DETAILED ACTION
This is a first office action in response to application No. 19/398,071 filed on 11/24/2025, in which claims 1 - 4 are presented for examination.
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 .
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, “a first electronic element disposed on the first substrate; a second electronic element disposed on the second substrate; a sensing element disposed on the first electronic element and overlapping the gap; (fig. 9)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 and 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recite “a first electronic element disposed on the first substrate;
a second electronic element disposed on the second substrate;”
First device 100 there is no second device. Applicant’s specification discloses in par. [0006] … The electronic device includes a first substrate, a second substrate, a first electronic element disposed on the first substrate, a second electronic element disposed on the second substrate, however, the specification fails to describe the claimed limitations “a first electronic element and a second electronic element” as currently claimed.
Claim 3, recites “a layer disposed on the first electronic element and the second electronic element,” in par. [0026] When an element or a layer is referred to as being “electrically connected” to another element or layer,” the specification fails to describe “a layer” which layer applicant claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Further depending claims not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims are rejected for similar reasoning above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. The factual inquiries 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.
6. Claims 1 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee “US 2020/0033971” in view of Lee “US 2023/0217686”, hereafter Lee ‘686.
Re- claim 1, Lee teaches an electronic device applied to a vehicle, (par. [0003] electronic appliances for providing an image to a user, such as smart phones, tablet PCs, digital cameras, notebook computers, navigators,) comprising:
a first substrate; (fig. 13; SUB1)
a second substrate, (fig. 13; SUB2) wherein the first substrate (fig. 13; SUB1) and the second substrate (fig. 13; SUB2) are separated by a gap; (see annotated fig. 13 below)
a first electronic element (fig. 13; TE1) disposed on the first substrate; (fig. 13; SUB1)
a second electronic element (fig. 13; TE2) disposed on the second substrate; (fig. 13; SUB1 on the first substrate)
a cover (figs. 25 - 27; 100) disposed on the sensing element, (figs. 26 - 27; 200)
wherein the cover (figs. 25 - 27; 100) has a curved surface (figs. 25 - 27 and par. [0150] The cover window 100 may be rigid or flexible) overlapping the gap. (see annotated fig. 13 below)
Lee does not explicitly teach a sensing element disposed on the first electronic element and overlapping the gap; and
However, Lee ‘686 teaches a sensing element (fig. 7; sensor layer (SENL)) disposed on the first electronic element (fig. 7; TFTL) and overlapping the gap;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gap between the substrates of Lee with the teaching of the sensor layer (SENL) top of the electronic element of Lee ‘686 to cover the gap with the sensor layer SENL may sense a touch of a person or an object by using the sensor electrodes (par. [0090]) which is similar to the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
315
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising an adhesive layer (fig. 27; 110) disposed between the cover (fig. 27; 100) and the first substrate (fig. 27; 800) and between the cover (fig. 27; 100) and the second substrate, (fig. 27; 400) wherein a portion of the adhesive layer (fig. 27; 110) is overlapped with the gap. (see fig. 26)
Re-claim 3, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a layer (fig. 13; a layer is equivalent to first force sensing layer PSL1 and second force sensing layer PSL2) disposed on the first electronic element (fig. 13; TE1) and the second electronic element, (fig. 13; TE2) wherein a portion of the layer is overlapped with the gap. (fig. 13; first force sensing layer PSL1)
Re-claim 4, Lee teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the sensing element (fig. 13; RE1) is overlapped with the first substrate (fig. 13; SUB1) and not overlapped with the second substrate. (fig. 13; SUB2)
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sosina Abebe whose telephone number is (571) 270-7929. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday from 9:00-5:30 If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/S.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626 7/15/26
Prosecution Insights