DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 45 and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US 2013/0300678).
Regarding claim 45, Kang discloses a touch substrate, comprising:
a base (10, fig. 1), comprising a bending area (see area including Folding axis and C in fig. 1, also see para. 51) and a non-bending area (UR and LR in fig. 1) located beyond the bending area (see fig. 1);
wherein the bending area extends in a first direction (horizontal); and
a plurality of touch signal lines (230 in fig. 1) on a side of the base (see fig. 1);
wherein at least some of the touch signal lines extend to the bending area (see 230 in fig. 4D, wherein fig. 4D corresponds to C in fig. 1);
each of the plurality of touch signal lines comprises:
a first touch signal sub-line (230b4 in fig. 4D) and a second touch signal sub-line (230b in fig. 4D) on a side of the first touch signal sub-line facing away from the base (see fig. 4D and para. 70); and
in the bending area (fig. 4D and para. 66, 51), an orthographic projection of the first touch signal sub-line on the base is located within an orthographic projection of the second touch signal sub-line on the base (see fig. 4D and para. 70; wherein sub signal line 230b4 overlaps sub signal line 230b and connects through hole 234).
Claim 62 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claim 45. See above rejection.
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) 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Li (US 2020/0058710).
Regarding claim 46, Kang fails to disclose wherein the sub lines overlap in the non-bending area.
Li discloses wherein, in the non-bending area (31, fig. 6), the orthographic projection of the first touch signal sub-line (21 in fig. 5-6) on the base substantially coincides with the orthographic projection of the second touch signal sub-line (201 fig. 5-6) on the base.
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Li in the device of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to have overlapping traces intersect in an insulation manner, resulting in a smaller device/boarder (Li; para. 34, wherein the insulated traces reduce noise and result in an increased accuracy for touch detection in a smaller device).
Regarding claim 47, Kang fails to discloses wherein the sub lines overlap in the in the non-bending area.
Li discloses wherein, in the non-bending area (31, fig. 6), the orthographic projection of the first touch signal sub-line (21 in fig. 5-6) on the base is located with the orthographic projection of the second touch signal sub-line (201, fig. 5-6) on the base.
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Li in the device of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to have overlapping traces intersect in an insulation manner, resulting in a smaller device/boarder (Li; para. 34, wherein the insulated traces reduce noise and result in an increased accuracy for touch detection in a smaller device).
Claim(s) 49, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Kim (US 2022/0164047).
Regarding claim 49, Kang fails to disclose a first insulating layer between the sub lines.
Kim discloses further comprising a first insulating layer (215, fig. 8 and para. 80) located between the first touch signal sub-line (RS11, fig. 8) and the second touch signal sub-line (RS12, fig. 8);
in the bending area (para. 37, wherein the display is flexible), the first insulating layer comprises first via holes (CNT11 and CNT12 in fig. 7-8) corresponding to the touch signal lines one to one (see fig. 7); and
an orthographic projection of the first via hole on the base covers the orthographic projection of the first touch signal sub-line on the base in the bending area (see para. 146, 148-149; wherein the size of via holes is increasable as desired).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Kim in the device of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to change the size of the via holes on the touch signal lines to get a uniform resistance on all touch signal lines (Kim; para. 149), resulting in more accurate touch detection.
Regarding claim 50, Kang fails to disclose wherein the overlap of the sub lines is less than 1.5 micrometers.
Kim discloses wherein, in the bending area (para. 37), in a same touch signal line, a distance in the first direction between an edge of the first touch signal sub-line and an edge of the second touch signal sub-line located on a same side is greater than or equal to 1.2 m and less than or equal to 1.5 m (see fig. 7, wherein signal line RS12 is wider than signal line RS11 when overlapping; further wherein the amount of how much wider during overlap is a design choice, wherein design choices do not merit patentability).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Kim in the device of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to change the size of the overlap of touch signal lines to get a uniform resistance on all touch signal lines (Kim; para. 73, 88), resulting in more accurate touch detection.
Claim(s) 51, 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Kwak (US 2018/0031880).
Regarding claim 51, Kang discloses further comprising:
a plurality of first touch electrodes (220, fig. 1), which are located on a same side of the base as the touch signal lines (see fig. 1), extend in the first direction (horizontal), and are arranged in a second direction (vertical; see fig. 1);
wherein the first direction intersects with the second direction (see fig. 1); and
wherein the plurality of touch signal lines comprise a plurality of first touch signal lines (see horizontal sections of 230b contacting electrodes 220);
first ends of at least some of the first touch signal lines are located in the bending area (e.g. see horizontal section of 230b to the left of C in fig. 1);
Kang fails to disclose a connection lead.
Kwak discloses a plurality of first connection leads (TSL2 in fig. 6B and para. 133), which are located on the same side of the base as the touch signal lines (see fig. 6B); at least one end of the first touch electrode (SB2, fig. 6B) in an extension direction thereof is electrically connected to the first touch signal line (SPL2, fig. 6B) through the first connection lead (TSL2, fig. 6B); and in the bending area (BA, fig. 6B), the first connection lead is connected to the first end of the first touch signal line (see fig. 6B).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Kwak in the device of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to place connection leads between the signal lines and the electrodes to provide a solid electrical connection between the signal line and electrode in a bending area (Kwak; para. 193, 136).
Claim 58 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claims 45 and 58. See above rejections.
Claim(s) 56-57 and 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Choi (US 2017/0212637).
Regarding claim 56, Kang fails to disclose wherein the signal lines extend in a third direction.
Choi discloses wherein, in the bending area (FA, fig. 3B), at least some of the touch signal lines (WP1, fig. 3B) comprise portions extending in a third direction (see portions PP11 in fig. 3B extending in a third direction); and
an angle (AG2, fig. 9 and para. 143) between the third direction and the second direction is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 20 degrees (para. 143).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Choi in the device of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to have the ability to adjust the angle of the touch signal line based on the amount of folding stress (Choi; para. 142-143, wherein having the touch signal an angle when crossing the folding line increases durability of the device).
Regarding claim 57, Choi discloses wherein, in the non-bending area (PA1 in fig. 3B), at least some of the touch signal lines comprise portions (PP11, fig. 3B) extending in the third direction (see fig. 3B).
The rationale to combine is same as stated in claim 56.
Claim 64 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claims 45 and 56. See above rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 48, 52-55, 59-61 and 63 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBIN J MISHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7251. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, NITIN PATEL can be reached at (571)272-7677. 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.
/ROBIN J MISHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628