DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0257004 A1 to (Smith) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0105400 A1 to Matthew et al. (Matthew).
As to claim 1, Smith discloses an electronic device (200) (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 21, 24) comprising: a display (202) having a substrate (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 24) and having an array of pixels (505) on the substrate (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 7, 24), wherein the array of pixels includes a first group of pixels (e.g. deactivated pixels in front of the camera) and a second group of pixels (e.g. activated pixels displaying image not in front of the camera) (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 26, 42, claim 15); a light sensor (204) behind the display (202) (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 21, 25) that detects light through an active area of the display (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7-8, 25); and processing circuitry (503, 508) that selectively controls the first group of pixels (505) to generate a transparent region that overlaps the light sensor (204) (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 26, 42, claim 15) while the second group of pixels displays an image (Figs. 4-5B, Par. 25).
Smith does not expressly disclose a polarizer has a gap overlapping the first group of pixels, wherein the first group of pixels is interposed between the gap of the polarizer and the light sensor and is configured to emit light through the gap.
Matthew discloses a display (14) comprising a polarizer (62) has a gap (132) overlapping the first group of pixels (e.g. pixels between 132 and 126) (Fig. 9, Pars. 75, 77), wherein the first group of pixels (e.g. pixels between 132 and 126) is interposed between the gap (132) of the polarizer (62) and the light sensor (22) and is configured to emit light through the gap (132)(Fig. 9, Pars. 75, 77).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Matthew to improve light transmission and may improve image quality as suggested by Matthew (Par. 75).
As to claim 3, Smith discloses the light sensor (204) comprises a camera (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 21, 25).
As to claim 4, Smith discloses the transparent region includes a portion of the array of pixels that is not emitting light (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 25, 42).
As to claim 5, Smith discloses the array of pixels (505) is configured to display an image (in display state) that hides the light sensor (204) from view (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Par. 25, see also Pars. 7, 21).
As to claim 6, Smith discloses the light sensor (204) is located behind the substrate (202) (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 21, 25).
As to claim 8, Smith discloses the array of pixels comprises organic light-emitting diode pixels (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 24).
As to claim 9, Smith as modified discloses the gap (Matthew’s 132) overlaps the light sensor (Matthew’s 22) (Matthew’s Fig. 9, Pars. 75, 77). See claim 1 for motivation.
Claims 2 and 7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0257004 A1 to (Smith) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0105400 A1 to Matthew et al. (Matthew); in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0322706 to Austin.
As to claim 2, Smith as modified does not expressly disclose the light sensor comprises a proximity sensor.
Austin discloses the light sensor comprises a proximity sensor (670) (Fig. 6, Par. 68).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Austin to save power as suggested by Austin (Par. 68).
As to claim 7, Smith discloses the processing circuitry is configured to generate the transparent region in response to a signal (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 26, 42).
Smith does not expressly disclose to generate the transparent region in response to touch input on the display.
Austin discloses to generate the transparent region in response to touch input on the display (Par. 13, see also Pars. 10, 20).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Austin to allow clear image capturing process as suggested by Austin (Par. 13).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0257004 A1 to (Smith) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0105400 A1 to Matthew et al. (Matthew); in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0266273 A1 to Slobodin et al. (Slobodin).
As to claim 10, Smith as modified does not expressly disclose the polarizer comprises a circular polarizer.
Slobodin discloses the polarizer comprises a circular polarizer (Fig. 8, Par. 52).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Slobodin to reduce the impact on display brightness thereby provide an improved touch display as suggested by Slobodin (Par. 9).
Claim 11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0257004 A1 to Smith et al. (Smith) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0106629 A1 to Kurtz et al. (Kurtz).
As to claim 11, Smith discloses an electronic device (200) (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 21, 24), comprising: an organic light-emitting diode display (202) having an array of pixels (505) that displays images (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 7, 24); a light sensor (204) behind an active area of the light-emitting diode display (202) (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 21, 25); and processing circuitry (503, 508) that operates the organic light-emitting diode display (202) in first and second modes (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 26, 42), wherein in the first mode, the light sensor (204) detects light through a first region (e.g. deactivated pixels in front of the camera) of the light-emitting diode display (202) while the images are displayed in a second region of the light-emitting diode display (e.g. activated pixels displaying image not in front of the camera) (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 26, 42, claim 15); and in the second mode, the light sensor is concealed behind the active area (Figs. 4-5A, 10, Par. 25, see also Pars. 26, 42).
Smith does not expressly disclose a distance between the pixels is greater in the first region than in the second region to allow more light to pass through the first region.
Kurtz discloses a distance between the pixels is greater in the first region than in the second region to allow more light to pass through the first region (Figs. 14a-14b, Par. 82, see also Par. 81; i.e. since semi-transparent pixels 9 (white) are smaller than the RGB pixels, the distance between pixels in regions 26a, 26b, or 26c is greater than the distance between pixels in the rest of the display with only RGB pixels 8).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Kurtz to improve the performance of the capture device as suggested by Kurtz (Par. 65).
As to claim 14, Smith discloses the organic light-emitting diode display (202) comprises a substrate on which the array of pixels (505) is located (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 7, 24) and wherein the light sensor (204) is located behind the substrate (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 21, 25).
As to claim 15, Smith discloses at least some of the pixels that overlap the light sensor (204) do not emit light in the first mode (transparent state) (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 25, 42).
Claim 12 and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0257004 A1 to Smith et al. (Smith) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0106629 A1 to Kurtz et al. (Kurtz); in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0322706 to Austin.
As to claim 12, Smith as modified further discloses the light sensor (Smith’s 204) comprises a light sensor selected from a group consisting of: an image sensor (Smith’s camera 204) (Smith’s Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 21, 25),
Smith as modified does not expressly disclose a fingerprint reader and a proximity sensor.
Austin discloses a light sensor selected from a group consisting of: an image sensor (Optical Data Capture Component) (Figs. 2-6, Par. 55), a fingerprint reader (Par. 21), and a proximity sensor (Fig. 6, Par. 68).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Austin to save power as suggested by Austin (Par. 68).
As to claim 13, Smith as modified does not disclose the processing circuitry transitions the organic light-emitting diode display between the first and second modes in response to touch input.
Austin discloses the processing circuitry transitions the display between the first (transparent state) and second (display state) modes in response to touch input (Pars. 13, 55-56, see also Pars. 10, 20).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Austin to allow clear image capturing process as suggested by Austin (Par. 13).
Claim 16-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0257004 A1 to Smith et al. (Smith), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0322706 to Austin, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0188353 A1 to Yoon et al. (Yoon), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0106629 A1 to Kurtz et al.
As to claim 16, Smith discloses electronic device (200) (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 21, 24) comprising: a display (202) having an array of pixels (505) on a display substrate (202) (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 24) (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 7, 24); a light sensor (204) behind the display substrate (202) (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 21, 25) that detects light through the display substrate (202) Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7-8, 25); and processing circuitry (503, 505) that controls the array of pixels (505) to produce a transparent region on the display over the light sensor (204) (Figs. 4-5B, 10, Pars. 26, 42, claim 15); wherein the transparent region has at least one of an adjustable shape or an adjustable size (Par. 26).
Smith does not expressly disclose a touch sensor that receives touch input; produce a transparent region on the display in response to the touch input and to produce an additional transparent region over an additional component, wherein the adjustable shape or size is adjusted in response to the touch input to the touch sensor.
Austin discloses a touch sensor that receives touch input (Pars. 61, 68); produce a transparent region on the display in response to the touch input (Pars. 13, 55-56, see also Pars. 10, 20, Fig. 10, [0076], Fig. 2, [0062]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Austin to allow clear image capturing process as suggested by Austin (Par. 13).
Yoon discloses transparent region (transparent area surrounding content 165) the adjustable shape or size is adjusted in response to the touch input to the touch sensor (Figs. 7A-8, Pars. 48-49, 53; i.e. the area surrounding the content 165 is transparent such that the user’s finger touching the back side display 130b can be seen through the front display 130a).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Austin to allow clear image capturing process as suggested by Austin (Par. 13).
Smith does not expressly disclose to produce an additional transparent region over an additional component, wherein the transparent region is separate from the additional transparent region, wherein an image is displayed between the transparent region and the additional transparent region.
Kurtz discloses producing an additional transparent region (e.g. 26a, 26b, 26c) over an additional component (e.g. multiple cameras 40) (Figs. 2, 14a-14b, Pars. 81-82, 94, see also Pars. 55, 63), wherein the transparent region is separate from the additional transparent region (Figs. 14a-14b, Pars. 81-82, 94), wherein an image is displayed between the transparent region (26a) and the additional transparent region (26b)(Figs. 14a-14b, Pars. 81-82, 94; i.e. image displays in RGB pixels 8 disposed between transparent pixels 9).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Kurtz to enable a plurality of capture devices to be employed thereby provide an improved device as suggested by Kurtz (Par. 94).
As to claim 17, Smith discloses the array of pixels comprises organic light-emitting diode pixels (Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 24).
As to claim 18, Smith as modified discloses the processing circuitry temporarily turns off only a portion of the array of pixels to produce the transparent region (Smith’s Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 26, 42, claim 15, Austin’s Par. 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Austin to allow clear image capturing process as suggested by Austin (Par. 13).
As to claim 19, Smith as modified further discloses the light sensor (Smith’s 204) comprises a light sensor selected from a group consisting of: an image sensor (Smith’s camera 204) (Smith’s Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 7, 21, 25),
Smith as modified does not expressly disclose a fingerprint reader and a proximity sensor.
Austin discloses a light sensor selected from a group consisting of: an image sensor (Optical Data Capture Component) (Figs. 2-6, Par. 55), a fingerprint reader (Par. 21), and a proximity sensor (Fig. 6, Par. 68).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Smith with the teaching of Austin to save power as suggested by Austin (Par. 68).
As to claim 20, Smith discloses the processing circuitry controls the array of pixels to produce an image that conceals the light sensor (display state) (Smith’s Figs. 4-5B, Pars. 25, 42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Examiner notes that the new claim elements are now addressed by reference Kurtz in addition to previously presented prior arts as necessitated by amendments. Please see above for full basis of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 5,159,445 to Gitlin teaches a teleconferencing video display system with a camera positioned behind a display screen, wherein the display screen is controlled to switch from the first or image display mode to the second or substantially transparent mode.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA whose telephone number is (571)270-7361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 8:30AM to 6:00PM, EST.
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, Lun Yi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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.
/JARURAT SUTEERAWONGSA/Examiner, Art Unit 2621
/LUNYI LAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights