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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1, B3 and C2 in the reply filed on 08/19/2026 is acknowledged.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “bendable touch control layer” and “a touch control layer”. This creates an issue of antecedent basis as one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain if the two touch control layers are the same or different, which renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is assumed the bendable control layer can be the same or different touch control layer.
Claims 2-8 are rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1.
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.
Claim 1, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0043528 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 2020/0033967 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a protection film structure (Fig. 19; Abstract) comprising a substrate comprising a polymer substrate comprising a first and a second face, where the first face faces a display (Paragraph 0166; Fig. 5, 19, Item SUB2), and a composite hardening layer arranged on the second face facing a user, where the composite hardening layer comprises a first hardening layer arranged at an outer surface of the composite hardening layer (Fig. 5, 18, Item TINS2’) and a second hardening layer (TINS1’). Kim teaches a touch control layer arranged between the first hardening layer and second hardening layer and comprising a plurality of touch electrodes, each of the touch electrode comprising a plurality of electrode islands. (Fig. 5, 19, Items TE, TEI)
Kim does not specifically teach the substrate is transparent; however, Kim does teach the entire touch sensor system should be transparent and should not block light, as to allow visibility of the underlying display. (Paragraph 0178). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the substrate of Kim also is transparent, as blocking light and being non-transparent would block the underlying display.
Kim does not specifically teach the touch control layer is a bendable touch control layer.
Yang teaches a protective film structure (Fig. 2), where the touch layer and the attached display screen are bendable and the touch layer has electrode islands. (Paragraph 0043-0044, 0075; Abstract). Yang teaches this bendability provides the advantage of allowing the display and corresponding device to be changed into permanently folded, curved, bent or flat state, depending on the use of the device. (Paragraph 0043-0044). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the bendable touch layer of Kim be bendable in order to allow the device of Kim to be adjusted in various desirable positions and shapes.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches a plurality of bridging conductors, wherein the electrode islands corresponding to one touch electrode are electrically connected by the bridging conductors to form the touch electrode. (Item BE2, BE1; Paragraph 0074-0075, 0175-0177)
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches the first hardening layer can be silicon nitride. (Paragraph 0112)
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Yang, in further view of Li et al. (US 2016/0349901 A1)
Regarding Claims 2-4, Kim and Yang do not teach the area of the electrode islands.
Li teaches a touch screen display comprising electrode islands for sensing (Fig. 1; Abstract). Li teaches the electrode islands should have an area of greater than 2.56 mm2. (Paragraph 0018). This overlaps the claimed range. Li teaches a touching portion of a finger is approximately 5 mm in diameter and when a finger is dragged across the touch sensor where the area of the electrode islands are greater than 2.56 mm2, a sufficient change in capacitance can be detected and allows the touch panel to operate. Having an electrode island smaller than the range taught by Li will prevent proper detection of touches. (Paragraph 0018). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the electron islands of Kim to the claimed range to ensure proper detection of finger touching as taught by Li.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Yang and Li, view of Watanabe et al. (US 2016/0179259 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim, Yang and Li do not specifically teach the distance of at least 60% of adjacent electrode island when view from a projection direction is not less than 3 micrometers.
Watanabe teaches a touch panel (Abstract), where the gaps between adjacent electrodes can range from 5 to 500 microns, which overlaps the claimed range. (Paragraph 0113). Watanabe teaches this gap size range ensures the proper capacitance between the two electrodes and allows for increased detection sensitivity. (Paragraph 0113). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed distance between adjacent electrode islands in Kim as taught by Watanabe.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Yang, in further view of Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim, Yang and Li do not teach structure of the bridging conductors.
Watanabe teaches electrodes, including the bridging conductors, and can be made of a network of conductive metal nanowires having a diameter of less than 100 nm. (Paragraph 0135, Fig. 3 and 7A). Watanabe teaches forming electrode using the network of conductive nanowires leads to highly light transmitting, which improves transparency of the touch panel. (Paragraph 0135). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use claim nanowires construction for the bridging conductors in Kim to ensure high light transmittance through the touch panel.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights