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 .
Claims 9, 14, and 15 have been amended as per the amendment filed on 4/13/2026.
Currently Claims 1-18 are pending and prosecuted.
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 1, 2, 5-8, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori, WO 2019/244594 A1, (For English Language Translation and examination, the examiner will rely on US Patent Publication 2021/0096033).
Regarding Claim 1, Mori discloses an electronic device (Abstract; Figure 1(A); [0027]; an electronic device) comprising:
an operation panel having a first upper main surface and a first lower main surface that are arranged in a vertical direction such that a part of a body of a user or an operation member is capable of contacting the first upper main surface (Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0030]; a surface panel 103 having a “first upper main surface” and a “first lower main surface” arranged in a vertical direction, where a user can presses/contact the first upper main surface),
a sensor (Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0030]; a press sensor 111);
However, Mori does not explicitly disclose a sensor fixed to the first lower main surface and constructed to detect deformation of the operation panel; and
an adhesive member fixing the sensor to the first lower main surface,
wherein the adhesive member has a Young's modulus of 0.9 MPa to 10 MPa.
Mori does disclose that the press sensor 111 can be positioned to be on the bottom surface of the display unit 104 ([0029];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Mori to further utilize Mori’s teachings such that the press sensor 111 is adhered to the bottom surface of the display unit 104 in order to provide a sensor fixed to the first lower main surface. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because Mori teaches that the position of the press sensor 111 is not limited to the side wall and can be positioned on a surface of the display unit 104 on a side opposite to the surface panel 103 ([0029];).
Therefore, Mori teaches a sensor fixed to the first lower main surface and constructed to detect deformation of the operation panel (Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0032]; [0041]; a press sensor 111 disposed on the lower surface of the display unit 104, thus it is fixed to the “first lower main surface”, where the press sensor 111 detects a deformation when a user applies a load to the surface panel 103); and
an adhesive member fixing the sensor to the first lower main surface (Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0034]; the press sensor 111 comprises of an adhesive material 22),
wherein the adhesive member has a Young's modulus of 0.9 MPa to 10 MPa ([0048]; In a case where the elastic modulus of the adhesive material 22 satisfies EA > 5×105 Pa (500000 Pa is .5MPa, where EA can be greater than .5PA thus being between .9MPa to 10 MPa), the adhesive material 22 is hard. Therefore, the tensile stress generated on the reinforcing plate 21 side of the adhesive material 22 due to the stress relaxation is transmitted inside the adhesive material 22, and a tensile stress is generated on the sensor substrate 24 side of the adhesive material 22. The tensile stress generated on the sensor substrate 24 side of the adhesive material 22 is further transmitted inside the sensor substrate 24, and a tensile stress is generated on the sensor substrate 24 side of the piezoelectric film 10.)
Regarding Claim 2, Mori teaches further comprising a display panel that has a second upper main surface and a second lower main surface that are arranged in the vertical direction, and is fixed to the first lower main surface of the operation panel (Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0030]; a display unit 104 that has a “second upper main surface” and a “second lower main surface” that is arranged in the vertical direction, and is fixed to the “first lower main surface” of the surface panel 103, with the press sensor 111 fixed the “second lower main surface”).
Regarding Claim 5, Mori teaches further comprising:
a buffer member that has a third upper main surface and a third lower main surface that are arranged in the vertical direction, and is fixed to the first lower main surface of the operation panel (Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0035]; a laminating material 105 that has a “third upper main surface” and a “third lower main surface” that is arranged in the vertical direction, and is attached to the “first lower main surface” of the surface panel 103); and
a plate-shaped member that has a fourth upper main surface and a fourth lower main surface that are arranged in the vertical direction, and is fixed to the first lower main surface of the operation panel (Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0035]; a reinforcing plate 21 that has a “fourth upper main surface” and a “fourth lower main surface” that is arranged in the vertical direction, and is attached to the “first lower main surface” of the surface panel 103).
Regarding Claim 6, Mori teaches wherein the operation panel has a rectangular shape having two long sides extending in a front-rear direction and two short sides extending in a right-left direction as viewed in the vertical direction (Figure 1A and 1B; [0027-0029]; as seen in Figure 1A, the operational panel 103 has a rectangular shape with two long sizes extending in a “front-rear direction” and two short sides extending in a “right-left” direction as viewed in the vertical direction).
Regarding Claim 7, Mori doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is located at a center of the operation panel in the front-rear direction as viewed in the vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of have the press sensor 111 be located in the center of the surface panel 103, since it has been held the rearranging parts of an invention involve sonly routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 8, Mori teaches wherein the sensor includes a piezoelectric film having a fifth upper main surface and a fifth lower main surface that are arranged in the vertical direction (Figure 2; a piezoelectric film 10 have a “fifth upper main surface” and a “fifth lower main surface” that is arranged in the vertical direction).
Regarding Claim 10, Mori teaches wherein the sensor includes a substrate having an upper main surface and a lower main surface that are arranged in the vertical direction (Figure 1A, 1B, and 2; [0029-0039]; a sensor substrate 24 has a “upper main surface” and a “lower main surface” that is arranged in a vertical direction), and an adhesive layer fixing the piezoelectric film to the substrate (Figure 1A, 1B, and 2; [0029-0039]; an adhesive layer 25 adhered the piezoelectric film 10 to the sensor substrate 24), and
the adhesive member, the substrate, the adhesive layer, and the piezoelectric film are arranged in this order on a straight line parallel to the vertical direction (Figure 1A, 1B, and 2; [0029-0039]; the adhesive 22, the sensor substrate 24, the adhesion layer 25, and the piezoelectric film 10 are arranged in this order on a straight line parallel to the vertical direction).
Regarding Claim 16, Mori teaches wherein the sensor has a longitudinal direction extending in a right-left direction (Mori: Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0034]; the press sensor 111 has a “a longitudinal direction extending in a right-left direction).
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori, WO 2019/244594 A1, (For English Language Translation and examination, the examiner will rely on US Patent Publication 2021/0096033), in view of Kawamura et al., US Patent Publication 2016/0305832
Regarding Claim 3, Mori doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the adhesive member in the vertical direction is 40 μm to 100 μm.
However, Kawamura et al., US Patent Publication 2016/0305832, teaches a piezoelectric sensor that comprises of an adhesive layer 22 that is set to 40 μm (Abstract; [0035];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Mori to further include the teachings of Kawamura in order to provide wherein a thickness of the adhesive member in the vertical direction is 40 μm to 100 μm. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because Kawamura teaches an example thickness of a adhesive layer (Kawamura: [0035];)
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Mori and Kawamura teaches further comprising a display panel that has a second upper main surface and a second lower main surface that are arranged in the vertical direction, and is fixed to the first lower main surface of the operation panel (Mori: Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0030]; a display unit 104 that has a “second upper main surface” and a “second lower main surface” that is arranged in the vertical direction, and is fixed to the “first lower main surface” of the surface panel 103, with the press sensor 111 fixed the “second lower main surface”).
Regarding Claim 11, Mori doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the adhesive layer in the vertical direction is 10 μm to 100 μm.
However, Kawamura et al., US Patent Publication 2016/0305832, teaches a piezoelectric sensor that comprises of an adhesive layer 22 that is set to 40 μm (Abstract; [0035];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Mori to further include the teachings of Kawamura in order to provide wherein a thickness of the adhesive layer in the vertical direction is 10 μm to 100 μm. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because Kawamura teaches an example thickness of a adhesive layer (Kawamura: [0035];)
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Mori and Kawamura doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the adhesive member in the vertical direction is 40 μm to 100 μm.
However, Kawamura et al., US Patent Publication 2016/0305832, teaches a piezoelectric sensor that comprises of an adhesive layer 22 that is set to 40 μm (Abstract; [0035];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Mori to further include the teachings of Kawamura in order to provide wherein a thickness of the adhesive member in the vertical direction is 40 μm to 100 μm. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because Kawamura teaches an example thickness of a adhesive layer (Kawamura: [0035];)
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Mori and Kawamura teaches wherein a thickness of the adhesive layer in the vertical direction is 10 μm to 100 μm (Mori: Figure 1A, 1B, and 2; [0029-0039]; Kawamura: Abstract; [0035]; the adhesive layer 25 is 40 μm in thickness ).
Regarding Claim 15, The combination of Mori and Kawamura teaches wherein a thickness of the adhesive member in the vertical direction is 40 μm to 100 μm (Mori: Figure 1A, 1B, 2; [0029-0034]; Kawamura: Abstract; [0035]; the adhesive material 22 is 40 μm in thickness).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori, WO 2019/244594 A1, (For English Language Translation and examination, the examiner will rely on US Patent Publication 2021/0096033), in view of Miller et al., US Patent Publication 2015/034689.
Regarding Claim 13, Mori doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the adhesive layer has a Young's modulus of 0.9 MPa to 10 MPa.
However, Miller et al., US Patent Publication 2015/0346891, teaches wherein an adhesive can have a Young’s modulus of greater than 1 MPa so that the energy associated with the touching force is not absorbed by the adhesive (Abstract;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Mori to further include the teaching of Miller in order to provide wherein the adhesive layer has a Young's modulus of 0.9 MPa to 10 MPa. The motivation to combine these arts is because having a Young's modulus of greater than 1 MPa allows the energy associated with the touching force to not be absorbed by the adhesive (Miller: Abstract).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori, WO 2019/244594 A1, (For English Language Translation and examination, the examiner will rely on US Patent Publication 2021/0096033), in view of Ueno, US Patent Publication 2012/0206390.
Regarding Claim 17, Mori doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the sensor includes a strain sensor.
However, Ueno, US Patent Publication 2012/0206390, teaches wherein a press detection unit that detects a press on the touch face of a touch sensor is configured using a piezoelectric element of a strain gauge sensor ([0038];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Mori to further include the teachings of Ueno in order to provide wherein the sensor includes a strain sensor. The motivation to combine these arts is because Ueno teaches using a piezoelectric element of a strain gauge sensor in a press detection unit (Ueno: [0038];).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori, WO 2019/244594 A1, (For English Language Translation and examination, the examiner will rely on US Patent Publication 2021/0096033), in further view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art, henceforth known as AAPA.
Regarding Claim 18, Mori teaches wherein a material of the operation panel is glass.
However, AAPA discloses that it was well known in the art that a flat surface panel of an electronic device can be made of glass.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Mori to further include the teachings of AAPA in order to provide wherein a material of the operation panel is glass. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because it was well known in the art that a flat surface panel in an electronic device can be made of glass.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner disagrees with the applicants remarks towards Mori in the rejection of Claim 1. Mori explicitly recites that the elastic modulus of the adhesive material 22 satisfies EA > 5×105 Pa ([0048]), and therefore meets the limitation of it being between .9MPa to 10 MPa because 500000 Pa is .5MPa and Mori states that the elastic modules can be greater than .5MPA.
The applicants remarks discussing paragraph [0052] of Mori have been considered but are unpersuasive because they do not teach away nor state, as the applicant argues, that it is not desired to have the elastic modulus of the adhesive material 22 satisfy EA > 5×105 Pa.
As such, the examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 1.
The rejections of Claims 2-8, and 10-18, which are dependent from Claim 1, are also maintained for the same rationale.
The examiner notes that since the official notice taken by the examiner for claim 18 has not been traversed adequately, it is now considered to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 (C), “If applicant does not traverse the examiner's assertion of official notice or applicant's traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner's assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK F MARINELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571)-272-7495. 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.
/PATRICK F MARINELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights