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 § 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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 includes “substantially”. The claims appears to be a term of degree; however it is not readily apparent a standard measure for “substantially”.
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 1-8, 19-22, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas (US 20230035865) in the view of Yu (US 20120306820).
Regarding claim 1: Lomas teaches a touch sensitive apparatus (Fig. 1 #8), comprising: a top plate having one or more light sources associated therewith, such that light from the one or more light sources is transmitted within the top plate with total internal reflection (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0048-0055] teach a top plate 10 having one or more light sources 12 transmitting light within the top plate with total internal reflection); and a base plate having one or more detectors associated therewith for detecting light transmitted within the base plate, wherein the top plate and the base plate are configured such that if an external body touches a first surface of the top plate, then light is coupled from a second surface of the top plate into the base plate through a first surface of the base plate (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0048-0055] teach a base plate 18 having one or more detectors 20 for detecting light transmitted within the base plate 18, and working as claimed based on touch); and wherein one or more regions of the first surface, the second surface, or both is provided with a layer providing optical separation (Figs. 4-5 and paragraph [0022, 0079, 0086-0087] teach wherein one or more regions of the first surface, the second surface, or both is provided with a layer or mask layer 65 providing optical separation).
Lomas does not explicitly disclose the layer inhibiting internal reflection at that region of the surface, thereby providing optical separation between one part of the top plate and another part of the top plate.
However, Yu teaches the layer inhibiting internal reflection at that region of the surface, thereby providing optical separation between one part of the top plate and another part of the top plate (Fig. 3 and paragraph [0039] teach a layer 37 inhibiting internal reflection at the region 311 of the surface, thereby providing optical separation between one part 311 and another part 312 of the surface 31). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lomas’ invention by including above teachings of Yu, because utilizing a light absorbing layer at some portions allows to clearly define a touch sensitive area on the touch panel, as taught by Yu. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 2: Combination of Lomas and Yu teach wherein the layer is an absorbing layer (Yu in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0039] teach a layer 37 is an absorbing layer). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas and Yu, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 3: Lomas teaches wherein the top plate is formed of an acrylic material (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0048] #10).
Regarding claim 4: Lomas teaches wherein the top plate is formed by moulding, and the layer is formed by two-shot moulding or in-mould labelling (Figs. 1, 4 and paragraph [0022, 0036] teach the layer is formed by two-shot moulding, and the top plate 10 is molded identical as shown in claimed invention, and it would have been obvious in the art to form plates via moulding to achieve desired shape, which is common practice in art).
Regarding claim 5: Combination of Lomas and Yu teach wherein the layer is further adapted to limit an angle of incidence of light at the top plate of light entering the top plate from the one or more light sources (Yu in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0039] teach the layer 37 absorbs light and limit an angle of incidence of light, and can be utilized in similar manner in Lomas’ invention). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas and Yu, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 6: Combination of Lomas and Yu teach wherein the layer separates at least one active area from other regions of the first surface, wherein each active area is functionally isolated from any other optical activity in the top plate (Yu in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0034, 0039-0043] teach the layer 37 separates at least one active area 312 from other regions 311 as claimed). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas and Yu, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 7: Combination of Lomas and Yu teach wherein an active area provides a single touch sensitive device functionality (Lomas in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0057-0068] and Yu in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0034, 0039-0043]). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas and Yu, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 8: Combination of Lomas and Yu teach wherein the touch sensitive device functionality comprises one of a dial, a slider, a button, a toggle, and a touch screen (Lomas in Figs. 11-12 and paragraph [0014, 0137-0139] and Yu in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0034, 0039-0043]). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas and Yu, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 19: Lomas teaches wherein the first surface of the top plate in the active area is not planar (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0076-0082] shows the first surface 23 of the top plate 10 is not planar).
Regarding claim 20: Combination of Lomas and Yu teach wherein the one or more light sources are spaced to form a substantially uniform light distribution in the active area of the top plate (Yu in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0034, 0039-0043] teach light sources 321 are spaced to form uniform light distribution in the active area).
Regarding claim 21-22: Lomas teaches wherein there are a plurality of active areas separated by the layer, and wherein said two of the plurality of active areas have different touch sensitive device functionalities; and wherein two of the plurality of active areas have different optical characteristics (Figs. 5-6 and paragraph [0017-0023, 0068-0071, 0117-0125, 0139] teach a plurality of active areas defined separated by the layer or mask as claimed and optically separated).
Regarding claim 26-27: Combination of Lomas and Yu teach wherein each of the one or more light sources is a light emitting diode; and wherein the light sources emit in the near infrared and the absorbing layer absorbs in the near infrared (Lomas in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0048] and Yu in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0039]). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas and Yu, same rationale applies here.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas (US 20230035865), in the view of Yu (US 20120306820), and further in the view of Miyake (US 20120188385).
Regarding claim 9: Combination of Lomas and Yu do not explicitly teach wherein each of the one or more light sources is disposed within the top plate to couple light into a body of the top plate through a refracting input face of the top plate.
However, Miyake teaches wherein each of the one or more light sources is disposed within the top plate to couple light into a body of the top plate through a refracting input face of the top plate (Figs. 1, 7 and paragraph [0038, 0046, 0052] teach light source 16 is disposed within the top plate 24 to couple light into a body of top plate through a refracting input face). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Lomas and Yu, by including above teachings of Miyake, because arranging light source as shown by Miyake help keeping smaller footprint for the device while still supplying light for accurate touch detection. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 10: Combination of Lomas, Yu, and Miyaki teach wherein the layer extends on to the refracting face (Yu in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0034, 0039-0043] teach the layer 37 extends on the light source 321 and the lens 322, similar teaching can be applied to combination of Lomas and Miyaki to achieve similar results). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas and Yu, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 11: Combination of Lomas, Yu, and Miyaki teach wherein each refracting input face is formed on a recess in which the respective light source is disposed (Miyaki in Figs. 1, 7 and paragraph [0038, 0046, 0052] teach the refracting input face is formed on a recess in cover 24 in which light source 16 is disposed). See claim 9 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas, Yu, and Miyaki, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 12: Combination of Lomas, Yu, and Miyaki teach wherein a wall of the or each refracting input face forms an angle to a plane of the top plate such that the refracting input face and the second surface of the top plate form an obtuse angle within the top plate (Miyaki in Figs. 1, 7 and paragraph [0038, 0046, 0052] teach the refracting input face is formed on a recess in cover 24 as claimed). See claim 9 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas, Yu, and Miyaki, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 13: Combination of Lomas, Yu, and Miyaki teach wherein a wall of the or each refracting input face is lensed (Lomas in paragraph [0048], and Miyaki in Figs. 1, 5-6 and paragraph [0071-0073] teach lensed surface for cover 24 including the wall input face). See claim 9 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas, Yu, and Miyaki, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 14: Combination of Lomas, Yu, and Miyaki teach wherein each of the light sources is mounted at an angle to a plane of the top plate such that light emitted from it is predominantly directed obliquely towards the first surface (Miyaki in Figs. 1, 7 and paragraph [0038, 0046, 0052]). See claim 9 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas, Yu, and Miyaki, same rationale applies here.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas (US 20230035865), in the view of Yu (US 20120306820), and further in the view of Craven (US 20150331546).
Regarding claim 28: Combination of Lomas and Yu do not explicitly disclose wherein the absorbing layer is transmissive for some or all of the visible spectrum.
However, Craven teaches wherein the absorbing layer is transmissive for some or all of the visible spectrum (paragraph [0102]). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Craven and Yu, by including above teachings of Craven, because such type of light absorbing layers allows some type of visible light to transmit which allows the user to view the underlying display, as taught by Craven. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomas (US 20230035865), in the view of Yu (US 20120306820), and further in the view of Keranen (US 20190049650).
Regarding claim 29: Combination of Lomas and Yu do not explicitly disclose wherein one or more regions of the first surface are provided with an additional layer, wherein the additional layer absorbs in the visible spectrum.
However, Keranen teaches wherein one or more regions of the first surface are provided with an additional layer, wherein the additional layer absorbs in the visible spectrum (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0045-0047] teach an additional layer or cover layer such as 108 is provided on the first surface and it is opaque layer absorbing the visible spectrum). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Craven and Yu, by including above teachings of Keranen, because utilizing additional cover layer helps protect the underlaying components and exhibit a desired appearance such as color scheme, graphics, etc., as taught by Keranen. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 30: Combination of Lomas, Yu, and Keranen teach wherein the additional layer is transmissive in the near infrared (Keranen in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0045-0047] teach an additional layer or cover layer such as 108 is transmissive to the wavelength of lights produced by the lights source below and Lomas in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0048] teach the light source is an infrared light source). See claim 29 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas, Yu, and Keranen, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 31: Combination of Lomas, Yu, and Keranen teach wherein the additional layer at least partially overlays the absorbing layer (Keranen in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0045-0047] teach an additional layer or cover layer such as 108 overlays the mask layer 106). See claim 29 rejection for combination reasoning of Lomas, Yu, and Keranen, same rationale applies here.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights