodes are stably disposed on the substrate.
10. Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows in view of Chen as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sakamoto (U.S. Pub. No. US 2017/0094051 A1).
As to claim 16, Meadows and Chen teach a touch sensing display according to claim 1.
Meadows and Chen do not expressly teach wherein the at least one touch detector is a projected capacitive touch assembly.
Sakamoto (Figs. 1-20) teaches
wherein the at least one touch detector is a projected capacitive touch assembly (a projected capacitive touch detector; [0043], lines 3-5) (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a projected capacitive touch detector as taught by Sakamoto in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because a projected capacitive touch detector offers multi-touch capability, high durability and resistance to contaminants, excellent optical clarity and image quality, and a responsive, stable touch experience.
11. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows in view of Chen as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Breugel (NL. Pub. No. 2019782 B1).
As to claim 17, Meadows and Chen teach a touch sensing display according to claim 1.
Meadows and Chen do not expressly teach wherein the at least one surface mounting comprises a mounting bracket fixed to the frame.
Breugel (Figs. 1-2) teaches
wherein the at least one surface mounting (the strength enforced part) comprises a mounting bracket (VESA standard means bracket) fixed to the frame (page 9, lines 20-23) (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used VESA standard as taught by Breugel in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because the VESA standard is universal compatibility, which allows display brackets and mounts from different manufacturers to work seamlessly with any VESA-compliant TV, monitor, or display.
As to claim 18, Breugel teaches
wherein the mounting bracket (VESA standard means bracket) comprises one or more mounting positions for receiving a fastening and / or a hanging cable (it is noted that VESA is a standard for the four-hole screw pattern used on the back of most displays for mounting) (page 9, lines 20-23) (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used VESA standard as taught by Breugel in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because the VESA standard is universal compatibility, which allows display brackets and mounts from different manufacturers to work seamlessly with any VESA-compliant TV, monitor, or display.
As to claim 19, Breugel teaches
wherein the mounting bracket is a VESA mounting adapter (a standard such as VESA) (page 9, lines 20-23) (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used VESA standard as taught by Breugel in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because the VESA standard is universal compatibility, which allows display brackets and mounts from different manufacturers to work seamlessly with any VESA-compliant TV, monitor, or display.
12. Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meadows in view of Chen as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Baker (U.S. Pub. No. US 2021/0168231 A1).
As to claim 21, Meadows and Chen teach a touch sensing display according to claim 1.
Meadows and Chen do not expressly teach wherein the frame comprises at least one interlocking corner comprising a first interlocking corner part and a second interlocking corner part.
Baker (Figs. 1-80) teaches
wherein the frame (the rear cover 132) comprises at least one interlocking corner comprising a first interlocking corner part (a first interlock feature 1271) and a second interlocking corner part (a second interlock feature 1272) (Figs. 12G and 12H).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an interlock feature as taught by Baker in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because an interlock feature prevents unauthorized access or accidental inputs and enhances security against data theft.
As to claim 24, Baker teaches
wherein the first interlocking corner part (the first interlock feature 1271) and the second interlocking corner part (the second interlock feature 1272) comprise at least one hole (lugs 1273 and 1274) for receiving one or more locking fasteners therethrough (Fig. 12H).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an interlock feature as taught by Baker in a touch display apparatus of Meadows as modified by Chen because an interlock feature prevents unauthorized access or accidental inputs and enhances security against data theft.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 26-29 and 31 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 22-23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, Meadows, Chen, Lee, Yano, Imamura, Katsuta, Sakamoto, Breugel, and Baker either singularly or in combination, does not teach a limitation “first and second supports arranged along opposite sides of the frame and on a back portion of the opposite sides to be facing a mounting surface for the touch sensing display, wherein the first and second supports are projecting from the back portion so that a spacing is formed between the frame and the mounting surface when the first and second supports are placed in abutment with the mounting surface, at least one attachment guide configured to interlock with a wall anchor to pull the frame towards the mounting surface, whereby the spacing is reduced and the first and second supports push on the opposite sides so that the frame curve inwards towards the mounting surface” of claim 6, a limitation “wherein the first interlocking corner part and the second interlocking corner parts each comprise at least one first engagement surface in a first plate and at least one second engagement surface in a second plane perpendicular to the first plane” of 22, and a limitation “wherein the first interlocking corner part and the second interlocking corner part each comprise a first overlapping tab and a second overlapping tab and wherein the first overlapping tab is on a front facing side of the frame and the second overlapping tab in positioned on a rear facing side of the frame” of claim 23 in combination with other limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Response to Arguments
14. Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7-21 and 24-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In view of amendment, references of Meadows, Chen, Lee, Yano, Imamura, Katsuta, Sakamoto, Breugel, and Baker, have been used for the new grounds of rejection.
Therefore, the Office maintains the rejections as recited above.
Conclusion
15. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiry
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwang-Su Yang whose telephone number is (571)270-7307. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during 9:00am-6:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen, can be reached on (571)272-7772. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KWANG-SU YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623