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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,401. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown in table below independent claim of current application are broader version of the patented claims and also including some features of dependent claim.
Application 19187848
U.S. Patent No. 12,307,401
1. A touch panel, comprising a control substrate, a touch layer and a piezoelectric layer that are stacked, wherein the control substrate comprises a first substrate and a control circuit layer arranged on the first substrate, and the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are located on the control substrate, the control circuit layer comprises a control circuit, and the control circuit is electrically connected with the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer respectively, and is configured to apply electrical signals to the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer and/or receive electrical signals from the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer respectively, wherein the touch panel further comprises a second substrate, wherein the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are arranged on the second substrate, and the second substrate, the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are arranged as a whole on a side of the control circuit layer away from the first substrate, wherein the touch panel further comprises at least one spacer arranged between the second substrate and the control substrate, to space the second substrate and the control substrate, wherein the touch panel further comprises at least one pressure sensor sensitive element arranged between the second substrate and the control substrate, wherein the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is electrically connected with the control circuit, and in a direction perpendicular to the second substrate, a height of the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is lower than a height of the at least one spacer.
1. A touch panel, comprising a control substrate, a touch layer and a piezoelectric layer that are stacked, wherein the control substrate comprises a first substrate and a control circuit layer arranged on the first substrate, and the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are located on the control substrate, the control circuit layer comprises a control circuit, and the control circuit is electrically connected with the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer respectively, and is configured to apply electrical signals to the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer and/or receive electrical signals from the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer respectively, wherein the touch panel further comprises a second substrate, wherein the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are arranged on the second substrate, and the second substrate, the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are arranged as a whole on a side of the control circuit layer away from the first substrate, wherein the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are respectively arranged on a same side of the second substrate, and the touch panel further comprises an electromagnetic shielding layer arranged between the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer, wherein the touch layer is arranged on a side of the piezoelectric layer away from the control substrate, the touch panel further comprises a cover plate on a surface of the touch layer away from the control substrate, and a surface of the cover plate away from the control substrate becomes a touch surface of the touch panel, wherein the electromagnetic shielding layer is grounded or be applied with a fixed low-level voltage, and the touch panel further includes an interval insulating layer arranged between the electromagnetic shielding layer and the piezoelectric layer.
9. The touch panel according to claim 2, further comprising at least one pressure sensor sensitive element arranged between the second substrate and the control substrate, wherein the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is electrically connected with the control circuit, and in a direction perpendicular to the second substrate, a height of the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is lower than a height of the at least one spacer, wherein the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element and the at least one spacer are both arranged on the control substrate, and the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is separated from the second substrate.
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 1-6, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20170097704), in the view of Okumura (US 20130009893), and further in the view of Jaw (US 20210325986).
Regarding claim 1: Ando teaches a touch panel (Fig. 2 #2 touch panel), comprising a control substrate, a touch layer and a piezoelectric layer that are stacked, wherein the control substrate comprises a first substrate and a control circuit layer arranged on the first substrate, and the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are located on the control substrate (Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0042-0048] teach a control substrate 4 interpreted as a first substrate, a touch panel 2 comprising a touch layer and a piezoelectric layer 20 that are stacked on the control substrate), the control circuit layer comprises a control circuit, and the control circuit is electrically connected with the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer respectively, and is configured to apply electrical signals to the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer and/or receive electrical signals from the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer respectively (Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0042-0048, 0095] teach the control substrate 4 comprising the control circuit layer electrically connected with the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer and is configured apply and/or receive electric signals from the touch layer and piezoelectric layer), wherein the touch panel further comprises a second substrate, wherein the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are arranged on the second substrate, and the second substrate, the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are arranged as a whole on a side of the control circuit layer away from the first substrate (Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0042-0048] teach a second substrate 21 wherein the touch layer and the piezoelectric layers 20 are arranged on the second substrate 21 and are arranged as a whole 20 on a side and away from the control or first substate 4).
Ando do not explicitly disclose wherein the touch panel further comprises at least one spacer arranged between the second substrate and the control substrate, to space the second substrate and the control substrate, wherein the touch panel further comprises at least one pressure sensor sensitive element arranged between the second substrate and the control substrate, wherein the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is electrically connected with the control circuit, and in a direction perpendicular to the second substrate, a height of the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is lower than a height of the at least one spacer.
However, Okumura teaches comprising at least one spacer arranged between the second substrate and the control substrate, to space the second substrate and the control substrate (Figs. 1, 2A and paragraph [0036-0044] teach at least one spacer 3 arranged between the touch panel 2 or second substrate and the control substrate 9). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ando’s invention by including above teachings of Okumura, because including a spacer to space two difference surfaces is very well-known and widely used technique in the art, in order to avoid any interference between surfaces and for optimal working condition for the device, as taught by Okumura. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, Jaw teaches comprising at least one pressure sensor sensitive element arranged between the second substrate and the control substrate, wherein the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is electrically connected with the control circuit, and in a direction perpendicular to the second substrate, a height of the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is lower than a height of the at least one spacer (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0033-0036] teach at least one pressure sensor sensitive element 100 arranged between the second or top substrate 400 and the bottom or control substrate 500 and is electrically connected to main controller, and in a direction perpendicular to the second substrate 400, a height of the pressure sensor sensitive element 100 is lower than a height of the at least one spacer 600). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Ando and Okumura by including above teachings of Jaw, because utilizing a pressure sensitive element as taught by Jaw allows the touch panel to accurately detect the pressure applied, which is very well-known and widely used in the art. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 2: Combination of Ando and Okumura teach wherein the at least one spacer comprises a plurality of spacers, and the plurality of spacers are arranged at intervals on edges of the second substrate and the control substrate, wherein a planar shape of the second substrate and a plane shape of the control substrate are rectangles, and each of the plurality of spacers is shaped in a straight line and the plurality of spacers are disposed along at least two sides of the rectangle respectively (Okumura in Figs. 1, 2A and paragraph [0036-0044] teach a plurality of spacers 3a along the edges of #2 and #9, wherein a planar shape of the second substrate #2 and a plane shape of the control substrate #9 are rectangles (also taught by Ando in Figs. 2-5 #21 and #4 are rectangular), and each of the plurality of spacers 3a is shaped in a straight line and disposed along at least two sides of the rectangle as shown in Fig. 2A). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando and Okumura, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 3: Combination of Ando and Okumura teach wherein the plurality of spacers comprise four spacers, each of the four spacers has a shape of a straight line, and the four spacers are disposed at middle positions of four sides of the rectangle respectively (Okumura in Figs. 1, 2A and paragraph [0036-0044] teach the plurality of spaces 3a comprise four spacers and disposed as claimed). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando and Okumura, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 4: Combination of Ando and Okumura teach wherein the plurality of spacers comprise four spacers, and the rectangle comprises two opposite long sides and two opposite short sides, and each of the four spacers has a shape of a straight line, and the four spacers are arranged along the two long sides of the rectangle, and two spacers are correspondingly arranged on each of the two long sides (Okumura in Figs. 1, 2A and paragraph [0036-0044] teach the plurality of spacers 3a comprise four spacers and disposed as claimed). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando and Okumura, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 5: Combination of Ando and Okumura teach wherein a length of each of the long sides is L, and each of the long sides has a first end point and a second end point, and a distance between the first end point and a central axis of one of the two spacers close to the first end point perpendicular to each of the long sides is from 1/4L to 1/3L, and a distance between the second end point and a central axis of one of the two spacers close to the second end point perpendicular to each of the long sides is from 1/4L to 1/3L.wherein a length of the long side of the rectangle is L, and a length of the short side is W, a length of each spacer in the plurality of spacers is from 0.1L to 0.5L, and a width of each spacer in the plurality of spacers is from 0.01W to 0.10W (Okumura in Figs. 1, 2A and paragraph [0036-0044] teach the plurality of spacers 3a as claimed). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando and Okumura, same rationale applies here.
Further, the examiner would like to point out that, arrange spacers at different positions appears to be merely a rearrangement of parts with no modification in the operation of the device. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts of an invention in a way that does not modify the operation of the device is not a patentable improvement, the claimed combination is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Applicant claims a combination that only unites or rearranges old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Regarding claim 6: Combination of Ando and Okumura teach wherein planar shapes of the second substrate and the control substrate are rectangles, and the plurality of spacers comprise four spacers, and each of the four spacers is shaped in an L shape and are disposed along four corners of the rectangle (Okumura in Figs. 1, 2A and paragraph [0036-0044] teach the plurality of L-shaped spacers 3b as claimed). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando and Okumura, same rationale applies here.
Further, the examiner would like to point out that, arrange spacers at different positions appears to be merely a rearrangement of parts with no modification in the operation of the device. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts of an invention in a way that does not modify the operation of the device is not a patentable improvement, the claimed combination is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Applicant claims a combination that only unites or rearranges old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Regarding claim 8: Combination of Ando, Okumura, and Jaw teach wherein the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element and the at least one spacer are both arranged on the control substrate, and the at least one pressure sensor sensitive element is separated from the second substrate (Jaw in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0033-0036] teach at least one pressure sensor sensitive element 100 arranged between the second or top substrate 400 and the bottom or control substrate 500 and at least one spacer 600 and both are arranged on the bottom substrate 500, and the pressure sensor element 100 is separated from the second substrate 400. Further, Ando and Okumura already discloses the bottom substrate as control substrate). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando, Okumura, and Jaw, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 17: Ando teaches wherein the touch layer comprises a first touch electrode layer, a second touch electrode layer, and an interval insulating layer between the first touch electrode layer and the second touch electrode layer, the first touch electrode layer comprises a plurality of first touch electrodes extending along a first direction, and the second touch electrode layer comprises a plurality of second touch electrodes extending along a second direction intersecting the first direction (Figs. 5-7 and paragraph [0059-0077] teach the touch layer comprises a first touch electrode layer comprises a plurality of first touch electrodes 211A-F extending along a first direction and the second touch electrode layer comprises a plurality of second touch electrodes 221A-F along a second direction intersecting the first direction insulated by layer 200 in between them).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20170097704), in the view of Okumura (US 20130009893), in the view of Jaw (US 20210325986), and further in the view of Chou (US 20220291093).
Regarding claim 7: Combination of Ando and Okumura do not explicitly disclose wherein in a direction perpendicular to the second substrate, a height of the at least one spacer is from 0.5mm to 10mm, wherein Young's modulus of material of the at least one spacer is from 0.1MPa to 2.0MPa.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Ando and Okumura to have a height of the at least one spacer is from 0.5mm to 10mm because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, Chou teaches wherein Young's modulus of material of the at least one spacer is from 0.1MPa to 2.0MPa (claim 3). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Ando and Okumura by including above teachings of Chou, because spacer material have a young’s modulus within a certain range is known in the art, in order to avoid any interference between two spaced surfaces and for optimal working condition for the device, as taught by Chou. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Claims 9-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20170097704), in the view of Okumura (US 20130009893), in the view of Jaw (US 20210325986), and further in the view of Wen (US 20190094968).
Regarding claim 9: Ando teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer comprises a first control electrode layer, a second control electrode layer, and a piezoelectric material layer between the first control electrode layer and the second control electrode layer, wherein the first control electrode layer comprises a plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes arranged at intervals, at least one of the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes is configured to transmit a pressure sensing signal to the control circuit in a case that the piezoelectric material layer is under pressure (Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0047, 0063-0079, 0116] teach the piezoelectric layer 200 comprises a first control electrode layer comprising first pressure sensing electrodes 213 arranged at intervals and second control electrode layer comprising second electrodes 223, and configured to detect a pressing force).
Ando does not explicitly disclose wherein the first control electrode layer further comprises a plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes arranged at intervals, the control circuit is configured to apply an electrical signal to at least one of the plurality of first vibratory feedback electrodes in a case that the pressure sensing signal is greater than a threshold, to drive the piezoelectric material layer to vibrate.
However, Wen teaches wherein the first control electrode layer further comprises a plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes arranged at intervals, the control circuit is configured to apply an electrical signal to at least one of the plurality of first vibratory feedback electrodes in a case that the pressure sensing signal is greater than a threshold, to drive the piezoelectric material layer to vibrate (Figs. 6A-6B and paragraph [0116-0124] teach a plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes 627 arranged at intervals to provide haptic feedback as claimed). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Ando and Okumura by including above teachings of Wen, because providing haptic feedback enhances the functionality of the device and allows the user to feel the confirmation of the input provided, as taught by Wen. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 10-11: Combination of Ando and Wen teach wherein the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes and the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes are strip- shaped electrodes, and the strip-shaped electrodes extend along a first direction and are arranged at intervals in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, wherein a width of each of the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes in the second direction is greater than a width of each of the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes in the second direction; and wherein the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes and the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes are arranged alternately in the second direction (Wen in Figs. 6A-6B and paragraph [0116-0124] teach the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes 626 and the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes 627 are strip-shaped electrodes extend along a first direction, width of each of the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes 627 is greater than a width of the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes in the second direction; and wherein the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes 626 and the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes 627 are arranged alternately in the second direction). See claim 9 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando, Okumura, Jaw, and Wen same rationale applies here.
Regarding claims 12-13: Combination of Ando and Wen teach wherein each of the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes comprises a plurality of sub-strip electrodes spaced along the first direction; and each of the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes comprises a plurality of sub-strip electrodes spaced along the first direction; and wherein the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes and the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes are block- shaped electrodes, the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes are spaced along the first direction and are arranged in a column, the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes are spaced along the first direction and are arranged in a column, and a plurality of columns of first pressure sensing electrodes and a plurality of columns of first vibration feedback electrodes are arranged alternately along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Wen in Figs. 6A-6B teach the electrodes #626 & #627 are strip shaped electrodes and are arranged alternately as claimed, and further Figs. 9A-9C and paragraph [0137-0140] teach the vibration or haptic feedback may be produced at a substantially localized feedback regions 954, 956, and 958, the electrodes can be shaped and patterned in a desired manner to provide localized feedback on smaller regions based on the size and shape of the electrodes, therefore it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention by shaping the electrodes in a sub-strip shaped or block shaped). See claim 9 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando, Okumura, Jaw, and Wen same rationale applies here.
Further, the examiner would like to point out that It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to shape the electrodes in any desired shape as desired, since Wen already disclose that shape and size of electrodes can be changed to achieve localized feedback and it has been held that absent other persuasive evidence that a particular shape of a claimed apparatus was significant, that shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 15: Combination of Ando and Wen teach wherein the second control electrode layer is a surface electrode layer; or the second control electrode layer comprises a plurality of second control electrodes, orthographic projections of the plurality of second control electrodes on the second substrate are at least partially overlapped with orthographic projections of the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes and orthographic projections of the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes respectively on the second substrate (Ando in Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0047, 0063-0079, 0116] teach the piezoelectric layer 200 comprises second control electrode layer comprising second electrodes 223 as surface electrode layer. Wen in Figs. 6A-6B and paragraph [0116-0124] teach second control electrode 630 as a surface electrode layer). See claim 9 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando and Wen, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 16: Combination of Ando and Wen teach wherein a material of the piezoelectric material layer is one or more of PZT, AlN and KNN (Wen in paragraph [0118]). See claim 9 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando and Wen, same rationale applies here.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20170097704), in the view of Okumura (US 20130009893), in the view of Jaw (US 20210325986), in the view of Wen (US 20190094968), and further in the view of Li (US 20180101268).
Regarding claim 14: Combination of Ando and Wen teach wherein the piezoelectric material layer is arranged on an entire surface, orthographic projections of the piezoelectric material on the second substrate are at least partially overlapped with orthographic projections of the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes and the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes on the second substrate (Ando in Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0047, 0063-0079, 0116] teach the piezoelectric layer 200 is arranged on an entire surface and overlapped with electrode. Wen in Figs. 6A-6B and paragraph [0116-0124] teach the piezoelectric material 628 overlapped with orthographic projections of the plurality of first pressure sensing electrodes 626 and the plurality of first vibration feedback electrodes 627). See claim 15 rejection for combination reasoning of Ando and Wen, same rationale applies here.
Combination of Ando and Wen does not explicitly disclose wherein the piezoelectric material layer comprises a plurality of piezoelectric material patterns, the plurality of piezoelectric material patterns extend along the first direction, and are arranged at intervals in the second direction.
However, Li teaches wherein the piezoelectric material layer comprises a plurality of piezoelectric material patterns, the plurality of piezoelectric material patterns extend along the first direction, and are arranged at intervals in the second direction (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0027] teach the piezoelectric material layer 23 comprises a plurality of piezoelectric material patterns, the plurality of piezoelectric material patterns extend along the first direction, and are arranged at intervals in the second direction). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ando’s invention by including above teachings of Li, because arranging the piezoelectric layer in a plurality of patterns is very well-known and widely used in the art, in order to achieve optimal performance of the touch panel, as taught by Li. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20170097704), in the view of Okumura (US 20130009893), in the view of Jaw (US 20210325986), and in the view of Liu (US 20210373734).
Regarding claim 18: Ando does not explicitly disclose wherein the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the second substrate.
However, Liu teaches wherein the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the second substrate (Fig. 3C and paragraph [0042-0052, 0063] teach the touch layer 211 and the piezoelectric layer 112 are respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the second substrate 101). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ando’s invention by including above teachings of Liu, because arranging the piezoelectric layer and touch layer on the opposite side of the substrate is very well-known and widely used in the art, in order to achieve optimal performance of touch panel, as taught by Liu. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20170097704), in the view of Okumura (US 20130009893), in the view of Jaw (US 20210325986), and further in the view of Okumura (US 20140317498).
Regarding claims 19-20: Ando teaches wherein the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer are respectively arranged on a same side of the second substrate, and, wherein the touch layer is arranged on a side of the piezoelectric layer away from the control substrate (Figs. 2-5 and paragraph [0042-0048] teach the touch layer and piezoelectric layer are arranged on a same side of the second substrate 21 and the touch layer is arranged away from the control substrate 4).
Ando does not explicitly disclose the touch panel further comprises an electromagnetic shielding layer arranged between the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer, the touch panel further comprises a cover plate on a surface of the touch layer away from the control substrate, and a surface of the cover plate away from the control substrate becomes a touch surface of the touch panel.
However, Okumura ‘498 teach an electromagnetic shielding layer arranged between the touch layer and the piezoelectric layer (paragraph [0069] teach an electromagnetic shielding layer 216 arranged between the touch layer 10 and the piezoelectric layer 210). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ando’s invention by including above teachings of Okumura ‘498, because utilizing a electromagnetic shielding layer is very well-known and widely used in the art, in order to prevent any noise or interference between the two layers, as taught by Okumura ‘498. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Further, Wen teaches the touch panel further comprises a cover plate on a surface of the touch layer away from the control substrate, and a surface of the cover plate away from the control substrate becomes a touch surface of the touch panel (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0056-0064] teach a cover plate 106 on top of touch surface away from the bottom substrates or layers and a surface of cover plate 106 becomes a touch surface of the touch panel). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ando’s invention by including above teachings of Wen, because utilizing a cover layer is very well-known and widely used in the art, in order to protect the touch components and provide a smooth touch surface, as taught by Wen. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yashuda (US 20120075221) in Figs. 1-2 and related description discloses a touchscreen panel input device is manufactured by forming a first adhesion layer and a second adhesion layer on a growth substrate, removing only the second adhesion layer from a selected region by irradiating laser, forming a growth base layer on the selected region where the second adhesion layer is removed and on the second adhesion layer and an oxide thin film having piezoelectricity on the growth base layer, transferring the oxide thin film layer on the selected region to a second substrate having first transparent electrodes by peeling-off, and adhering the second substrate to a third substrate having second transparent electrodes by placing the transferred oxide thin film layer between them. The touchscreen panel input device detects a pushing pressure in addition to a touch position with proving a tactile feedback.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 5712707230. 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.
/AMIT CHATLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624