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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being as being unpatentable over applicant IDS cited Oohira (US 20100060601 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oohira teaches a panel device (Figs 1-2 and 4, [0034], Display panel), having an active area (Fig. 4, see region including and underneath touch panel 100) and a peripheral area located at least one side of the active area (Fig. 4, see region including elements 30, 40, 41, 51, and 60 which is located on left side as shown of touch panel 100 area), and comprising:
a light guide plate (Fig. 4, [0062], a light guide plate 62), having a light emitting surface and a light incident surface (Fig. 4, see light emitting diodes 70 which are light emitting surface. [0064], “The backlight includes a light guide plate 62 which has an edge portion thereof arranged to face the light emitting diodes 70 in an opposed manner. The light guide plate 62 plays a role of directing a light which is radiated from the light emitting diodes 70 and enters light guide plate 62 from a side surface thereof toward a liquid crystal display panel side.”);
a touch module (Fig,. 4, touch panel 100), disposed on the light emitting surface (Fig. 4 shows touch panel 100 is stacked above and therefore disposed on the light emitting diodes 70);
an adhesive layer, disposed between the touch module and the light guide plate, and located at the active area (See [0051], “a first tacky adhesive material 110” which connects touch panel 100 to all elements below it which includes the light guide plate 62); and
a driving module, disposed between the touch module and the light guide plate, located at the peripheral area (Fig. 4, [0055-0057], driving module comprises IC driver 30, electronic parts 41 and 51, arranged on a main flexible printed circuit boards 40 and 50. IC driver 30 and main flexible printed circuit board, which make up a portion of driving module, are disposed between touch panel 100 and light guide 61), and comprising:
a driving board, having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Fig. 4, see flexible printed circuit boards 40 and 50 which have a first surface and a second opposite surface);
a touch control element ([0059], electronic parts 51), disposed on the first surface and electrically connected to the touch module ([0059] describes electronic parts are for touch panel use hence are electrically connected to touch panel 100. Electronic parts are on a first surface of printed circuit boards 40 and 50); and
a light emitting element, disposed on the second surface and adjacent to the light incident surface (Fig. 4, see light emitting diodes 70 which are disposed on a second surface of printed circuit boards 40 and 50 and are adjacent to the light incident surface of light guide plate 62).
Oohira does not disclose a single driving board. however, arriving at this limitation is an obvious modification of making the disclosed printed circuit boards 40 and 50 integral versus making them separable. See MPEP 2144, section V, subsections B and C, In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Oohira provides some teaching of the two printed circuit boards being integral at [0038] and figure 2 which state, “Here, the main flexible printed circuit board 40 and the touch-panel-use flexible printed circuit board 50 are connected to each other.”
Making Oohira’s two driving boards 40 and 50 integral into a single unit would be merely a matter of engineering choice. One skilled in the art would recognize the benefit of making Oohira’s disclosed driving boards integral as a single driving board wherein the touch panel electronic parts 51 are mounted on an opposite side of the printed circuit board than the light emitting diodes 70 of the integral single driving board would not change the functioning of the parts involved and would provide the benefit of less parts in the overall product thereby decreasing cost.
Regarding claim 2, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 1, wherein the touch module further has a trace bonding area, and the driving board comprises a plurality of wirings electrically connected to the trace bonding area and the touch control element (Figs. 1-2 and 4, [0053] teach and show the touch panel 100 is electrically connected to printed circuit board 50 and electronic parts 51 thereby teaching a trace bonding area).
Regarding claim 3, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 1, wherein the driving module further comprises an electrical connection member disposed on the first surface to connect to the touch module (Figs. 1-2 and 4, [0053] teach and show the touch panel 100 is electrically connected to printed circuit board 50 and electronic parts 51 thereby teaching an electrical connection member disposed on the first surface to connect to the touch module).
Regarding claim 5, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 3, wherein the driving module further comprises a connecting member disposed on the second surface to connect to the light guide plate (Fig. 4 shows light guide plate connected to printed circuit board 40 thereby teaching a connecting member disposed on the second surface).
Regarding claim 7, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 1, wherein a first distance between the light emitting element (Fig. 4, light emitting diodes 70) and the light incident surface (Fig. 4, see edge of light guide 62) is less than a second distance between the touch control element (Fig. 4, [0053], touch-panel-use electronic parts 51) and the light incident surface (Fig. 4 shows distance between light emitting diodes 70 and edge of light guide plate 62 is less than the distance between electronic parts 51 and edge of light guide plate 62).
Regarding claim 9, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 1, wherein the driving board has a first portion (Fig. 4, PCB 40) and a second portion (Fig. 4, the second portion can be mapped to either PCB 50, which is relied upon for claim 10 rejection below, or right portion of PCB 40 directly connected to light guide plate 62, which is relied upon for claim 11 rejection below), wherein the first portion overlaps the light guide plate (Fig. 4, PCB 40 overlaps light guide 62), and the second portion extends beyond the light incident surface (Fig. 4, PCB 50 extends into peripheral area to the left of edge of light guide 62. Likewise, PCB 40 extends into peripheral area to the left of light emitting diodes 70).
Regarding claim 10, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 9, wherein the touch control element is located at the second portion (Fig. 4, touch panel 100 is connected to PCB 50 and therefore located at the second portion).
Regarding claim 11, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 9, wherein the light emitting element is located at the second portion (Fig. 4, light emitting diodes 70 are located at second portion of PCB 40).
Regarding claim 12, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 9, wherein the second portion comprises an extension portion extending away from the touch module and the light guide plate (Fig. 4, PCB 50 extends to the left and away from touch panel 100 and light guide 62), and the touch control element is located at the extension portion (Fig. 4, touch panel 100 is connected to PCB 50 and therefore located at the extension portion).
Regarding claim 13, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 1, wherein a height of the light emitting element is greater than a thickness of the light guide plate (Fig. 4 shows light emitting diodes 70 height is greater than a thickness of right side portion of light guide 62).
Regarding claim 14, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 1, wherein a length of the touch module is greater than a length of the light guide plate (Fig. 4 shows touch panel 100 length is greater than a length of light guide 62).
Regarding claim 15, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 14, wherein a length of the adhesive layer is less than a length of the touch module and is less than a length of the light guide plate (Fig. 4, shows adhesive material 110 layer length is less than length of touch panel layer 100 and light guide 62).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira (US 20100060601 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Steijner et al. (US 20160313490 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Oohira does not specify the electrical connection member includes an anisotropic conductive film.
Steijner [0059] teaches a touch panel device comprising a flexible printed circuit board wherein the flexible printed circuit board may be connected to a printed circuit board by anisotropic conductive film thereby teaching an electrical connection member includes an anisotropic conductive film.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Oohira with Steijner such that Oohira’s flexible printed circuit boards include an anisotropic conductive film electrical connection member as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale (A). Oohira and Steijner include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as anisotropic conductive film is a well-known conductive material used in printed circuit boards as evidenced by the teachings of Steijner.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira (US 20100060601 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Wan et al. (US 10386572 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Oohira teaches the panel device of claim 5, however does not detail the limitations of claim 6 wherein a first width of the connecting member is greater than a second width of the electrical connection member.
Wan teaches a display device wherein a printed circuit board connecting member has a first width greater than a second width of the electrical connection member (See fig. 6 which shows contact pads 110 on a printed circuit board 108 are wider than width of solder electrical connections 112).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Oohira with Wan such that Oohira’s printed circuit board connecting member has a first width greater than a second width of the electrical connection member as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale (A). Oohira and Wan include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as PCB solder pads being wider than the actual solder connection is well-known as evidenced by the teachings of Wan.
Regarding claim 8, Oohira does not detail all the claim limitations.
Wan teaches a touch panel device wherein the touch module further comprises:
a plurality of first touch electrodes (Col. 3, lines 36-44, teaches the use of touch input electrodes. Col. 4, lines 26-35 teaches touch electrodes can be formed in layer 56);
a plurality of second touch electrodes, interleaved with the first touch electrodes (Col. 4, lines 26-35 teaches touch electrodes can be formed in layer 58); and
an isolation layer, separating the first touch electrodes from the second touch electrodes (Fig. 2, see liquid crystal layer 52 separating layers 56 and 58).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Oohira with Wan such that Oohira’s touch module comprises a plurality of touch electrodes as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale (A). Oohira and Wan include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as touch electrodes formed on different, separated layers is/are well-known as evidenced by the teachings of Wan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As detailed in the rejection above, per MPEP 2144, section V, subsections B and C, arriving at the amended claim limitation is an obvious engineering choice of making Oohira’s two disclosed circuit boards 40 and 50 integral versus separable. See In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). The mere difference of making the product using one printed circuit board versus two printed circuit boards wherein the circuit boards and the electronic driving elements attached to them still function in the same manner is deemed legally obvious and not inventive per MPEP 2144.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20120235948-A1, Inoue et al. figure 7 disclose touch driver IC 22 and display driver IC 21 disposed on a control substrate.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10 AM - 6 PM, EST.
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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at (571) 272-2963. 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.
/NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2629