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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11 August 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 5, 7-12, 14 and 15 remain withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 13 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The terms “adjacent to the detection region” and “adjacent to the coupling region” in claim 1 are each a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The commonly accepted definition of “adjacent” is “lying near, close” (e.g., see Random House dictionary, Dictionary.com).
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art precisely how “near” or “close” the corresponding elements must be before they would be considered “adjacent,” as instantly claimed.
Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (US 2020/0104012 A1 – “Du”) in view of Meng et al (CN 109634003 A, citations to the English machine translation of record – “Meng”);
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Du in view of Meng and Seomoon et al (US 2021/0096720 A1 – “Seomoon”).
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses a detection device comprising:
a substrate [e.g., the combined stratums of Fig. 9] having
a detection region [e.g., left-end region of Fig. 3, or left-end region of Fig. 5],
a coupling region [e.g., Fig. 3: region including 21, or Fig. 5: region including 180], and
a wiring region [e.g., Fig. 2: middle region including 122; Fig. 5: middle region including 182] between the detection region and the coupling region;
a plurality of sensors [e.g., Fig. 5: left-side terminals of 12, or Fig. 5: left-side terminals of 18 - Paragraph 45: wherein transmitting a signal inherently constitutes ‘sensing’ of a signal] disposed in the detection region of the substrate;
a plurality of terminals [e.g., Fig. 3: bottom-side terminals within 21; or Fig. 5: bottom-side terminals 18 within 180] disposed in the coupling region of the substrate and electrically coupled to the sensors;
a plurality of coupling wires [e.g., Figs. 2-3: the two outermost (top & bottom) wires 12; or Fig. 5: the two outermost (top & bottom) wires 18 within 182; see also Fig. 9: the two outermost (leftmost & rightmost) wires 18, or the two outermost (leftmost & rightmost) wires 12] connecting between the sensors and the terminals;
an insulating layer [e.g., Fig. 9: at least a stratum of 15 or 19] provided to the wiring region of the substrate and covering the coupling wires; and
a plurality of through holes [e.g., Fig. 9: 17, or the illustrated middle positioned 12, or the illustrated middle positioned 18] formed in the wiring region of the substrate,
the through holes passing through the insulating layer and the substrate [e.g., Fig. 9: 17 illustrated passing through the stratum of 15 and the stratum of 19 of the combined stratums, in the illustrated vertical direction], and
the through holes being open on a lower surface of the substrate [e.g., Fig. 9: 17 illustrated open at the surface of 19 in contact with 17, on the lower side of the combined stratums as illustrated] (e.g., see Paragraphs 36-70).
Du doesn’t appear to expressly disclose the wiring region has a trapezoidal shape having a long side adjacent to the detection region and a short side adjacent to the coupling region, as instantly claimed.
However, Meng discloses a wiring region between an element region and a coupling region of a substrate - e.g., a fan-out area between a display area, in which a plurality of signal lines are disposed, and an integrated circuit bonding area, in which a plurality of terminals are disposed [e.g., Paragraph 7: the area between the display area and the integrated circuit binding area is called a fan-out area; Paragraph 69: The non-display area 220 includes an integrated circuit binding area 230 and a fan-out area 240; Fig. 1: 100, 102, 103; Fig. 2A: 210, 240, 230],
wherein the wiring region has a trapezoidal shape having a long side adjacent to the element (display) region and a short side adjacent to the coupling (bonding) region [e.g., Paragraph 68: The fanout traces 102 are generally inverted trapezoidal; Fig. 1: the fan-out region occupied by traces 102, illustrated with its long side adjacent display area 100 and its short side adjacent integrated circuit bonding area 103] (e.g., see Paragraphs 6-7, 66-70).
For purposes of this rejection, the recited wiring region of Meng is the region of the substrate occupied by, and containing, the fan-out traces between the display area and the integrated circuit bonding area, consistent with the instant application’s own illustration of the wiring region WA as a region whose boundaries with the adjacent regions are virtually represented (e.g., instant Figs. 1, 9; instant publication Paragraphs 54, 81).
Du and Meng are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of substrates having an element region coupled to a terminal region by wiring extending across an intermediate wiring region;
furthermore, Meng is reasonably pertinent to a problem with which the instant inventors were concerned, the avoidance of breakage of the wiring - [e.g., Paragraph 16: reducing the possibility of fan-out trace breakage].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure Du’s wiring region with Meng’s trapezoidal fan-out arrangement - the long side adjacent the element (detection) region and the short side adjacent the coupling region - so as to route the plurality of wires from the comparatively wide element region to the comparatively narrow terminal/bonding footprint in the generally employed manner taught by Meng.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Meng’s trapezoidal wiring-region arrangement with Du’s detection device as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007); Graham v. John Deere co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
Should it be shown Du discloses sensors, as instantly claimed, with insufficient specificity:
Seomoon discloses a plurality of sensors [e.g., Fig. 11: TE, RE, CE] disposed in the detection region [e.g., Fig. 11: region including TE, RE, CE] of the substrate [e.g., Fig. 11: combined structure including SUB1, and/or SUB2];
a plurality of terminals [e.g., Fig. 11: CT1, CT2] disposed in the coupling region [e.g., Fig. 11: region including CT1, CT2] of the substrate and electrically coupled to the sensors; and
a plurality of coupling wires [e.g., Fig. 11: REL, TEL] connecting between the sensors and the terminals (e.g., see Paragraphs 123-156)
Du and Seomoon are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of detection devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Seomoon’s sensors with Du’s coupling wires, so as to distinguish a touch input intended by a user from an accidental touch input not intended by the user.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Seomoon’s sensors with Du’s coupling wires as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Du discloses a housing having a curved surface [e.g., Figs. 5, 6: surface of 18, 19 within 183]; and
a base provided to the housing and having a flat surface [e.g., Figs. 5, 6: surface of 18, 19 within 180],
wherein the detection region and the wiring region of the substrate are provided to the curved surface of the housing, and the coupling region is provided to the flat surface of the base (e.g., see Paragraphs 36-70).
Regarding claim 3, Du discloses the through holes are arrayed along an extending direction of the coupling wires (e.g., see Figs. 6, 9; Paragraphs 36-70).
Regarding claim 4, Du discloses the through holes have a larger opening area as the distance between the coupling wires adjacently disposed is larger (e.g., see Figs. 6, 9; Paragraphs 36-70).
Regarding claim 6, Du discloses the through holes have a circular, elliptical, or rectangular shape (e.g., see Fig. 6; Paragraph 46).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (US 2020/0104012 A1) in view of Meng et al (CN 109634003 A) and Seomoon et al (US 2021/0096720 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Du in view of Meng, as applied to claim 1 above, doesn’t appear to expressly disclose the sensors are force sensors, as instantly claimed.
However, Seomoon discloses force sensors configured to detect force applied to the force sensors (e.g., see Paragraph 127).
Du, Meng and Seomoon are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of substrates having an element region coupled to a terminal region by wiring extending across an intermediate wiring region, including detection devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Seomoon’s force sensors with the detection device of Du in view of Meng, so as to distinguish a touch input intended by a user from an accidental touch input not intended by the user.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Seomoon’s force sensors with the device of Du in view of Meng as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2 in view of Meng et al (CN 109634003 A).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited limitations in claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2, in view of the teachings of Meng, render obvious all the limitations of instant claims 1-4, 6 and 13.
Instant claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2 in all respects other than the recited shape of the wiring region, and is unpatentable over claim 1 thereof in view of Meng, as follows.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2 recites a detection device (e.g., column 17, line 6) comprising:
a substrate having a detection region, a coupling region, and a wiring region between the detection region and the coupling region (e.g., column 17, lines 7-9);
a plurality of sensors disposed in the detection region of the substrate (e.g., column 17, lines 10-11);
a plurality of terminals disposed in the coupling region of the substrate and electrically coupled to the sensors (e.g., column 17, lines 12-13);
a plurality of coupling wires arranged with a gap interposed therebetween in the wiring region of the substrate and electrically coupling the sensors to the terminals (e.g., column 17, lines 14-17) –
thereby reciting a plurality of coupling wires connecting between the sensors and the terminals, as instantly claimed; an insulating layer provided to the wiring region of the substrate and covering the coupling wires (e.g., column 17, lines 18-19); and
a plurality of through holes formed in the wiring region of the substrate, the through holes passing through from an upper surface of the insulating layer to a lower surface of the substrate, in a thickness direction between the coupling wires (e.g., column 17, lines 20-24).
The through holes so recited necessarily pass through the insulating layer and the substrate and are open on a lower surface of the substrate; the narrower recitation of patent claim 1 therefore encompasses, and anticipates, the corresponding limitation of instant claim 1 as amended.
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2 do not recite the wiring region has a
trapezoidal shape having a long side adjacent to the detection region and a short side adjacent to the coupling region.
However, Meng teaches a wiring region between an element region and a coupling region having a trapezoidal shape with its long side adjacent the element region and its short side adjacent the coupling region, for the reasons and upon the citations set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, which are incorporated herein [e.g., Paragraph 68: The fanout traces 102 are generally inverted trapezoidal; Fig. 1: 100, 102, 103].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the wiring region of the device recited by the patent claims with Meng’s trapezoidal fan-out arrangement so as to route the plurality of coupling wires from the comparatively wide detection region to the comparatively narrow coupling region in the generally employed manner taught by Meng. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007).
Instant claim 2 adds the same further limitations recited in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2: a housing having a curved surface; and a base provided to the housing and having a flat surface, wherein the detection region and the wiring region of the substrate are provided to the curved surface of the housing, and the coupling region is provided to the flat surface of the base (e.g., column 17, lines 25-33).
Instant claim 3 adds the same further limitation recited in claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2: the through holes are arrayed along an extending direction of the coupling wires (e.g., column 17, lines 34-36).
Instant claim 4 adds the same further limitation recited in claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2: the through holes have a larger opening area as the distance between the coupling wires adjacently disposed is larger (e.g., column 17, lines 3739).
Instant claim 6 adds the same further limitation recited in claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2: the through holes have a circular, elliptical, or rectangular shape (e.g., column 18, lines 1-3).
Instant claim 13 adds the same further limitation recited in claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2: the sensors are force sensors configured to detect force applied to the force sensors (e.g., column 18, lines 36-38).
Each of instant claims 2-4, 6 and 13 is accordingly not patentably distinct from, and is unpatentable over, the correspondingly numbered claim of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2 in combination with claim 1 thereof, in view of Meng, for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11 August 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues the cited references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations added to claim 1 by amendment, including that the wiring region has a trapezoidal shape having a long side adjacent to the detection region and a short side adjacent to the coupling region.
The argument has been considered but is moot because the argument is directed to newly added claim limitations that are addressed by the new ground of rejection over Du in view of Meng set forth above, which new ground was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
It is additionally noted the amendment deleted the requirement that the through holes be positioned “in a thickness direction between the coupling wires”, and in this respect amended claim 1 is broader than the claim previously examined.
Applicant further submits “the amendments to Claim 1 render moot the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.” The Office respectfully disagrees.
An amendment to the claims does not render a nonstatutory double patenting rejection moot; it changes the comparison between the examined claims and the reference claims, and the rejection has been reconsidered against the claims as amended.
Per MPEP § 804, “A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP S 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers).”
Applicant has neither filed a terminal disclaimer nor presented a showing pointing out how the amended claims are patentably distinct from the reference claims beyond the amendment itself.
As set forth above, the amended claims remain unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,411,572 B2 in view of Meng; the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is accordingly maintained in the modified form necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant’s statement that the amendments find support at least in paragraphs [0054] and [0085] of the published application, and in Figs. 1, 9 and 10, is acknowledged.
No new matter is identified in the amendment of 11 August 2026, and the amendment does not shift the claims from the elected species (the identified support lies within elected Species 1 and Species 6, Figs. 1 and 9-10).
Conclusion
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 Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM).
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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
17 August 2026
Prosecution Insights