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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-12, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faifer (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0077741) in view of Stevens et al (Pat. # 6,351,001).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Faifer teaches:
A detection system, configured to detect an element under test, the detection system comprising:
an illumination module (Fig. 1A Element 110. See paragraphs 0047-0053.) configured to provide an illumination beam (Fig. 1A Element 116. See paragraphs 0053, 0056, 0061, & 0116.) to the element under test (Fig. 1A Element 103. See paragraphs 0046-0048.), the illumination beam comprising a plurality of sub-beams of different wavelengths (Fig. 1A Element 116. See paragraphs 0053, 0056, 0061, & 0116.);
a sensing module configured to sense the element under test to obtain an electrical signal (Fig. 1A Elements 122, 140, & 142. See paragraphs 0054-0058, & 0060.), the sensing module comprising:
a carrier mechanism (Fig. 1A Element 122. See paragraphs 0053, 0056, 0061, & 0116.);
an electrical connection element electrically connected to the sensing layer and the control layer (Fig. 1A Elements 140 & 142 connecting to 108. See paragraphs 0053, 0056, 0061, & 0116.); and
a processing part electrically connected to the illumination module and the sensing module, and configured to generate a sensing result according to the electrical signal (Fig. 1A Element 108. See paragraphs 0045-0046, 0050, 0054, & elsewhere.).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Faifer does not explicitly teach:
a first substrate disposed on the carrier mechanism, the first substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other, the second surface facing the carrier mechanism;
a control layer disposed on the second surface of the first substrate;
a sensing layer disposed on the first surface of the first substrate, the sensing layer having a sensing surface, the sensing surface being a surface closest to the element under test in the sensing module; and
Stevens teaches:
a first substrate disposed on the carrier mechanism (Fig. 2 Element 12. See column 3 lines 15-36.), the first substrate having a first surface (Fig. 2 Element 2. See column 3 lines 15-36.) and a second surface (Fig. 2 Element 1. See column 3 lines 15-36.) opposite to each other (Fig. 2 Elements 1, 2, & 12. See column 3 lines 15-36.), the second surface facing the carrier mechanism;
a control layer disposed on the second surface of the first substrate (Fig. 2 Element 24, the pinning layer. See column 3 lines 44-65.);
a sensing layer disposed on the first surface of the first substrate (Fig. 2 Element 21. See column 4 lines 20-25.), the sensing layer having a sensing surface (Fig. 2 Element 21. See column 4 lines 20-25.), the sensing surface being a surface closest to the element under test in the sensing module (Fig. 2 Element 21. See column 4 lines 20-25 wherein it is always pointed at the light it needs to gather.); and
PNG
media_image2.png
574
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stevens to the teachings of Faifer such that a first substrate would be disposed on the carrier mechanism, the first substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other, the second surface facing the carrier mechanism; a control layer would be disposed on the second surface of the first substrate; a sensing layer would be disposed on the first surface of the first substrate, the sensing layer having a sensing surface, the sensing surface being a surface closest to the element under test in the sensing module because this would be the easiest way to implement a CCD as an optical sensor in the system of Faifer wherein the sensing element 122 would be replace or explicitly listed as being the CCD disclosed in Stevens.
Regarding claim 2, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer teaches during detection, the illumination module provides the illumination beam with different light intensities to the element under test (Fig. 1A Element 110. See abstract & paragraphs 0047-0053, 0073, 0081, & 0089 wherein several intensities are disclosed.), so that the sensing module obtains a plurality of electrical sub-signals correspondingly, and the electrical signal comprises the electrical sub-signals (Fig. 1A Element 122. See abstract & paragraphs 0047-0053, 0073, 0081, & 0089 wherein several intensities are disclosed.).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer teaches during detection, a difference between the light intensities of the illumination beam is greater than 10% (See Fig. 1C wherein the light intensity is plotted and shows differences of greater than 10%.).
PNG
media_image3.png
454
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer teaches the illumination beam is transmitted to the element under test from a side surface of the element under test (Fig. 1A Element 110 wherein it is depicted on the right side of the element under test.).
Regarding claim 10, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer teaches the electrical connection element has at least one bending point (See Fig. 1A Element 122, 140, 142, & 108 wherein they are all connected along a line that depicts bending points.).
Regarding claim 11, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer teaches the electrical connection element is disposed on the first substrate and is connected to the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 1A Elements 122, 140, 142, & 108 wherein they are all connected together.).
Regarding claim 12, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer does not explicitly teach the first substrate has a third surface connected to the first surface and the second surface, the third surface is perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface, and the electrical connection element is further connected to the third surface
Stevens teaches the first substrate has a third surface connected to the first surface and the second surface, the third surface is perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface, and the electrical connection element is further connected to the third surface (See Fig.2 wherein all surfaces are connected to one another in the layered structure depicted.).
PNG
media_image4.png
511
733
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stevens to the teachings of Faifer such that the first substrate has a third surface connected to the first surface and the second surface, the third surface is perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface, and the electrical connection element is further connected to the third surface because in these types of systems all elements are connected in one way or another.
Regarding claim 17, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer does not explicitly teach the carrier mechanism, the control layer, the first substrate, the electrical connection element, and the sensing layer are sequentially stacked along a first direction, and the sensing surface is a surface of the sensing module that is closest to the element under test in the first direction.
Stevens teaches the carrier mechanism, the control layer, the first substrate, the electrical connection element, and the sensing layer are sequentially stacked along a first direction, and the sensing surface is a surface of the sensing module that is closest to the element under test in the first direction (Fig. 2 Elements 12, 24, & 21. See column 3 lines 15-36 & column 4 lines 20-25.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Stevens to the teachings of Faifer such that a first substrate would be disposed on the carrier mechanism, the first substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other, the second surface facing the carrier mechanism; a control layer would be disposed on the second surface of the first substrate; a sensing layer would be disposed on the first surface of the first substrate, the sensing layer having a sensing surface, the sensing surface being a surface closest to the element under test in the sensing module because this would be the easiest way to implement a CCD as an optical sensor in the system of Faifer wherein the sensing element 122 would be replace or explicitly listed as being the CCD disclosed in Stevens.
Claims 4 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faifer (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0077741) in view of Stevens et al (Pat. # 6,351,001).
Regarding claim 4, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer does not explicitly teach wavelengths of the sub-beams are in a range of 360 nm to 450 nm, 500 nm to 600 nm, 600 nm to 650 nm, or 1000 nm to 1600 nm.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have wavelengths of the sub-beams be in a range of 360 nm to 450 nm, 500 nm to 600 nm, 600 nm to 650 nm, or 1000 nm to 1600 nm because this allows for a broad band of light to be used and because this allows one to tailor the system to a particular need during the testing of particular objects or elements and because this is simply optimization done through routine experimentation See MPEP Section 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 8, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer & Stevens may not explicitly teach a thickness of the sensing layer is greater than or equal to 10 pm.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have a thickness of the sensing layer be greater than or equal to 10 pm because this is simply optimization done through routine experimentation See MPEP Section 2144.05 II A.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faifer (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0077741) in view of Stevens et al (Pat. # 6,351,001) & Andrews et al (U.S. PGPub # 2022/0276106).
Regarding claim 5, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer & Stevens do not explicitly teach the element under test is located between the illumination module and the sensing module, and the illumination beam is transmitted to the element under test from a side of the element under test that is away from the sensing module.
Andrews teaches the element under test is located between the illumination module and the sensing module (Fig. 3A Elements 112, 42A, & 150. See paragraphs 0201, 0203, 0206-0208, 0209-0210, & 0211.), and the illumination beam is transmitted to the element under test from a side of the element under test that is away from the sensing module (Fig. 3A Elements 112, 42A, & 150. See paragraphs 0201, 0203, 0206-0208, 0209-0210, & 0211.).
PNG
media_image5.png
430
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Andrews to the teachings of Faifer & Stevens such that the element under test is located between the illumination module and the sensing module, and the illumination beam is transmitted to the element under test from a side of the element under test that is away from the sensing module because this is both a simple rearrangement of parts and a simple optimization through routine experimentation to maximize performance of the system. See MPEP Sections 2144.04 VI C & 2144.05 II A, respectively.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faifer (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0077741) in view of Stevens et al (Pat. # 6,351,001) & Hsu et al (U.S. PGPub # 2011/0089010).
Regarding claim 9, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer & Stevens do not explicitly teach the sensing layer comprises a sensing pattern and a light-transmitting layer, the sensing pattern is electrically connected to the electrical connection element, the light-transmitting layer covers the sensing pattern, and the sensing surface is located on a surface of the light-transmitting layer.
Hsu teaches the sensing layer comprises a sensing pattern (Fig. 6a & 6B Elements 54. See paragraph 0024.) and a light-transmitting layer (Fig. 6a & 6B Elements 56. See paragraph 0024.), the sensing pattern is electrically connected to the electrical connection element (Fig. 6a & 6B Elements 54, 56, and 58 wherein all of the elements are connected. See paragraph 0024.), the light-transmitting layer covers the sensing pattern (Fig. 6a & 6B Elements 54 & 56 wherein 56 covers 54. See paragraph 0024.), and the sensing surface is located on a surface of the light-transmitting layer (Fig. 6a & 6B Elements 54 & 56 wherein the surfaces obviously touch when stacked. See paragraph 0024.).
PNG
media_image6.png
686
454
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Hsu to the teachings of Faifer & Stevens such that the sensing layer comprises a sensing pattern and a light-transmitting layer, the sensing pattern is electrically connected to the electrical connection element, the light-transmitting layer covers the sensing pattern, and the sensing surface is located on a surface of the light-transmitting layer because this allows for one to build an effective touch screen and an effective means of producing visual effects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 & 13-16 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 listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 7, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer does not explicitly teach the illumination module is disposed on the sensing module, the illumination module comprises a light-emitting element and a light-guiding element, the light-emitting element provides the illumination beam, and the light-guiding element is disposed on a transmission path of the illumination beam and guides the illumination beam to be transmitted to the element under test from a side of the element under test that is close to the sensing module.
Regarding claim 13, Faifer & Stevens teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Faifer does not explicitly teach the sensing module further comprises a second substrate and a conductive structure, the second substrate is disposed between the first substrate and the control layer, the conductive structure is connected to the first substrate, the electrical connection element is connected to the second substrate, and the conductive structure is connected between the sensing layer and the electrical connection element.
Regarding claim 14,
The detection system according to claim 13, wherein the first substrate comprises a first portion and a second portion connected to each other, a thickness of the first portion is greater than a thickness of the second portion, the sensing layer is connected to the first portion, the conductive structure is connected to the first surface and is continuously connected to the first portion and the second portion, and the electrical connection element is connected to the conductive structure located on the second portion.
Regarding claim 15,
The detection system according to claim 14, wherein a width of the second portion is greater than 20 pm, and a vertical distance between the first surface located on the second portion and the sensing surface is greater than 50 pm.
Regarding claim 16,
The detection system according to claim 13, wherein the first substrate has a plurality of through-holes, and the conductive structure is connected to the second surface and is also located in the through-holes to connect the sensing layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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 P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights