18DETAILED 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 § 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 21 and 22 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.
Claims 21 and 22 recite the limitation “the wiring layers”. It is unclear of these are new wiring layers or are the same as the “plurality of wiring layers” recited in claim 16.
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(s) 16-18 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2023/0060493) in view of Cho et al. (US 2023/0074833).
In regard to claim 16, Wu et al. teach a digitizer comprising: a folding portion comprising a central part extending in a first direction (fig. 1 element 102a), and a peripheral part on both sides of the central part in a second direction different from the first direction (see slits in x direction above and below the bending axis); a first loop group containing a plurality of loops having a long side in the first direction (elements 176b); a second loop group containing a plurality of loops having a long side in the second direction (elements 176a); and a plurality of wiring layers on the base layer (element Ls on MB in fig. 2), wherein among the plurality of loops contained in the first loop group, each of a plurality of loops which at least partially overlap the folding portion comprises a long-side line extending in the first direction and a short-side line extending in the second direction (fig. 7, CL2 is loops with a long side in the Y direction and short side in the x direction), among the plurality of loops contained in the second loop group, each of a plurality of loops which at least partially overlap the folding portion comprises a long-side line extending in the second direction (fig. 7 CL1), the long-side line and the short-side line comprised in the first loop group, and the long-side line in the second loop group are in the plurality of wiring layers (fig. 8 and 9), and the long-side line comprised in the first loop group is in a lowermost layer among the plurality of wiring layers (fig. 9, CL1 and CL2 are in different layers. Uppermost and lowermost is a matter of perspective) but does not teach at least one base layer containing a reinforcing fiber.
Cho et al. teach at least one base layer containing a reinforcing fiber (paragraph 154).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of flexible displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Wu et al. with the reinforcing fiber of Cho et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Wu et al. with the reinforcing fiber of Cho et al. because the fiber material would provide support while remaining light and flexible.
In regard to claim 17, Wu et al. teach wherein the long-side line comprised in the first loop group is in the peripheral part (see fig. 7, the first and second loop groups cover both peripheral regions).
In regard to claim 18, Wu et al. teach wherein the long-side line comprised in the first loop group crosses the peripheral part in the second direction and then extends in the first direction (fig. 7, CL2 loops first in the y (first) direction then turns to the x direction).
In regard to claim 24, Wu et al and Cho et al. teach all the elements of claim 24 (see claim 16 rejection above) including a display device, a display panel and a digitizer on the display panel (fig. 2 DM and paragraph 34).
Claim(s) 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Cho et al. further considered with Kishimoto et al. (US 2022/0291716).
In regard to claim 20, Wu et al. and Cho et al. teach all the elements of claim 20 except wherein no line is at a central part of the lowermost layer.
Kishimoto et al. teach wherein no line is at a central part of the lowermost layer (fig. 6 and paragraph 133).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of flexible displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Wu et al. and Cho et al. with the conductive pattern of Kishimoto et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Wu et al. and Cho et al. with the electrode pattern of Kishimoto et al. because omitting the conductive patterns in the bottom layer, as shown in Kishimoto et al., would reduce the stress on the conductive patterns in the bottom layer (see paragraph 133).
In regard to claim 23, Wu et al. and Cho et al. teach all the elements of claim 23 except wherein the lowermost layer is a layer adjacent to a surface facing outward when the folding portion is folded among the plurality of wiring layers (Wu et al. teach elements 176a, which span perpendicular to the bending axis, on the outermost layer).
Kishimoto et al. teach wherein the lowermost layer is a layer adjacent to a surface facing outward when the folding portion is folded among the plurality of wiring layers (see fig. 6. Kishimoto et al. teach the conductors which are parallel to the bending axis on the outermost layer).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of flexible displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Wu et al. and Cho et al. with the layer arrangement of Kishimoto et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Wu et al. and Cho et al. with the layer arrangement of Kishimoto et al. because the opposite arrangement of the conductive layers, as shown in Kishimito et al., would work equally as well as the layer arrangement of Wu et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that either layer arrangement would work predictably and can be chosen based on design specifications such as cost, manufacturing, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed.
Claim 19 is 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.
In regard to claims 1-15, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious “a plurality of lines crossing the folding portion along the first row or the second row, and the plurality of lines are arranged in equal numbers in the first row and the second row” in combination with the claim’s other features.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious “wherein the short-side line comprised in the first loop group and the long-side line comprised in the second loop group are in a layer higher than the lowermost layer” in combination with the claim’s other features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights