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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-13, and 15-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/6/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous objections to the drawings are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejections of claims 1-2, 5-13, and 15-19 under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
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.
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.
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 1-2, 5-6, 9, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (WO 2020/133789, all citations are to the attached English language machine translation) (hereafter Bai).
Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses a display device comprising: a first display region including a first plurality of pixels arranged on a side of a display face opposite to a sensing device in a cross-sectional view; and a second display region including a second plurality of pixels arranged on the side of the display face opposite to the display face in the cross-sectional view (see at least Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs [0010], [0017], and [0030]-[0031]), wherein the first display region includes a first film having a first transmittance to visible light, the second display region includes a second film having a second transmittance to visible light (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0044]-[0046], where 111 is the first film and 121 is the second film), the first transmittance to the visible light in the blue-violet light band is 0 to 50% (see at least paragraph [0013], where the transmittance of the second portion of the substrate layer to the blue-violet light band is 30%), and the second transmittance to the visible light is 51 to 100% (see at least paragraph [0012], where the transmittance of the second portion of the substrate layer to the blue-violet light band is 50% or more).
Bai does not specifically disclose that the transmittance is for light at a wavelength of 400 nm.
However, 400 nm is within the blue-violet light band of the visible spectrum.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the transmittance being for light at a wavelength of 400 nm include improving the color balance of the film by countering the yellow hue of a standard polyimide film (see paragraph [0015] of Bai).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai so that the transmittance is for light at a wavelength of 400 nm for the purpose of improving the color balance of the film by countering the yellow hue of a standard polyimide film (see paragraph [0015] of Bai).
Regarding claim 2, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bai also discloses that the second display region faces a sensing device disposed below the second film in the cross-sectional view (see at least paragraphs [0030]-[0031] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bai also discloses that at least a portion of the second film is disposed at a boundary portion between adjacent pixels within the second display region (see at least paragraph [0017], where a second pixel array is disposed in the second display region).
Regarding claim 6, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bai also discloses that the pixel array density in the second area is reduced (see at least paragraph [0053]).
Bai does not specifically disclose that a ratio of an area of the second film to an area of a light emitting region within the second display region is 30% or more.
The claimed ratio is related to the pixel array density of the second display region, which effects the amount of light transmitted through the region, and is thus considered a result effective variable.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of a ratio of an area of the second film to an area of a light emitting region within the second display region being 30% or more include increasing the amount of light energy that is incident on an image sensing device below the display (see at least paragraph [0053] of Bai).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai so that a ratio of an area of the second film to an area of a light emitting region within the second display region is 30% or more for the purpose of increasing the amount of light energy that is incident on an image sensing device below the display (see at least paragraph [0053] of Bai).
Regarding claim 9, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bai also discloses that the first film contains polyimide, and the second film contains a material higher in transmittance than the polyimide of the first film (see at least paragraphs [0006] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 15, Bai discloses an electronic apparatus comprising: a display device; and a sensing device disposed opposite a display face of the display device (see at least paragraphs [0030]-[0031], where the terminal device includes a display panel and a photosensitive device), wherein the display device includes: a first display region including a first plurality of pixels arranged on a side of a display face opposite to a sensing device in a cross-sectional view; and a second display region including a second plurality of pixels arranged on the side of the display face opposite to the display face in the cross-sectional view (see at least Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs [0010], [0017], and [0030]-[0031]), wherein the first display region includes a first film having a first transmittance to visible light, the second display region includes a second film having a second transmittance to visible light (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0044]-[0046], where 111 is the first film and 121 is the second film), the first transmittance to the visible light in the blue-violet light band is 0 to 50% (see at least paragraph [0013], where the transmittance of the second portion of the substrate layer to the blue-violet light band is 30%), and the second transmittance to the visible light is 51 to 100% (see at least paragraph [0012], where the transmittance of the second portion of the substrate layer to the blue-violet light band is 50% or more).
Bai does not specifically disclose that the transmittance is for light at a wavelength of 400 nm.
However, 400 nm is within the blue-violet light band of the visible spectrum.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the transmittance being for light at a wavelength of 400 nm include improving the color balance of the film by countering the yellow hue of a standard polyimide film (see paragraph [0015] of Bai).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai so that the transmittance is for light at a wavelength of 400 nm for the purpose of improving the color balance of the film by countering the yellow hue of a standard polyimide film (see paragraph [0015] of Bai).
Regarding claim 16, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Bai also discloses that the sensing device includes an imaging sensor (see at least paragraph [0031], where the sensing device is a photosensitive device such as a camera).
Regarding claim 18, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Bai also discloses that a plurality of the second display regions is provided on the display face (see at least paragraph [0028]).
Bai does not specifically disclose that a plurality of the sensing devices is disposed corresponding to the plurality of the second display regions.
However, it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai so that a plurality of sensing devices are disposed under the plurality of second display regions for the purpose of incorporating a variety of sensing devices that are well-known in the art such as infrared cameras.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (WO 2020/133789, all citations are to the attached English language machine translation) (hereafter Bai) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qin et al. (US 2022/0085116) of record (hereafter Qin).
Regarding claim 7, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bai does not specifically disclose that the second film has a function of cutting infrared light.
However, Qin teaches a display device comprising first and second display regions, wherein a photosensitive component is located beneath the display and wherein the photosensitive components include an infrared cut-off filter (see at least Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai to include the teachings of Qin so that the second film has a function of cutting infrared light for the purpose of incorporating the function of an infrared cut-off filter in the second film in order to shield the camera from infrared light that can affect the image or damage the camera.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (WO 2020/133789, all citations are to the attached English language machine translation) (hereafter Bai) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 110783347, all citations are to the English language machine translation) of record (hereafter Liu).
Regarding claim 8, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bai also discloses that a transmittance of a boundary portion between the first film and the second film varies stepwise from the first film to the second film (see at least Fig. 3, where the boundary is shown to be a single step).
Bai does not specifically disclose that the second film is disposed at an opening formed by removal of part of the first film.
However, Liu teaches a display device (see at least the title, “Display Panel”) comprising: a substrate (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0047], where transistor layer 2 can be considered a substrate); a first display region disposed on the substrate, the first display region having a plurality of pixels; and a second display region disposed on the substrate, the second display region having a plurality of pixels (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0047], where 101 and 102 are the first and second display regions and where the organic light emitting diode layer 3 will inherently comprise pixels), wherein the substrate has a first transmittance in the first display region, and the substrate has a second transmittance in the second display region higher than the first transmittance (see at least paragraph [0047], where the flexible substrate 1 has a first yellow polyimide layer 11 and a transparent polyimide layer 12, such that the transparent polyimide has higher transmittance particularly in the blue-violet light band), wherein the second film is disposed at an opening formed by removal of part of the first film, and a transmittance of a boundary portion between the first film and the second film varies continuously or stepwise from the first film to the second film (see at least Figs. 5 and 6 and paragraphs [0055]-[0056], where an opening is formed in the first film and the second film is disposed in the opening and the transmittance of a boundary portion varies as a step between the polyimide films 11 and 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai to include the teachings of Liu so that the second film is disposed at an opening formed by removal of part of the first film for the purpose of using a known method to create the films taught by Bai.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (WO 2020/133789, all citations are to the attached English language machine translation) (hereafter Bai) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2017/0345152) of record (hereafter Han).
Regarding claim 10, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bai does not specifically disclose that the second film has at least one of a concave portion or a convex portion.
However, Han teaches a display device comprising a sensing area, wherein a portion of the display area in the sensing area has a concave/convex portion (see at least the abstract, Fig. 5 and paragraph [0109], where a lens layer 402 is formed in the sensing area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai to include the teachings of Han so that the second film has at least one of a concave portion or a convex portion for the purpose of providing a lens (focusing) function to the second film, thus reducing the number of elements required for detecting light through the second display region.
Regarding claim 11, Bai as modified by Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Han also teaches an optical lens including a film (see at least Fig. 5, where the lens layer 402 is included among other layers such as the cover 220 or the photosensitive layer 223’, these layers could be considered a film included with the optical lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai as modified by Han to include the further teachings of Han so that the device comprises an optical lens including the second film for the purpose of stacking layers to achieve the desired optical characteristics for the second display region.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (WO 2020/133789, all citations are to the attached English language machine translation) (hereafter Bai), in view of Han et al. (US 2017/0345152) of record (hereafter Han) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2020/0357871) of record (hereafter Chung).
Regarding claim 12, Bai as modified by Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Bai as modified by Han does not specifically disclose a moth-eye structure layer including the second film.
However, Chung teaches a display device comprising a second display region beneath which an optical member is positioned (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2), wherein an anti-reflection layer is included in the display region (see at least Fig. 18 and paragraphs [0213]-[0214], where 231 is an antireflection film).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai as modified by Han to include the teachings of Chung so that the device further comprises an anti-reflection layer including the second film for the purpose of reducing reflections and thus improving image capture by the camera.
Bai as modified by Han and Chung does not specifically disclose that the anti-reflection layer comprises a moth-eye structure.
However, Official Notice is taken that moth-eye structures are old and well-known in the art for providing an anti-reflection function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liu as modified by Han and Chung so that the device further comprises a moth-eye structure including the second film for the purpose of substituting one known antireflection layer for another in order to obtain predictable results such as the improved reduction of reflections within the display device since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
The Examiner notes that the Official Notice taken in the rejection of claim 12 of the Office Action dated 4/7/2025 (See specifically page 16 and as set forth again above) has been taken to be admitted prior art since Applicants failed to seasonably traverse the assertion of Official Notice (See MPEP 2144.03).
Claims 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (WO 2020/133789, all citations are to the attached English language machine translation) (hereafter Bai) as applied to claims 1, 15, and/or 18 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0249492) of record (hereafter Choi)
Regarding claim 13, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bai does not specifically disclose that the first film is provided in at least part of the second display region, the at least part excluding a boundary portion between adjacent pixels within the second display region, and an opening of the first film is provided at the boundary portion between the adjacent pixels within the second display region.
However, Choi teaches a display device (see at least the abstract) comprising: a substrate (see at least Fig. 2B, where 510 is a substrate); a first display region disposed on the substrate, the first display region having a plurality of pixels; and a second display region disposed on the substrate, the second display region having a plurality of pixels (see at least Fig. 2B, where DA1 and DA2 are first and second display regions with pixels in each), wherein the substrate has a first transmittance in the first display region, and the substrate has a second transmittance in the second display region higher than the first transmittance (see at least Fig. 2B, where the transmission area TA may have a transmission of 90% or more, while the other display areas include color filter 520, which will have lower transmittance), wherein the first film is provided in at least part of the second display region, the at least part excluding a boundary portion between adjacent pixels within the second display region, and an opening of the first film is provided at the boundary portion between the adjacent pixels within the second display region (see at least Fig. 2B and paragraph [0070], where OLED pixels are within second display region DA2 and the transmission area TA is the part of DA2 that does not have the OLED pixels, thus it is considered the boundary portion between adjacent pixels within DA2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai to includes the teachings of Choi so that the first film is provided in at least part of the second display region, the at least part excluding a boundary portion between adjacent pixels within the second display region, and an opening of the first film is provided at the boundary portion between the adjacent pixels within the second display region for the purpose of improving the image quality of the pixels in the second display region while maintaining good light transmittance for a camera beneath the second display region.
Regarding claim 17, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Bai does not specifically disclose that the sensing device includes a biometric-information detection sensor.
However, Choi teaches a display device (see at least the abstract) comprising: a substrate (see at least Fig. 2B, where 510 is a substrate); a first display region disposed on the substrate, the first display region having a plurality of pixels; and a second display region disposed on the substrate, the second display region having a plurality of pixels (see at least Fig. 2B, where DA1 and DA2 are first and second display regions with pixels in each), wherein the substrate has a first transmittance in the first display region, and the substrate has a second transmittance in the second display region higher than the first transmittance (see at least Fig. 2B, where the transmission area TA may have a transmission of 90% or more, while the other display areas include color filter 520, which will have lower transmittance), wherein a sensing device below the display includes a biometric-information detection sensor (see at least paragraph [0080], where component 20 can be a sensor for recognizing a portion of a user’s body such as a fingerprint, an iris, or a face).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Bai to include the teachings of Choi so that the sensing device includes a biometric-information detection sensor for the purpose of using a known sensing device to meet market demands such as the ability to unlock a cell-phone with a fingerprint or face identification.
Regarding claim 19, Bai discloses all of the limitations of claim 18.
Bai does not specifically disclose that the respective second transmittances of at least two of the plurality of the second display regions are different from each other.
However, Choi teaches an electronic apparatus (see at least the title) comprising: a display device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2B); and a sensing device disposed opposite a display face of the display device (see at least Fig. 2B and paragraph [0080], where component 20 can be a sensing device), wherein the display device includes: a substrate (see at least Fig. 2B, where 510 is a substrate); a first display region disposed on the substrate, the first display region having a plurality of pixels; and a second display region disposed on the substrate, the second display region having a plurality of pixels (see at least Fig. 2B, where DA1 and DA2 are first and second display regions with pixels in each), the substrate has a first transmittance in the first display region, and the substrate has a second transmittance in the second display region higher than the first transmittance (see at least Fig. 2B, where the transmission area TA may have a transmission of 90% or more, while the other display areas include color filter 520, which will have lower transmittance), wherein a plurality of the second display regions is provided on the display face, and a plurality of the sensing devices is disposed corresponding to the plurality of the display regions (see at least paragraph [0081[, where a plurality of components 20 may be arranged within the second display area and each location of one of the plurality of components can be considered a different second display region, whether they are separated by pixels or simply divided based on which component they are above), and wherein the sensing device can comprise a variety of devices that use light of various wavelength bands such as visible light, infrared light, and ultraviolet light (see at least paragraph [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Bai to include the teachings of Choi so that the sensing device can comprise a variety of devices that use light of various wavelength bands such as visible light, infrared light, and ultraviolet light for the purpose of using known sensing devices to meet market demands.
Bai as modified by Choi does not specifically disclose that the respective second transmittances of at least two of the plurality of the second display regions are different from each other.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the respective second transmittances of at least two of the plurality of the second display regions being different from each other include ensuring the second transmittances of the plurality of the second display regions are appropriate for the particular sensing device placed beneath each of the plurality of the second display regions, for example an infrared light sensor may need to block visible light in order to best detect and measure the infrared light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bai as modified by Choi so that the respective second transmittances of at least two of the plurality of the second display regions are different from each other for the purpose of ensuring the second transmittances of the plurality of the second display regions are appropriate for the particular sensing device placed beneath each of the plurality of the second display regions, for example an infrared light sensor may need to block visible light in order to best detect and measure the infrared light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0335919 to Bai is the US patent application publication for the national stage filing of PCT application CN2019/081745 (published as WO 2020/133789, cited above).
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 ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights