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 § 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) 1-3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (US 2016/0357321).
In regard to claim 1, Ito et al. teach a display apparatus with an integrated touch screen, the display apparatus comprising: a display area including plurality of touch electrodes (fig. 11); a non-display area adjacent to the display area and including a bezel touch unit and a plurality of bezel wirings (elements 102a, b and c and paragraph 79); and a touch driving unit configured to apply a touch driving signal to the plurality of touch electrodes, wherein the touch driving unit applies the touch driving signal to the bezel touch unit through the plurality of bezel wirings in the non-display area (element 110 touch IC and paragraph 76).
In regard to claim 2, Ito et al. teach wherein the bezel touch unit includes a plurality of bezel touch electrodes, and the plurality of bezel touch electrodes include a same material as the plurality of touch electrodes (paragraph 99, the touch detection electrodes TDL are made of transparent conductive material).
In regard to claim 3, Ito et al. teach wherein the plurality of bezel touch electrodes is formed of a transparent electrode (paragraph 99) or an opaque metal mesh.
In regard to claim 19, Ito et al. teach wherein the plurality of touch electrodes are connected in row or column units by a plurality of touch wirings in the display area (fig. 11), and simultaneously function as an element for implementing a display of the display apparatus and an element for touch recognition (COML and paragraph 97).
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) 4, 5, 16, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. in view Harkema et al. (US 2022/0057891).
In regard to claim 4, Ito et al. teach wherein a bezel printing pattern is disposed in the non-display area (element 122) but does not teach a touch icon pattern is disposed in the bezel printing pattern of the bezel touch unit.
Harkema et al. teach a touch icon pattern is disposed in the bezel printing pattern of the bezel touch unit (paragraph 62, Harkema et al. teach the opaque layer having a pattern of icons to be displayed to the user).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. with the icons in the opaque layer of Harkema et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. with icons in the opaque layer of Harkema et al. because providing the icons in the opaque layer as shown in Harkema et al. would work equally as well as the icons of Ito et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize providing the icons in the opaque layer would reduce the number of parts.
In regard to claim 5, Ito et al. teach wherein the display area and the non-display area include a thin film transistor (TFT) substrate (fig. 13 element 21) having a common electrode (COML), a pixel electrode (element 22), and a TFT layer (paragraph 92), a color filter substrate having a color filter layer (element 32) and a black matrix (element 122), and a liquid crystal layer between the TFT substrate and the color filter substrate (element 6), and the bezel printing pattern is disposed on one side of the TFT substrate (see fig. 1, the printing pattern is arranged on the cover layer).
In regard to claim 16, Ito et al. teach wherein the touch icon pattern includes a plurality of touch icons each corresponding to one or more bezel touch electrodes included in the bezel touch unit (fig. 1 elements 102a-c).
In regard to claim 17, Ito et al. teach wherein the common electrode includes a plurality of common electrodes which function as the plurality of touch electrodes (COML and paragraph 97).
In regard to claim 20, Ito et al. teach a display apparatus integrated with a touch screen, the display apparatus comprising: a display area in which a plurality of pixels are disposed (101a); and a non-display area adjacent to the display area and including a bezel touch unit (element 101b) and a plurality of bezel wirings (fig. 11, see wirings in 101a and 101b), wherein a bezel printing pattern is formed in the non-display area and a touch icon pattern, wherein the touch icon pattern includes a plurality of touch icons each corresponding to one or more bezel touch electrodes included in the bezel touch unit (elements 102a-c), and wherein a touch driving signal is applied to the bezel touch unit through the plurality of bezel wirings in the non-display area to determine whether any one of the plurality of touch icons is touched (element 110 touch IC and paragraph 76).
Harkema et al. teach a touch icon pattern is formed in a portion of the bezel printing pattern corresponding to the bezel touch unit (paragraph 62, Harkema et al. teach the opaque layer having a pattern of icons to be displayed to the user).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. in view of Harkema et al. further considered with Lee et al. (US 2011/0242465).
In regard to claim 6, Ito et al. and Harkema et al. teach all the elements of claim 6 except wherein the black matrix exposes the color filter substrate in an area corresponding to the bezel touch unit.
Lee et al. teach wherein the black matrix exposes the color filter substrate in an area corresponding to the bezel touch unit (element 103 and fig. 3 elements 115).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. and Harkema et al. with the backlit buttons of Lee et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. and Harkema et al. with the backlit buttons of Lee et al. because providing a backlight to the buttons, as shown in Lee et al., would illuminate the proper area for interaction and allow the device to be used in a number of lighting conditions.
In regard to claim 7, Ito et al. teach wherein a multicolored pigment is patterned in an area where the color filter substrate is exposed by the black matrix (paragraph 96).
Claim(s) 8, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. in view of and Harkema et al. further considered with Ono (US 2018/0143711).
In regard to claim 8, Ito et al. and Harkema et al. teach all the elements of claim 8 except wherein the plurality of bezel wirings and the bezel touch unit are disposed on another side of the TFT substrate (Ito et al. teach both the wirings and printing pattern on top of the TFT substrate 21).
Ono teaches wherein the plurality of bezel wirings and the bezel touch unit are disposed on another side of the TFT substrate (show both the gate (GIPGL) and data leads (GIPDL) on the underside of TFT sub).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. and Harkema et al. with the layer arrangement of Ono. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. and Harkema et al. with the wiring arrangement of Ono because providing the wires under the TFT substrate, as shown in Ono, would work equally as well as the layer arrangement of Ito et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize providing the layers either above of below the TFT substrate would provide predictable results and could be choses based on design preferences.
In regard to claim 12, Kubo et a. teach a cover bottom disposed under the TFT substrate and the color filter substrate (OPTSUB), wherein the color filter substrate is provided between the cover bottom and the TFT substrate (fig. 3, layer CF is between OPTSUB and TFTSUB).
In regard to claim 18, Kubo et al. teach wherein the display apparatus is implemented in a flip design structure (fig. 3. Paragraph 100 describes a flip design structure as having the color filter substrate being below the tft substrate and above the cover bottom which is shown in Kubo et al. fig. 3).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. in view of Kubo et al. (2017/0010752).
In regard to claim 10, Ito et al. teach all the elements of claim 10 except a first light source disposed on a rear surface of the display area; and a second light source disposed in an area corresponding to the bezel touch unit in the non-display area.
Kubo et al. teach a first light source disposed on a rear surface of the display area (element 2); and a second light source disposed in an area corresponding to the bezel touch unit in the non-display area (element 6).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. with the first and second light sources of Kubo et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. with the first and second light sources of Kubo et al. because the first and second light sources would allow for independent driving and would improve the user’s ability to view the operation buttons.
In regard to claim 11, Kubo et al. teach wherein the first light source and the second light source are different types (paragraph 42 Kubo et al. describes the backlight as any kind of light source. In paragraph 64 the second light source is described specifically as an LED).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. in view of Harkema et al. further considered with Jang et al. (US 2013/0148072).
In regard to claim 13, Ito et al. and Harkema et al. teach all the elements of claim 13 except a pad connected to the TFT substrate; and a circuit film connected to the pad and bent along a side of the color filter substrate to extend to the bottom of the color filter substrate.
Jang et al. teach a pad connected to the TFT substrate; and a circuit film connected to the pad and bent along a side of the color filter substrate to extend to the bottom of the color filter substrate (fig. 3 elements 197, 196 and 181).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. and Harkema et al. with the FPC of Jang et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ito et al. and Harkema et al. with the FPC of Jang et al. because the FPC of Jang et al. would reduce the thickness of the bezel by providing the circuits in a vertical direction.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. in view of and Harkema et al. further considered with Ono and Ito et al. (US 2016/0274698, hereafter referred to as the ‘698 publication).
In regard to claim 14, Ito et al., Harkema et al. and Ono teach all the elements of claim 14 except wherein the cover bottom includes a side cover bottom, and the bezel printing pattern is disposed on the side cover bottom.
The ‘698 publication teaches wherein the cover bottom includes a side cover bottom, and the bezel printing pattern is disposed on the side cover bottom (fig. 5 element 131 and paragraph 61).
The four are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of touch displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito et al., Harkema et al. and Jang et al. with the side opaque layer of the ‘698 publication. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ito et al., Harkema et al. and Jang et al. with the side opaque layer of the ‘698 publication because it would reduce ambient light and improve system performance.
In regard to claim 15, Ito et al. teach a bezel touch unit (elements 102a, b and c).
The ‘698 publication teaches touch wiring on the side cover unit (see elements 22 directly connected to element 131).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art teach all the elements of claim 9 except “wherein one of the upper polarizing plate and the lower polarizing plate exposes a part of the TFT substrate or the color filter substrate in an area corresponding to the bezel touch unit” in combination with the claim’s other features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights