DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bu (US 2019/0286266) in view of Li (US 2025/0053268).
Regarding claim 1, Bu discloses a metal mesh touch display device, comprising:
a metal mesh touch unit (64, fig. 1 and para. 78),
a display unit (OLED, fig. 1), having a plurality of light emitting pixels, wherein a light emitting pixel density of the display unit is greater than 150 ppi (para. 53; wherein e.g. the OLED is used in a phone or laptop; and
a microstructure layer (see layers 62A to 50 in fig. 1 and fig. 4, including all layers in-between 62A and 50), located between the display unit and the metal mesh touch unit (see fig. 1 and fig. 4), and having a substrate layer (see protective layer on 64y in fig. 4 and para. 71, 86) and a microstructure (62B in fig. 4);
wherein a distance between a surface of the display unit and the metal mesh touch unit is greater than 0.2 mm (para. 65 as applied to fig. 1 and fig. 4).
Bu fails to disclose wherein the mesh touch unit has a mesh node having an area that is greater than 80 µm^2.
Li discloses a meatal touch unit (see fig. 1) having a mesh node (30 in fig. 12 and para. 94) having an area that is greater than 80 µm^2 (para. 105; wherein e.g. the mesh node area is 118.8 µm^2), wherein the area of the mesh node corresponds to an area (30, fig. 12), in a projection of the metal mesh touch unit perpendicular to a top surface of the metal mesh touch unit (see fig. 12), corresponding to an intersection of a first metal line (401, fig. 12) of the metal mesh touch unit and a second metal line (402, fig. 12) of the metal mesh touch unit and occupied by both the first metal line and the second metal line (see 30 in fig. 12).
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 Bu. The motivation for doing so would have been to have a particularly sized wire mesh node intersection (Li; para. 94-95, wherein the particular dimensions of Li of the touch connecting portion of the touch electrode layer can be smaller, which results in having fewer grey dots appear on the touch substrate, for a better user experience). Ultimately wherein the width of the nanowire and the area of the corresponding electrodes are design choice in regards to a particular device.
Regarding claim 2, Bu discloses wherein: at least one surface of the microstructure has a plurality of convex parts, a plurality of concave parts, or a combination thereof, to form an astigmatic structure (see 62 in fig. 1 and para. 61-62);
or the microstructure has a plurality of convex parts, a plurality of concave parts, or a combination thereof, to form an astigmatic structure (see 62 in fig. 1 and para. 61-62).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses wherein the a metal line width of the metal mesh touch unit is greater than 3.5 µm (para. 105; wherein the width of the touch traces are 4.4 µm) and the area of the mesh node is greater than 100 µm^2 (para. 105).
Claim 3 uses the same rational to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses wherein the a metal line width of the metal mesh touch unit is greater than 3.5 µm (para. 105; wherein the width of the touch traces are 4.4 µm) and the area of the mesh node is greater than 80-200 µm^2 (para. 105).
Claim 4 uses the same rational to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Bu discloses wherein the distance between the surface of the display unit and the metal mesh touch unit is between 0.2-1.0 µm (para. 65 as applied to fig.1 and fig. 4).
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons stated as claim 1. See above rejection.
Regarding claim 7, Bu discloses wherein:
the microstructure layer further comprises an upper adhesive layer (69, fig. 4) and a lower adhesive layer (50, fig. 1);
the upper adhesive layer is disposed below the metal mesh touch unit (see fig. 4);
the substrate layer (protection layer on 64y in fig. 4 and para. 71, 86) is disposed on a lower surface of the upper adhesive layer and has a flat shape (see para. 71, 90; wherein the top surface of 62B is flat/smooth);
the microstructure (62B, fig. 4) is disposed on a lower surface of the substrate layer (para. 71) and a lower surface of the microstructure has a plurality of convex parts (see fig. 4), a plurality of concave parts, or a combination thereof to form an astigmatic structure (para. 61-62); and
the lower adhesive layer (50, fig. 1) is disposed between the lower surface of the microstructure and the display unit (see fig. 1, fig. 4), wherein an upper surface of the lower adhesive layer has a shape that matches and fits to the lower surface of the microstructure (see fig. 1, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Bu discloses wherein a distance between neighboring convex parts of the plurality of convex parts is 0.1-50 m (para. 60-61).
Regarding claim 9, Bu discloses wherein a ratio of depth to width of the microstructure is about 0.1-1.5 (para. 60-64).
Regarding claim 10, Bu discloses wherein:
the microstructure (62B, fig. 4) is disposed on a lower surface of the substrate layer (see protective layer on 64y in fig. 4 and para. 71, 90);
an upper surface of the microstructure has a plurality of convex parts, a plurality of concave parts, or a combination thereof, to form an astigmatic structure (see fig. 4); and
the lower surface of the substrate layer has a shape that matches and fits to the upper surface of the microstructure (para. 71, 86).
Claims 11-12 are rejected for the same reasons stated for claims 8-9, respectively. See above rejections.
Regarding claim 13, Bu discloses wherein
the microstructure layer further comprises a lower adhesive layer (50, fig. 1) and an upper adhesive layer (69, fig. 4);
the lower adhesive layer is disposed on the display unit (see fig. 1);
the substrate layer (the protection layer on 64y in fig. 3-4 and para. 71, 86) is disposed on an upper surface of the lower adhesive layer and has a flat shape (see para. 71, 90; wherein the bottom surface of 62B is flat/smooth);
the microstructure (62B, fig. 4) is disposed on an upper surface of the substrate layer and is composed of a plurality of convex parts (see fig. 4); and
the upper adhesive layer (69, fig. 4) is disposed between both an upper surface of the microstructure and the upper surface of the substrate layer, and the metal mesh touch unit (see fig. 4); a lower surface of the upper adhesive layer has a shape that matches and fits to both the upper surface of the microstructure and the upper surface of the substrate layer (para. 71, 90; wherein e.g. both the upper surface of the microstructure and the upper surface of the substrate layer have the same shape).
Claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons stated for claims 8-9, respectively. See above rejections.
Regarding claim 16, Bu discloses wherein the metal mesh touch unit comprises:
a first metal mesh electrode (64x in fig. 3), oriented along a first direction (para. 78);
a second metal mesh electrode (64y in fig. 3), oriented along a second direction (para. 78); and a base layer, located between the first metal mesh electrode and the second metal mesh electrode (para. 78).
Regarding claim 17, Bu discloses
17. (Currently Amended) A metal mesh touch display device comprising
a display unit (OLED, fig. 1), having a plurality of light emitting pixels, wherein an area of a smallest light emitting pixel of the plurality of light emitting pixels of the display unit is 400-900 µm^2 (para. 53; wherein e.g. the OLED is used in a smart phone).
The remainder of the claim’s language is rejected in the same manner as claim 1. See above rejection.
Claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons stated for claims 2 and 8-9, respectively. See above rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See new citations above.
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
Prosecution Insights