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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,265,685.
4. Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,215.
5. Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,604,553.
6. Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,442,587.
Please, refer to the comparison chart available in the previous Non-Final Office Action dated 11/22/2026.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of the Instant Application claim 1 are to be found in the US Patent No. 12,265,685, claims 1 and 13. US Patent No. 12,265,685, claims 1 and 13, include more elements and is thus more specific that Instant Application claims 1. Since Instant Application claim 1is anticipated by claims 1 and 13 of US Patent No. 12,265,685, it is not patently distinct from claims 1 and 13 of US Patent No. 12,265,685.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of the Instant Application claim 1 is to be found in the US Patent No. 11,941,215, claim 1. US Patent No. 11,941,215, claim 1, include more elements and is thus more specific that Instant Application claim 1. Since Instant Application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,941,215, it is not patently distinct from claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,941,215.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of the Instant Application claim 1 is to be found in the US Patent No. 11,604,533, claims 1 and 10. Claims 1 and 10 of US Patent No. 11,604,533, include more elements and is thus more specific that Instant Application claim 1. Since Instant Application claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1 and 10 of US Patent No. 11,604,533, it is not patently distinct from claim 1 and 10 of US Patent No. 11,604,533.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of the Instant Application claim 1 is to be found in the U.S. Pat. No. 11,442,587, claims 1, 10 and 11. Claims 1, 10 and 11 of US Patent No. 11,442,587, include more elements and is thus more specific that Instant Application claim 1. Since Instant Application claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1, 10 and 11of US Patent No. 11,442,587, it is not patently distinct from claims 1, 10 and 11 of US Patent No. 11,442,587.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-2, and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al(US 20190155428) in view of Zhang et al(CN 206619114).
As to claim 1, Lee et al(US 20190155428) teach a portable communication device comprising: a touchscreen display including a touch sensing layer(TL) having an opening(CP) formed therein(see Figs. 2 4, 6-7A, 10, 13; [0068, 0096-0097, 0102, 0160-0162]); and a sensor(TS) disposed as at least partially overlapped with the opening(CP) when viewed in a direction substantially perpendicular to the touchscreen display(ENCAP, e.g. OLED)(see Figs. 3-4, 6-7A, 10, 13; [0068-0069m 0077, 0190]), wherein the touch sensing layer includes: a first touch electrode(e.g. TS1) disposed at a first side(e.g. left side) with respect to the opening(CP);a second touch electrode disposed at a second side(right side)different from the first side with respect to the opening(CP)(see Figs. 6, 7A, 10, 13-14; and [0096-0098]); a connection line(SCL1, SCL2) connecting the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode along at least a part of a boundary of the opening(CP)(see Fig. 14 and [0164-0165]).
Lee et al fail to disclosed the connection line including a first curved part having a first width and a second curved part having a second width wider than the first width.
Zhang et al (CN206619114) teach the connection line including a first curved part having a first width and a second curved part having a second width wider than the first width(see Fig. 3; fifth paragraph on page 4 of Zhang’s English Translation). It would have been obvious to have modified Lee et al with the teaching of Zhang et at the time of the patent application filing, since Zhang et al disclosed the width of a connection line could be different at different position of touch panel(see Lee’s SCL1 and SCL2 having different width on Fig. 3) and it would ensure the detection precision of the touch control(see paragraph 1 on page 4 of Zhang’s English Translation).
As to claim 2, further, Lee discloses the first width of the first curved part (Fig. 15A, (SCL1, vertical part)) or the second width of the second curved part (Fig. 15A, (SCL1 horizontal part) is configured such that a touch input signal with respect to a region at least partially surrounding the opening is to be compensated by the second curved part having the second width(sec Fig. 14, SCL1 has a connecting stick also that extends from the rest of the circular shape and has a width wider than the width of the circular part of SCL1) "The functional module to two adjacent first touch sensor TS1 through the first sensor signal line region SLA is set on connecting line of the functional module SCL1 are connected to each other".
As to claim 6, Lee discloses, further, second side (Fig. 15B, (SCL1 closer to E) is opposite to the
first side with respect to the boundary of the opening (Fig. 15B, SCL1 closer to E').
As to claim 7, Lee, further, discloses the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode are formed
as at least part of a metal mesh forming the touch sensing layer (Fig. 7B. "connecting two
connection patterns CP of the first touch sensor TS1 to easily form a connected pattern CP in the
form connected with the second touch sensor TS2 of the bridge metal process "(the touch sensing
layer is clearly formed of a metal, and the touch sensing layer is clearly having a mesh shape (see
Fig. 11, for example).
As to claim 8, further, Lee discloses the second curved part is composed of a same conductive material as that of the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode (See Fig. 14, (SCL1), "can by formed without special process for connecting two connection patterns CP of the first touch sensor TS1 to easily form a connected pattern CP in the form connected with the second touch sensor TS2 of the bridge metal process".
As to claim 9, further, Lee discloses the touchscreen display includes a printed region surrounding the opening (Fig. 14, SCL1 and SCL2), and wherein the first curved part and the second curved part are disposed in the printed region (Fig. 14 and Fig. 15B), clearly show that (SCL1 and SCL2 are surrounding the opening and are in a printed region (clearly the region surrounding the opening is printed or impressed (see Figs. 2-4 which show how TS1 and TS1 are printed on insulating layer (211)
As to claim 10, further, Lee discloses the printed region has a curved shape (see Figs. 8-11 (CP, CP1, CP2) and Fig. 14, (SCL1, SCL2).
As to claim 11, further, Lee discloses a first length of the first curved part (SCL1) is longer than a second length of the second curved part (SCL2) (Fig. 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 3-5 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.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 3-5 are allowable since certain key features of the claimed invention are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art. In claim 3, “wherein the connection line includes a third part elongated from the first curved part along at least another part of the boundary of the opening”. The closest prior art of record, Lee et al(US 20190155428) discloses a portable communication device comprising: a touchscreen display including a touch sensing layer(TL) having an opening(CP) formed therein(see Figs. 2 4, 6-7A, 10, 13; [0068, 0096-0097, 0102, 0160-0162]); and a sensor(TS) disposed as at least partially overlapped with the opening(CP) when viewed in a direction substantially perpendicular to the touchscreen display(ENCAP, e.g. OLED)(see Figs. 3-4, 6-7A, 10, 13; [0068-0069m 0077, 0190]), wherein the touch sensing layer includes: a first touch electrode(e.g. TS1) disposed at a first side(e.g. left side) with respect to the opening(CP);a second touch electrode disposed at a second side(right side)different from the first side with respect to the opening(CP)(see Figs. 6, 7A, 10, 13-14; and [0096-0098]); a connection line(SCL1, SCL2) connecting the first touch electrode and the second touch electrode along at least a part of a boundary of the opening(CP)(see Fig. 14 and [0164-0165]). . However, singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious, together with all the other limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that in Figure 3 of reference Zhang, reference numeral 31 merely denotes a "touch electrode" and cannot be construed as a "connection line" that connects touch electrodes around an opening. Therefore, Zhang fails to disclose the feature of claim 1: "the connection line including a first curved part having a first width and a second curved part having a second width wider than the first width".
Examiner disagrees because, first, Lee clearly discloses [0164, 0165] “two touch sensors TS1 connected to each other through a connection line SCL1 (Fig. 14). Zhang discloses a connection line (or touch control signal line (33) including a first curved part having a first width and a second curved part having a second width wider than the first width(see Fig. 3; fifth paragraph on page 4 of Zhang’s English Translation). It would have been obvious to have modified Lee et al with the teaching of Zhang et at the time of the patent application filing, since Zhang et al disclosed the width of a connection line could be different at different position of touch panel(see Lee’s SCL1 and SCL2 having different width on Fig. 3) and it would ensure the detection precision of the touch control(see paragraph 1 on page 4 of Zhang’s English Translation).
As mentioned above, the limitation regarding the connection line is already met by Lee, Zhang teaches a line that connects to a touch electrode, and said connection line has first curved part having a first width and a second curved part having a second width. (Fig. 3).
Also, in response to applicant's argument that applying Zhang’s technical concept to Lee’s connection line is functionally incompatible, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Next, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, It would have been obvious to have modified Lee et al with the teaching of Zhang et at the time of the patent application filing, since Zhang et al disclosed the width of a connection line could be different at different position of touch panel(see Lee’s SCL1 and SCL2 having different width on Fig. 3) and it would ensure the detection precision of the touch control(see paragraph 1 on page 4 of Zhang’s English Translation).
Finally, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 RICARDO OSORIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5:30 PM.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/RICARDO OSORIO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights