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 .
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 04/02/2026 (“A...”), in which: no claims are amended; claim 7 is cancelled; no new claims are added; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 16 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows, wherein claims 3 and 9 – 16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 04/02/2026 (“A...”), in which claim 7 is cancelled, rendering the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends as moot. Examiner withdraws the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive (Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 16, wherein claims 3 and 9 – 16 are withdrawn from consideration).
First, applicant argues on pages 7 – 8 of the instant Remarks:
The instant feature of claim 1 wherein “the first layer comprises a source driver and a first component of a sensor” and “the second layer comprises a gate driver, a plurality of pixels, and a second component of the sensor”, specifically regarding the first component of the sensor and the second component of the sensor, is not taught by Han et al. (US 20170045918 A1).
Applicant’s arguments in this section of the instant Remarks, as the examiner understands, is built from the basis that the examiner has alleged Han’s lower panel 120b as a first layer and Han’s display unit 120a as a second layer. However, this assertion from the examiner was not included in the previous Non-Final Rejection (“CTNF”) mailed 11/28/2025. Rather examiner asserted Han’s first circuit board 140 as a first layer (Fig. 5; first circuit board 140) and Han’s lower panel 120b as a second layer (or at least as a portion thereof). Therefore, the arguments on page 7 – 9 are not convincing.
Second, applicant argues on page 8 – 9 of the instant Remarks:
The examiner’s interpretation of Han’s first circuit board 140 as a first layer and Han’s lower panel 120b as a second layer does “does not work as it appears in Han that the first circuit board 140 is an element included in the lower panel 120b”. Respectfully, examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments as Han teaches the first circuit board 140 to be arranged on a bottom surface of the lower panel 120b (e.g., [0127] of Han), which the examiner understands to mean that first circuit board 140 is a distinct electronic device components from the lower panel 120b. Therefore, examiner believes that Han does teach two distinct and subsequently stacked layers that have an opening for housing a sensor, wherein the sensor is located in both the first and second layers. Thus, examiner is not persuaded by applicant’s arguments because they see no evidence that the first circuit board 140 is a subcomponent of the lower panel 120b.
Examiner appreciates applicant’s detailed response and alternative arguments for potential interpretations of the art, specifically regarding Han et al. (US 20170045918 A1); however, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims, it is the examiner’s position that the previous rejection is proper and the combination of Wang (US 20170358265 A1), further in view of Han et al. (US 20170045918 A1) and Fabien et al. (US 20200403117 A1), yield a display device that teaches the instant display device of claim 1.
In an effort to provide further clarity of record, examiner will attempt to elaborate on their understanding of how Han et al. (US 20170045918 A1) reads on the instant limitations of claim 1 wherein “the first component of the sensor is provided in the opening portion” and “the second layer comprises ... a second component of the sensor”. Examiner relied upon Han for their teaching of a sensor in an opening, wherein the opening is provided in a first layer (Fig. 5; first circuit board 140) and a second layer (Fig. 5; lower panel 120b), wherein the first and second layers are two distinct and subsequently stacked layers. Han was cited because their first circuit board 140 is a layer that contains device circuitry, wherein the instant first layer is also a layer that contains device circuitry. While Han does not explicitly teach their first circuit board 140 including a source driver, Han does not teach away from this device feature nor was Han relied upon for a circuit layer that includes a source driver. Additionally, Han was cited because their lower panel 120b may include electronic devices/circuits, e.g., a NFC module ([0119] and [0125]). While Han does not explicitly teach their lower panel 120b including a gate driver, Han was not relied upon for a circuit layer that includes a source driver. Thus, Han teaches a first layer and a second layer that contains device circuitry. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is the examiner’s opinion that Han’s disclosed structure teaches a way in which the device of Wang may have their laminate structures modified to house a sensor within an opening that is provided in two distinct and subsequently stacked layers of a display device.
Additionally, Han discloses that the illumination intensity sensor member 130 has an illumination intensity sensor unit 131 and a second circuit board 132. Examiner understands the surfaces the illumination intensity sensor unit 131 and the second circuit board 132 including components for making the attachment and to carry signals from the illumination intensity sensor unit 131, through the second circuit board 132 , and delivered to first circuit board 140 ([0136], [0140] – [0141]). Thus, examiner understands Han to teach a first component of the sensor and a second component of the sensor, in the first and second layers respectively.
Further, to provide a constructive path forward, the examiner has identified additional pertinent art that is not currently being considered in the rejections below. It is the examiner intention to provide transparency; so if the applicant chooses to amend in the future, then they can have a better understanding of the art considered relevant by the examiner. Examiner has identified the disclosure of Kim et al. (US 20180293420 A1); wherein Fig. 9 teaches an electronic device 901 wherein a sensor (Fig. 9; a biometric sensor module 940) is housed in an opening (Fig. 9) between a first layer (Fig. 9; layer at least including pressure sensor 930 and flexible printed circuit board FPCB). This art is currently not being considered in the rejections previously submitted or below.
Rejections
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4 – 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20170358265 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20170045918 A1) and Fabien et al. (US 20200403117 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wang teaches a display device comprising:
a first layer (Fig. 2; second semiconductor laminate 202) and a second layer (Fig. 2; first semiconductor laminate 101), wherein the first layer comprises a source driver (Fig. 2; second peripheral circuit 250)…
wherein the second layer comprises a gate driver (Fig. 2; pixel-driver array 110), a plurality of pixels (Fig. 4; pixel display elements 301), and …
wherein an opening portion (Fig. 2; opening including the fourth via 63 connecting the first and second layers. See at least [0037]) and a first terminal ([0085] discloses a terminal of the second semiconductor laminate 202, i.e., the first layer) are provided in the first layer, …
wherein the first terminal is electrically connected to the source driver ( Fig. 2),
wherein the pixels are provided on a first surface (Fig. 2; second surface 101b; and Fig. 4) of the second layer,
wherein a second terminal (Fig. 2; terminal from which fourth via 63 extends from in the second layer) is provided in the second layer (Fig. 1) and …
wherein the second terminal is electrically connected to the pixels ([0030]) [[and]]
wherein the first terminal is electrically connected to the second terminal (Fig. 2), …
wherein the first layer and the second layer are laminated ([0030]), and …
PNG
media_image1.png
305
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For clarity, examiner provides an annotated excerpt from Fig. 2 showing the first and second terminals.
However, Wang remains silent regarding:
wherein the first layer comprises a first component of a sensor, …
a second layer comprising a second component of the sensor, …
wherein the first component of the sensor is provided in the opening portion, …
wherein a second terminal is provided on a second surface of the second layer which is opposite to the first surface, …
wherein a bump is provided between the first layer and the second layer, …
wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are in direct contact with the bump.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Han teaches a display device including a sensor (Fig. 5; illumination intensity sensor member 130) which includes a first component (Fig. 5; portion of illumination intensity sensor member 130 accommodated in first circuit board 140) of the sensor included in an opening (Fig. 5; first opening 125b) of a first layer (Fig. 5; first circuit board 140); such that the first component of the sensor is provided in the opening portion (Fig. 5). While Han does not explicitly teach first circuit board 140 as a laminated structure, the examiner asserts that this structure is analogous to the first layer in function, and thus may be considered as such. Further, Han teaches a second layer (Fig. 5; lower panel 120b), which includes a second component (Fig. 5; portion of illumination intensity sensor member 130 accommodated in lower panel 120b) of the sensor. Thus, Han’s disclosure may be used to modify the display device of Wang to form a display device wherein the first layer comprises a first component of a sensor, a second layer comprising a second component of the sensor, wherein the first component of the sensor is provided in the opening portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Wang’s display device to include Han’s display device structure wherein an opening is formed in their display device layers/chips to accommodate a sensor, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Wang’s display device as modified by Han’s opening and sensor can yield a predictable result of allowing the display device to receive data/signals/stimuli from other components of the display device or the environment in which the display device is operated since the sensor is configured to receive data/signals/stimuli from other components of the display device or the environment in which the display device is operated. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Wang, further in view of Han, to include the structure wherein a portion of the sensor is in the first layer and a portion the sensor is in the second layer, as disclosed by Han (Fig. 5), because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Han’s layers of their semiconductor device is comparable to Wang’s first and second layers because they include the same functionality and the same relative positioning within a display device. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Wang, further in view of Han, to include the structure wherein a portion of the sensor is in the first layer and a portion the sensor is in the second layer, as disclosed by Han (Fig. 5), with the predictable result of housing the sensor of the display device in both the first and second layers.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Fabien discloses a structure of joining a thin-film circuit layer 1604, i.e., a second layer, to a backplane 1704 including drive circuitry, i.e., a first layer; wherein a second terminal (Fig. 17; first pad 1708-1) is provided on a second surface of the second layer which is opposite to the first surface; wherein a bump is provided between the first layer and the second layer. Further, Fabien discloses a first terminal (Fig. 17; second pad 1708-2), wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are in direct contact with the bump (Fig. 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Wang, further in view of Han, to include Fabien’s display device structure wherein terminals of the first and second layers are connected through a bump structure, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Fabien’s first and second layers are comparable to the first and second layers of Wang, further in view Han, because their respective layers have similar functionality and relative placement between structures of their respective display devices. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Wang, further in view of Han, to include Fabien’s display device structure wherein terminals of the first and second layers are connected through a bump structure with the predictable result of electrically connecting the first and second layers of the display device of Wang, further in view of Han.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein:
the second layer has a larger area than the first layer, and the second layer
comprises a region overlapping with the first layer.
Han shows in Fig. 5 that portions of their second layer extend beyond their first layer such that the examiner understands the area of the second layer to be larger than the first layer. This relative sizing may be applied to the structure of Wang to yield the display device wherein the second layer has a larger area than the first layer, and the second layer comprises a region overlapping with the first layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, to include Han’s teaching of the second layer extending beyond the first layer, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Han’s first and second layers are comparable to the first and second layers of Wang, because their respective first and second layers include similar device circuitry/components with analogous functionality, e.g., source and gate drivers. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, to include Han’s teaching of the second layer extending beyond the first layer with the predictable result of providing a larger area over which the pixels of the display device may be disposed.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein:
a first pixel and a second pixel are included as the pixels (Wang: Fig. 4 shows a plurality of pixels including a first and second pixel),
wherein the first pixel and the second pixel each comprise a light-emitting element (Wang: [0003] teaches light-emitting elements, e.g., OLED), and
wherein the second pixel further comprises a component of the gate driver (Wang: Fig. 4 shows the pixels connected to the a first electrode 131 of the first electrode array 130 connected to the pixel-driver array 110, wherein each pixel includes a first electrode 131 such that, e.g., the second pixel further comprises a component, i.e., first electrode 131, of the pixel-driver array 110, i.e., the gate driver).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein:
the first terminal and the second terminal are provided in a position overlapping with a wiring to which the plurality of pixels are connected.
Fabien shows in Fig. 17 that the first terminal and the second terminal overlap, analogous to what is shown in Fig. 2 of Wang. Further, Fabien shows in Fig. 17 that the first terminal and the second terminal are provided in a position overlapping with a wiring to which the plurality of pixels (Fig. 17; LEDs 1614-1 and 1614-2) are connected. This structure may be implemented into the structure of Wang by altering the position of the peripheral circuits disclosed by Wang. Thus, Fabien may be used to modify the display device of Wang to yield the display device wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are provided in a position overlapping with a wiring to which the plurality of pixels are connected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, to include Fabien’s display device structure wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are provided in a position overlapping with a wiring to which the plurality of pixels are connected, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Fabien’s display device circuitry included in their first and second layers is comparable to the display device circuitry in Wang’s first and second layers because they have analogous functionality, such as forming source drivers and gate drivers. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, to include Fabien’s display device structure wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are provided in a position overlapping with a wiring to which the plurality of pixels are connected with the predictable result of adjusting the space taken up by peripheral circuitry over the substrate(s) of the display device.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, teach the display device according to claim 5, wherein:
the light-emitting element comprises an organic substance (Wang teaches in [0003] OLED as a light-emitting element).
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20170358265 A1), and further in view of Han et al. (US 20170045918 A1), Fabien et al. (US 20200403117 A1), and Hamamatsu Photonics (Hamamatsu Photonics. (2015, January). MEMS-FPI spectrum sensor C13272. Hamamatsu City.).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, teach the display device according to claim 1; however, Han remains silent wherein:
the sensor functions as MEMS.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Hamamatsu Photonics discloses a MEMS-FPI that may function as a illumination intensity sensor (see provided NPL). Thus, it would be obvious to include Han’s illumination intensity sensor 130 as a sensors that functions as a MEMS.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display device of Wang, further in view of Han and Fabien, to include a sensor that functions as MEMS, as disclosed by Hamamatsu Photonics, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Han’s illumination intensity sensor and Hamamatsu Photonics’ MEMS-FPI perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being a sensor that measures illumination intensity. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Han’s illumination intensity sensor by replacing it with Hamamatsu Photonics’ MEMS-FPI. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180293420 A1 considered for its teaching of a sensor housed in an opening (Fig. 9).
US 20030015768 A1 considered for teaching that a biometric sensor may be a MEMS ([0153]).
US 10923023 B1 considered for its teaching of a similar display device with similar structures.
US 20150348905 A1 considered for its teaching of MEMS
US 20170186778 A1, US 20160019856 A1, US 20200020752 A1, US 20100182282 A1, and US 20120327060 A1 previously relied upon
US 10115369 B2 and US 11217635 B2 considered for their citation in the IDS submitted by the applicant on 12/04/2024.
US 20180026218 A1 teaches a display device with similar features.
US 12048227 B2 teaches a display device with similar features.
US 11710751 B2 teaches similar connective features for a display device.
US 20210210718 A1 teaches the inclusion of a sensor in an opening 301 for a display device (Fig. 2A).
US 20150293546 A1 teaches a gate-driver-on-array (GOA) display device.
US 20180012536 A1 teaches a display device with similar features.
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 MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights