DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 11-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbarayan et al. (US 9,811,188) in view of Nakayama (US 2020/0249782) and further in view of Xiao (US 2020/0167025) and further in view of Cybart et al. (US 2007/0285913) and further in view of Zehner (US 9,087,488).
Regarding claim 1:
Subbarayan discloses some but not every element of the claim as follows:
Claim 1
Subbarayan
1. (Currently Amended) A display device, comprising:
Column 1, lines 45-60: "electronic displays"
a base layer;
Fig. 2: cover glass 216
a touch sensing layer disposed on the base layer, wherein the touch sensing layer comprises a first sensing electrode, a first insulating layer, a second sensing electrode, and a second insulating layer;
Fig. 2: touch layer 216 -- but Subbarayan does not disclose that it "comprises a first sensing electrode, a first insulating layer, a second sensing electrode, and a second insulating layer;"
a cover plate structure disposed on the touch sensing layer, wherein the cover plate structure comprises a hard coating layer and a circuit shielding layer, and wherein the touch sensing layer and the hard coating layer are respectively directly disposed on two opposite sides of the base layer;
Subbarayan discloses a circuit shielding layer in, e.g., column 10, lines 35-50: "black mask 220."
a display panel, wherein the touch sensing layer is located between the cover plate structure and the display panel, the cover plate structure and the touch sensing layer have no adhesive material therebetween, and wherein the circuit shielding layer is located on a surface of the base layer facing the touch sensing layer and the display panel;
Fig. 2: the touch layer is between the cover glass and the display panel 212, as per column 10, lines 15-35: "deposited or patterned onto the bottom surface of the coverplate," where the circuit shielding layer 220 is so positioned shown in Fig. 2.
a light quide plate located between the display panel and the touch sensing layer, wherein a material of the light guide plate comprises thermoplastic polvurethanes (TPU): and
Fig. 2: lightguide 224. Subbarayan discloses in column 18, lines 30-50 that it might be made from "a transparent thermoplastic polymer," but does not explicitly state it could be TPU.
a water vapor barrier layer located between the light guide plate and the display panel.
Not disclosed by Subbarayan (note that Subbarayan does have a protective sheet 260 here, but does not explicitly state that it is a water vapor barrier layer).
Therefore Subbarayan does not disclose:
(A) "wherein the touch sensing layer comprises a first sensing electrode, a first insulating layer, a second sensing electrode, and a second insulating layer; "
(B) "a cover plate structure…wherein the cover plate structure comprises a hard coating layer…wherein the touch sensing layer and the hard coating layer are respectively directly disposed on two opposite sides of the base layer."
(C) "wherein a material of the light guide plate comprises thermoplastic polvurethanes (TPU)"
(D) "a water vapor barrier layer located between the light guide plate and the display panel."
Regarding (A):
Nakamaya discloses
wherein the touch sensing layer comprises a first sensing electrode (Fig. 4: electrodes 12), a first insulating layer (Fig. 4: insulating layer 13), a second sensing electrode (Fig. 4: electrodes 14), and a second insulating layer (Fig. 4: insulating layer 15);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Subbarayan the elements taught by Nakamaya.
The rationale is as follows:
Subbarayan has a touch layer but not a lot of details about it. Nakamaya shows how one could be implemented, and furthermore teaches it in combination with a circuit shielding layer (Fig. 4: 41; paragraph 47) to hide the peripheral region. This is the exact set of circumstances of Subbarayan's touch layer. This is a known improvement and a way to implement the touch control layer that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding (B):
Xiao discloses:
a cover plate structure disposed on the touch sensing layer (paragraph 45: hardened layer 220), wherein the cover plate structure comprises a hard coating layer paragraph 48), and
wherein the touch sensing layer and the hard coating layer are respectively directly disposed on two opposite sides of the base layer (paragraph 45); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Subbarayan, etc., the elements taught by Xiao.
The rationale is as follows:
This is a slightly different cover structure that is used in the same environment, for the same purpose, and achieves the same result. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included it with predictable results.
Regarding (C):
Arguably this already follows from Subbarayan's disclosure that it is a "transparent thermoplastic polymer," but Subbarayan does not explicitly name thermoplastic polvurethane as such a polymer.
Cybart discloses:
wherein a material of the light guide plate comprises thermoplastic polvurethanes (TPU) (paragraph 21).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed could have included in Subbarayan, etc., the elements taught by Cybart.
The rationale is as follows:
Subbarayan, etc., and Cybart are directed to the same field of art.
Cybart discloses that TPU is one of many materials useable in a light guide, and is equivalent to acrylic, which Subbarayan cites as a specific example (column 10, lines 50+ -- PMMA is acrylic). These are used in the same environment, for the same purpose, and achieve the same result. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted TPU with predictable results.
Regarding (D):
Zehner discloses:
a water vapor barrier layer (Fig. 7: barrier layer 308) located between the light guide plate and the display panel (column 9, lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in Subbarayan, etc., the elements taught by Zehner.
The rationale is as follows:
Subbarayan, etc., and Zehner are directed to the same field of art.
Zehner discloses this prevents the ingress of moisture and contaminants (column 11, lines 50+). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses:
wherein the touch sensing layer is located between the base layer and the water vapor barrier layer (Zehner taught the water vapor barrier layer on top of the display and under the lightguide, so this is where the protective sheet 260 is in Subbarayan Fig. 2. The base layer is where the cover glass 216 is), and the water vapor barrier layer is located between the touch sensing layer and the display panel (again, follows from the same combination).
Regarding claim 6:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses:
Wherein the first sensing electrode is located between the base layer and the first insulating layer (as seen in Nakamaya Fig. 4) and
the second sensing electrode is located between the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer (as seen in Nakamaya Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 7:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses:
wherein the touch sensing layer further comprises a third insulating layer located between the base layer and the first sensing electrode (Nakamaya Fig. 4: 42; paragraph 47: "organic insulating layer").
Regarding claim 8:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses:
wherein the third insulating layer contacts the base layer (as seen in Nakamaya Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses:
wherein the base layer and the cover plate structure have no adhesive material therebetween (the layers are as per Xiao paragraph 45 -- there is no adhesive layer here).
Regarding claim 11:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 12:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses:
wherein the display panel comprises a substrate (Subbarayan Fig. 2: substrate 244), an electronic ink layer (Subbarayan Fig. 2: 250), a lower electrode (Subbaryan Fig. 2: 254), and an upper electrode (Subbarayan Fig. 2: 258), the electronic ink layer is located between the lower electrode and the upper electrode (as seen in Subbarayan Fig. 2), the upper electrode is located between the water vapor barrier layer and the electronic ink layer (as taught by Zehner, this is basically in the same position as protective sheet 260 in Subbarayan Fig. 2, so this follows).
Regarding claim 13:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses:
wherein the display panel directly contacts the water vapor barrier layer (follows from Zehner).
Regarding claim 14:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses:
wherein the light guide plate is located between the water vapor barrier layer and the integrated module (follows from Subbarayn Fig. 2 – the integrated module is the touch layer and cover – and Zehner, which teaches the water vapor barrier layer in the same position as Subbarayan’s rotective sheet 260).
Regarding claim 20:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbarayan in view of Nakayama, Xiao, Cybart, and Zehner, and further in view of Wu (US 2014/0320458).
Regarding claim 15:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses a display device as discussed above.
Subbarayan, etc., does not disclose:
“wherein the light guide plate comprises a dot structure located on a surface of the light guide plate facing the display panel.”
(Note that Subbarayan actually does describe a “grating structure,” which might reasonably be considered a dot structure, but Subbarayan doesn’t say which surface it is on).
Wu discloses:
wherein the light guide plate comprises a dot structure located on a surface of the light guide plate facing the display panel (Fig. 1: dots 156; paragraph 26, where the display panel is 14, and the dots “are formed as protrusions on the second surface 1624,” which faces the display panel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Subbarayan, etc., the elements taught by Wu.
The rationale is as follows:
Subbarayan, etc., are all directed to the same field of art.
Subbarayan actually discloses that the lightguide might have grating elements or a diffusing structure on it, but does not show it in detail. Wu shows an example of such a structure in detail. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Regarding claim 16:
Subbarayan, etc., discloses:
an adhesive layer located between the water vapor barrier layer and the light guide plate, wherein the dot structure of the light guide plate and the water vapor barrier layer are bonded through the adhesive layer (this follows from the combination. Subbarayan Fig. 2 shows the light guide is directly above the display with an adhesive between it and the display, Zehner shows the water vapor barrier layer above the display, and Wu discloses that the dots protrude on the display side and that the lightguide and display are attached by adhesive in paragraph 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new elements of the claim are not disclosed by the prior art. The Examiner agrees that at least part of these new limitations were not explicitly disclosed by the prior art of record (note that Tan does disclose using thermoplastic polyeurethane, but not specifically for the light guide layer).
To better show the layer order, etc., of the claims, Subbarayan has now been relied upon as a base reference (although it should be noted Subbarayan is not much different than Tan, which was relied upon before). Subbarayan discloses roughly the same overall structure as the claim, albeit with some small details being different here and there. The rest of the prior art has been relied upon to show that these differences were known in the art at the time the application was filed. The only new art cited besides Subbarayan is Cybart to show that TPU is a known lightguide material.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to various layer not being shown in proximity to one another, etc., are answered by the new art and structure of the rejection.
Note that there are a number of references combined in the rejection at this point. However, each is relied upon for some separate element: the structure of the touch layer; the water vapor barrier layer, etc. Each of these things have little to no impact on one another and so there doesn’t seem to be any unexpected result from combining these references. This is just swapping out one known structure or material for another, which is quite reasonably within the level of ordinary skill.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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 CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622