SEAMLESS TOUCH DISPLAY MODULE

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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Species A, drawn to Figs. 1-4, in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Although Applicant alleges that claim 6 is elected, it is noted by the Examiner that the limitation “the light-transmitting region is frame-shaped” does not appear to be a feature of the elected species. Although Applicant alleges that claim 10 is elected, it is noted by the Examiner that the feature “the light guide plate has a through hole accommodating the light-emitting element” does not appear to be a feature of the elected species. Claims 5-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/14/2026. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature(s) “light guide plate has a through hole accommodating the light-emitting element” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The feature(s) “the light guide plate is fixed between the shielding layer and the PCBA” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to because: Drawing sheet numbers (“1/9”, “2/9”, etc.) are not “clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(t). Fewer than all lines are “durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). The boundary of 130a is unclear. A lead line for 110 appears to point to a light-transmitting region, rather than to a cover. See Figs. 2 and 6 and 10, for example. A lead line for shielding layer 120 appears to point to cover 110. See Figs. 4 and 8 and 12, for example. The boundaries of light-transmitting region 120a do not appear commensurate with through opening 130t. See Fig. 4, for example. It is unclear in what sense a location occluded by PCBA could possibly be construed as part of a light-transmitting region. See also Fig. 12. Shading does not conform to the standards set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(m), which states “shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. ... Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. ... Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.” In this case, shading obfuscates the location where some lead lines point. See lead line for 144 in Fig. 4, for example. Shielding layer 120 appears to have no thickness in some of the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (US 20200126460 A1) in view of Chiang et al (US 20200267860 A1) and further in view of Ligtenberg et al (US 20180218859 A1). Regarding the limitation “seamless touch display module”: When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “seamless touch display module” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. As recited in independent claim 1, Huang et al show a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) (including 20 and 23), and a backlight module (including 22), and comprising: a light-emitting element 22; and a light guide plate 21, laterally adjacent to the light-emitting element 22, wherein the vertical (into the page in Fig. 2) projection of a light-transmitting region (whose location corresponds to opening 201) is located within a vertical projection of the light guide plate 21, the PCBA (including 20 and 23) has a through opening 201 corresponding to the light-transmitting region (whose location corresponds to opening 201). Furthermore, Huang et al show that when the backlight module is disposed beneath the PCBA (see Fig. 2, wherein PCBA includes circuit 23, wherein at least one light-emitting element 22 appears beneath circuit 23). It is noted by the Examiner that Applicant’s SPEC recites at [0028] “The spatially relative terms in the text, such as "beneath" and "over", are used to facilitate the description of the relative relationship between one element or feature and another element or feature in the drawings. The true meaning of the spatially relative terms includes other orientations. For example, when the drawing is flipped up and down by 180°, the relationship between the one element and the other element may change from "beneath" to "over." The spatially relative descriptions used herein should be interpreted the same.” As recited in independent claim 1, Huang et al are silent regarding a light-transmitting cover; a shielding layer, disposed on a lower surface of the light-transmitting cover to define a light-transmitting region; located beneath the shielding layer and having a touch sensing region, wherein a vertical projection of the light-transmitting region is adjacent to or corresponds to a vertical projection of the touch sensing region. As recited in independent claim 1, Chiang et al show a light-transmitting cover (including 10); a shielding layer 11, disposed on a lower surface (see lower surface in Fig. 2A) of the light-transmitting cover (including 10) to define a light-transmitting region (whose location corresponds to 1021). Moreover, the Examiner finds that a shielding layer disposed on a lower surface of a light-transmitting cover to define a light-transmitting region was predictable before the effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to add the shielding layer disposed on a lower surface of a light-transmitting cover to define a light-transmitting region to the display module of Huang et al as taught by Chiang et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to increase industrial value by providing a distinctive and special visual effect as taught by Chiang et al [0049]. Regarding the limitations “located beneath the shielding layer” and “located beneath the shielding layer and disposed on or beneath the PCBA,” in combination with “wherein when the backlight module is disposed beneath the PCBA,”: There is no invention in relocating known parts, when the functioning of the apparatus is not changed by the relocation. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results due to the claimed locations of known parts; ergo, said locations are found to be noncritical. Regarding the limitation “a touch sensing region, wherein a vertical projection of the light-transmitting region is adjacent to or corresponds to a vertical projection of the touch sensing region”: Ligtenberg et al show a touch sensing region (including 1610), wherein a vertical (vertical in Fig. 16A, for example) projection of a light-transmitting region (necessarily present based on “a display underlying the trackpad region 1610 may produce an image” [0337]) is adjacent to or corresponds to a vertical (vertical in Fig. 16A, for example) projection of the touch sensing region (including 1610). Moreover, the Examiner finds that a vertical projection of a light-transmitting region adjacent to or corresponding to a vertical projection of a touch sensing region was predictable before the effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to provide a vertical projection of a light-transmitting region adjacent to or corresponding to a vertical projection of a touch sensing region in the module of Huang et al as taught by Ligtenberg et al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to indicate where a user may provide touch inputs as taught by Ligtenberg et al [0337]. As recited in claim 2, Huang et al show that a PCBA has a length and width. As recited in claim 2, Huang et al are silent regarding whether a length and a width of the light-transmitting cover are respectively greater than a length and a width of the PCBA. Regarding claim 2: Ligtenberg et al teach that “The virtual keyboard 1605, the virtual key region 1608, and the trackpad region 1610 may all be part of or define a touch-input region” [0336] and that “touch and/or force inputs may be detected on any of these regions” [0336], while disclosing that “The trackpad region 1610 may optionally include or be associated with a display” [0337]. Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found. It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art. Moreover, the Examiner finds that the recited relative dimension were predictable before the effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed dimensions through the process of routine experimentation and optimization in the absence of criticality (Gardner v. TEC systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to provide a cover to an entire touch input surface which is larger than a display trackpad area while providing a PCBA only to the display trackpad area as suggested by Ligtenberg et al (see [0336]-[0337]; see also Fig. 16A). As recited in claim 3, Huang et al are silent regarding whether the light-transmitting region is narrow strip-shaped, and the vertical projection of the light-transmitting region is adjacent to the vertical projection of the touch sensing region. Regarding “the light-transmitting region is narrow strip-shaped” in claim 3: Ligtenberg et al show a narrow strip-shaped trackpad region 1610 (see Fig. 16A), wherein said trackpad region is necessarily light-transmitting (insofar as “trackpad region 1610 may optionally include or be associated with a display or an illuminated mask layer as well. A display may be used, for example, to display input areas, buttons, keys, or other affordances. As one example, a display underlying the trackpad region 1610 may produce an image of a border (e.g., representing or replicating an image of a trackpad) that indicates where a user may provide touch inputs” [0337]). Furthermore, there is no invention in changing the shape of known parts, when the functioning of the apparatus is not changed by the reshaping. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, Applicant has provided no evidence of unexpected results due to the claimed shape; ergo, said shape is found to be noncritical. Moreover, the Examiner finds that the recited shape was predictable before the effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the recited shape in the course of routine design choice. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to tray any known shape, including the shape of Ligtenberg et al, in the absence of criticality as taught by Ligtenberg et al (see Fig. 16A). Regarding “the vertical projection of the light-transmitting region is adjacent to the vertical projection of the touch sensing region” in claim 3, Ligtenberg et al show that the vertical projection of the light-transmitting region is (necessarily) adjacent to the vertical projection of the touch sensing region (insofar as “trackpad region 1610 may optionally include or be associated with a display or an illuminated mask layer as well. A display may be used, for example, to display input areas, buttons, keys, or other affordances. As one example, a display underlying the trackpad region 1610 may produce an image of a border (e.g., representing or replicating an image of a trackpad) that indicates where a user may provide touch inputs” [0337]). Moreover, the Examiner finds that vertical adjacency was predictable before the effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the recited locations in the course of routine design choice. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to locate the light-transmitting region vertically adjacent to the touch sensing region in order to display a border indicating where the user may provide trackpad inputs as taught by Ligtenberg et al [0337]. As recited in claim 4, Huang et al show that the backlight module is disposed beneath the PCBA (see Fig. 2, for example, wherein an uppermost circuit 23 is depicted over light emitting element 22, such that light emitting element 22 is beneath circuit 23). It is noted by the Examiner that Applicant’s SPEC recites at [0028] “The spatially relative terms in the text, such as "beneath" and "over", are used to facilitate the description of the relative relationship between one element or feature and another element or feature in the drawings. The true meaning of the spatially relative terms includes other orientations. For example, when the drawing is flipped up and down by 180°, the relationship between the one element and the other element may change from "beneath" to "over." The spatially relative descriptions used herein should be interpreted the same.” As recited in claim 4, Huang et al are silent regarding whether the light guide plate is narrow strip-shaped. There is no invention in changing the shape of known parts, when the functioning of the apparatus is not changed by the reshaping. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, Applicant has provided no evidence of unexpected results due to the recited shape; ergo, said shape is found to be noncritical. Moreover, the Examiner finds that the recited shape was predictable before the effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the recited shape in the course of routine design choice. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to succumb to longstanding market pressure toward variety in shape, form, and appearance of devices as was notoriously well known in the art. Conclusion 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays. 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. JULIE ANNE WATKO Primary Examiner Art Unit 2627 /Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627 09/04/2026