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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 18 March 2026 of Applicants’ amendment in which claims 1 and 3 are amended.
Response to Arguments
With the exception of the arguments discussed below, Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argue in the penultimate paragraph and the following first sentence of the last paragraph of page 9 and with respect to claim 1 that: (A) [n]one [(i.e., no one)] of the cited references teach or suggest the combination of features (1) and (2) and (B) in FIG. 9 of Chung, the structural relationships (1) and (2) are absent (emphasis added), where the features (1) and (2) are:
1. The first light-emitting element (190), which emits visible light, and the light-receiving element (110) are arranged on the same plane; and
2. The second light-emitting element (160), which emits IR, is located on a different plane above both the first light-emitting element (190) and the light-receiving element (110).
Amended claim 1 is rejected over the combined teachings of Chung, Park, Ting, and Liu and recites, in relevant part, “the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are arranged on the same plane, wherein the light-blocking layer is over the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element, wherein the second light-emitting element is over the light-blocking layer, wherein the first light-emitting element is configured to emit visible light upward, wherein the second light-emitting element is configured to emit invisible light upward.” One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. MPEP 2145(IV). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, the Office does not propose that either a single embodiment disclosed by Chung or by any other individual reference applied in the rejection of claim 1 teaches the claimed subject matter identified immediately above; instead, the Office cites a combination of teachings provided by Chung and Park for this subject matter. A discussion of how the claimed subject matter identified immediately above is taught by Chung and Park is provided below in the rejection of claim 1.
In the last sentence of page 9, Applicants argue with respect to claim 1 that Park … fails to teach a second light-emitting element (IR) positioned over a light-receiving element. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “the light-blocking layer is over … the light-receiving element, wherein the second light-emitting element is over the light-blocking layer, … wherein the second light-emitting element is configured to emit invisible light.” One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. MPEP 2145(IV). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, the Office does not propose that Park alone teaches the above-identified subject matter of claim 1; instead, the Office cites a combination of teachings provided by Chung and Park for this subject matter. A discussion of how the claimed subject matter identified immediately above is taught by Chung and Park is provided below in the rejection of claim 1. Moreover, although not particularly relevant to the subject matter actually claimed, Park does in fact teach a second light-emitting element (IR) [(310IR)] positioned over a light-receiving element [(210IR)/(210)] within Fig. 11A as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
In the first three sentences of the third paragraph of page 10, Applicants argue with respect to independent claim 3 that the structure in Chung fails to meet the claim requirement that the “second light-emitting element is over the second resin layer” because: (1) the second light-emitting element is a distinct component positioned above the resin layer, whereas in Chung, the layer is an internal partition within the OLED structure itself and (2) the claimed light-blocking layer is not a component of the light-emitting element but the independent component. Claim 3 is rejected over the combined teachings of Chung, Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu and recites, in relevant part, “the second light-emitting element is over the second resin layer.” Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 2145(I). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Chung unequivocally teaches in Fig. 9 that a portion of a light-emitting element (2310) is over a layer (360) and that layer (360) is distinct from light-emitting element (2310). Chung further teaches in paragraph [0069] the layer (360) is an insulating layer, and Kim teaches an insulating layer may be resin. The motivation for combining these teachings is identified below in the rejection of claim 3. Regarding Applicants’ argument that Chung’s layer is an internal partition within the OLED structure itself, such is not relevant to the rejection of claim 3 because neither claim 3 nor the Office’s rejection cites an OLED structure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 (for instant claim 1), claim 2 (for instant claim 2), claim 7 (for instant claim 12), claim 8 (for instant claim 13) , and claim 9 (for instant claim 14) of U.S. Patent No. 12,150,367 B2 in view of Liu et al. (US20190156097A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of 12,150,367
A display device comprising:
A display device comprising
a first light-emitting element;
a first light-emitting element;
a second light-emitting element;
a second light-emitting element;
a light-receiving element;
a light-receiving element;
a light-blocking layer;
a light-blocking layer;
wherein the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are arranged on the same plane,
wherein the light-blocking layer is over the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element,
wherein the second light-emitting element is over the light-blocking layer,
wherein the second light-emitting element is provided over the light-blocking layer,
wherein the first light-emitting element is configured to emit visible light upward,
wherein the first light-emitting element is configured to emit visible light upward,
wherein the second light-emitting element is configured to emit invisible light upward,
wherein the second light-emitting element is configured to emit invisible light upward,
wherein the light-receiving element is a photoelectric conversion element having sensitivity to the visible light and the invisible light,
wherein the light-receiving element is a photoelectric conversion element having sensitivity to the visible light and the invisible light,
wherein, in a plan view, the light-blocking layer comprises a portion positioned between the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element, and
wherein in a plan view, the light-blocking layer comprises a portion positioned between the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element, and
wherein, in the plan view, the second light-emitting element overlaps with the light-blocking layer and is positioned inside an outline of the light-blocking layer.
wherein in a plan view, the second light-emitting element overlaps with the light-blocking layer and is positioned inside an outline of the light-blocking layer.
Claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of 12,150,367 in that it further recites:
wherein the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are arranged on the same plane,
wherein the light-blocking layer is over the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element, and
wherein the light-blocking layer is a black matrix or a color filter.
12,150,367 teaches in Fig. 2B and lines 20-30 of column 10:
wherein the first light-emitting element (190) and the light-receiving element (110) are arranged on the same plane,
wherein the light-blocking layer (145) is over the first light-emitting element (190) and the light-receiving element (110), and
wherein the second light-emitting element (160) is over the light-blocking layer (145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of 12,150,367 based on the further teachings of 12,150,367 – such that the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element are arranged on the same plane, the light-blocking layer is over the first light-emitting element and the light-receiving element, and the second light-emitting element is over the light-blocking layer – to reduce manufacturing resources (e.g., cost, operations, time, and/or materials), simplify the manufacturing, and improve manufacturing yield. 12,150,367, col. 6, lines 12-24. Moreover, all the above-identified 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 yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim 1 of the instant application differs from 12,150,367 in that it recites the light-blocking layer is a black matrix or a color filter.
In an analogous art, Liu teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0027] a light-blocking layer (13) is black resin that forms a matrix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 12,150,367 based on the teachings of Liu – such that the light-blocking layer is a black matrix or a color filter – so fingerprint information received by the fingerprint identification devices … is more precise, which is advantageous to identification of the ridges and the valleys of the finger surface.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 of Instant Application
Claim 2 of 12,150,367
wherein the invisible light is light having intensity in a wavelength range of greater than or equal to 750 nm and less than or equal to 900 nm
wherein the invisible light is light having intensity in a wavelength range of greater than or equal to 750 nm and less than or equal to 900 nm
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 of Instant Application
Claim 7 of 12,150,367
A display module comprising:
A display module comprising:
the display device according to claim 1; and
the display device according to claim 1; and
a connector or an integrated circuit.
a connector or an integrated circuit.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 of Instant Application
Claim 8 of 12,150,367
An electronic device comprising:
An electronic device comprising:
the display module according to claim 12; and
the display module according to claim 7; and
at least one of an antenna, a battery, a housing, a camera, a speaker, a microphone, a touch sensor, and an operation button.
at least one of an antenna, a battery, a housing, a camera, a speaker, a microphone, a touch sensor, and an operation button.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 of Instant Application
Claim 9 of 12,150,367
The electronic device according to claim 13,
The electronic device according to claim 8,
wherein the electronic device comprises an imaging device,
wherein the imaging device is configured to receive first reflective light by the light-receiving element when the visible light is emitted by the first light-emitting element, and
wherein the electronic device is configured to receive first reflective light by the light-receiving element when the visible light is emitted by the first light-emitting element, and
wherein the imaging device is configured to receive second reflective light by the light-receiving element when the invisible light is emitted by the second light-emitting element.
wherein the electronic device is configured to receive second reflective light by the light-receiving element when the invisible light is emitted by the second light-emitting element.
Claim 14 of the instant application differs from claim 9 of 12,150,367 in that it recites the electronic device comprises an imaging device and the imaging device [rather than the electronic device] receives the first reflective light and the second reflective light. 12,150,367 teaches in Figs. 1B and 1C and lines 1-21 of column 9 an imaging device comprising a light-receiving element 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 9 of 12,150,367 based on the further teachings of 12,150,367 – to include an imaging device that receives the first reflective light and the second reflective light – so [a]n image of one or both of a shape of a vein and a shape of a fingerprint of the finger 60 can be capture. Col. 9, lines 1-21.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US20190013368A1) in view of Park et al. (US20200111851A1), Ting et al. (US20200111930A1), and Liu et al. (US20190156097A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chung teaches in Fig. 9 a display device comprising:
a first light-emitting element (210) {¶0094};
a second light-emitting element (2310) {¶0095};
a light-receiving element (220) {¶0094}; and
a light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) {¶0095},
wherein the first light-emitting element (210) and the light-receiving element (220) are arranged on the same plane {Fig. 9; ¶0094},
wherein the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) is over the first light-emitting element (210) and the light-receiving element (220) {Fig. 9; ¶0095},
wherein the second light-emitting element (2310) is over the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) {Fig. 9; ¶0095},
wherein the light-receiving element (220) is a photoelectric conversion element having sensitivity to the invisible light {¶0072},
wherein, in a plan view, the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) comprises a portion positioned between the first light-emitting element (210) and the light-receiving element (220) {Fig. 9}, and
wherein, in the plan view, the second light-emitting element (2310) overlaps with the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) and is positioned inside (at least partially) an outline of the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) {Fig. 9}.
Chung does not teach:
the first light-emitting element is configured to emit visible light upward, and
the light-receiving element has a sensitivity to the visible light.
In an analogous art, Park teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraphs [0112] a first light-emitting element (310) is configured to emit visible light upward, and a light-receiving element (210) has a sensitivity to the visible light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device based on the teachings of Park – such that the first light-emitting element is configured to emit visible light upward, and the light-receiving element has a sensitivity to the visible light – so as to emit visible light toward a target for biometric recognition through a reflection of the light off the target to a visible light sensor. Park ¶0143.
Chung as modified by Park above does not teach the second light-emitting element is configured to emit invisible light upward.
Park teaches in Fig. 11A and paragraph [0130] a second light-emitting element (310IR) is configured to emit invisible light upward. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that Park’s second light-emitting element is configured to emit invisible light upward – so as to emit infrared light toward a target for biometric recognition through a reflection of the light off the target to an infrared light sensor. Park ¶0143.
Chung as modified by Park does not teach that a single light-receiving element has sensitivity to both visible and invisible light. Ting teaches in paragraph [0033] a single light sensor (130) having a sensitivity to both visible and invisible light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Park based on the teachings of Ting – such that a single light-receiving element has sensitivity to both visible and invisible light – because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-receiving element, visible light sensitivity, invisible light sensitivity) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ting) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, the modification reduces resources (e.g., materials, operations, time, costs) for fabricating the display device.
Chung as modified by Park and Ting does not teach wherein the light-blocking layer is a black matrix or a color filter.
In an analogous art, Liu teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0027] a light-blocking layer (13) is black resin that forms a matrix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Park and Ting based on the teachings of Liu – such that the light-blocking layer is a black matrix or a color filter – so fingerprint information received by the fingerprint identification devices … is more precise, which is advantageous to identification of the ridges and the valleys of the finger surface.
Regarding claim 2, Chung as modified by Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the display device according to claim 1, but Chung does not teach wherein the invisible light is light having intensity in a wavelength range of greater than or equal to 750 nm and less than or equal to 900 nm.
Park teaches in Fig. 11A and paragraph [0133] the invisible light is light having intensity in a wavelength range of 800 nm to about 1500 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to base claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Chung as modified by Park, Ting, and Liu teaches a display module comprising:
the display device according to claim 1; and
Chung further teaches a connector (via interconnecting 120 and 210/22/2310) or an integrated circuit (120 and 210/22/2310 and accompanying conductive lines) {¶0075}.
Regarding claim 13, Chung as modified by Park, Ting, and Liu teaches an electronic device comprising:
the display module according to claim 12; and Chung further teaches at least one of an antenna, a battery, a housing, a camera, a speaker, a microphone, a touch sensor, and an operation button {¶0100, touch sensor}.
Regarding claim 14, Chung as modified by Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the electronic device according to claim 13, and Chung further teaches
wherein the electronic device comprises an imaging device (image processor) {¶0080, [c]harges light-received by the NIR organic detector 220 are read by a transistor array 120 c for an NIR organic detector and go through an image processor to be processed by the image processor to obtain a fingerprint image}.
wherein the imaging device (image processor) is configured to receive first reflective light by the light-receiving element (modified 220) when the visible light is emitted by the first light-emitting element (modified 210) {Fig. 11; ¶0100; S1001, S1008}, and
wherein the imaging device (image processor) is configured to receive second reflective light by the light-receiving element (modified 220) when the invisible light is emitted by the second light-emitting element (modified 311) {Fig. 11; ¶0100; S1008}.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 9, 10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Kim et al. (US20220052129A1), Park, Ting, and Liu.
Regarding claim 3, Chung teaches in Fig. 9 a display device comprising:
a first substrate (110) {¶0062};
a second substrate (450) {¶0064};
a first light-emitting element (210) {¶0094};
a second light-emitting element (2310) {¶0095};
a light-receiving element (220) {¶0094};
a light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) {¶0095};
a first layer (250) {¶0069}; and
a second layer (360) {¶0096},
wherein the first light-emitting element (210) and the light-receiving element (220) are arranged over the first substrate (110) {Fig. 9},
wherein the first layer (250) is over the first light-emitting element (210) and the light-receiving element (220) {Fig. 9},
wherein the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) is over the first layer (250) {Fig. 9},
wherein the second layer (360) is over the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) {Fig. 9},
wherein the second light-emitting element (2310) is over the second layer (360) {Fig. 9},
wherein the second substrate (450) is over the second light-emitting element (2310) {Fig. 9},
wherein the light-receiving element (220) is a photoelectric conversion element having sensitivity to the invisible light {¶0072},
wherein, in a plan view, the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) comprises a portion positioned between the first light-emitting element (210) and the light-receiving element (220) {Fig. 9}, and
wherein, in the plan view, the second light-emitting element (2310) overlaps with the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) and is positioned inside (at least partially) an outline of the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) {Fig. 9}.
Chung does not teach the first layer is resin and the second layer is resin.
However, Chung teaches in paragraph [0069] that each of the first layer (250) and the second layer (360) is an insulating layer. In an analogous art, Kim teaches in paragraph [0184] an insulation layer may be resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device based on the teachings of Kim – such that the first layer is resin and the second layer is resin – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Chung as modified by Kim above does not teach:
wherein the first light-emitting element is configured to emit visible light upward, and
the light-receiving element has a sensitivity to the visible light.
Park teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraphs [0112] a first light-emitting element (310) is configured to emit visible light upward, and a light-receiving element (210) has a sensitivity to the visible light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim based on the teachings of Park – such that the first light-emitting element is configured to emit visible light upward, and the light-receiving element has a sensitivity to the visible light – so as to emit visible light toward a target for biometric recognition through a reflection of the light off the target to a visible light sensor. Park ¶0143.
Chung as modified by Kim and Park above does not teach the second light-emitting element is configured to emit invisible light upward.
Park teaches in Fig. 11A and paragraph [0130] a second light-emitting element (310IR) is configured to emit invisible light upward. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim and Park based on the further teachings of Park – such that Park’s second light-emitting element is configured to emit invisible light upward – so as to emit infrared light toward a target for biometric recognition through a reflection of the light off the target to an infrared light sensor. Park ¶0143.
Chung as modified by Kim and Park does not teach that a single light-receiving element has sensitivity to both visible and invisible light. Ting teaches in paragraph [0033] a single light sensor (130) having a sensitivity to both visible and invisible light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim and Park based on the teachings of Ting – such that a single light-receiving element has sensitivity to both visible and invisible light – because all the claimed elements (e.g., light-receiving element, visible light sensitivity, invisible light sensitivity) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ting) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, the modification reduces resources (e.g., materials, operations, time, costs) for fabricating the display device.
Chung as modified by Kim, Park and Ting does not teach wherein the light-blocking layer is a black matrix or a color filter.
Liu teaches in Figs. 1-3 and paragraph [0027] a light-blocking layer (13) is black resin that forms a matrix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim, Park, and Ting based on the teachings of Liu – such that the light-blocking layer is a black matrix or a color filter – so fingerprint information received by the fingerprint identification devices … is more precise, which is advantageous to identification of the ridges and the valleys of the finger surface.
Regarding claim 4, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the display device according to claim 3, but Chung does not teach wherein the invisible light is light having intensity in a wavelength range of greater than or equal to 750 nm and less than or equal to 900 nm.
Park teaches in Fig. 11A and paragraph [0133] the invisible light is light having intensity in a wavelength range of 800 nm to about 1500 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to base claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the display device according to claim 3, and Chung further teaches
wherein the second light-emitting element (2310) comprises a third pixel electrode (315) {¶0095}, a second light-emitting layer (311), and a second electrode (2313) from the second substrate (450) side {¶0095},
wherein the third pixel electrode (315) has a light-transmitting property with respect to the invisible light {¶0095},
wherein the second electrode (2313) has a reflective property with respect to the invisible light {¶0095}, and
wherein the second electrode (2313} is positioned inside the outline of the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) in the plan view {Fig. 9; ¶0095}.
Regarding claim 10, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the display device according to claim 3, and Chung further teaches
wherein the second light-emitting element (2310) comprises a third pixel electrode (315), a second light-emitting layer (311), and a second electrode (2313) from the second substrate (450) side {¶0095},
wherein the third pixel electrode (315) has a light-transmitting property with respect to the invisible light {¶0095},
wherein the second electrode (2313) comprises a portion overlapping with the light-blocking layer (layer of 2313), a portion overlapping with the first light-emitting element (210), and a portion overlapping with the light-receiving element (220) in the plan view {Fig. 9; ¶0095}.
Chung does not teach the second electrode has a light-transmitting property with respect to the visible light and the invisible light.
Park teaches in Fig. 10 and paragraph [0077] that a second electrode (313) has a light-transmitting property. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu based on the further teachings of Park – such that Park’s second electrode has a light-transmitting property with respect to the visible light and the invisible light – to fluently enter light toward the lower visible light sensor stack. Park ¶0077.
Regarding claim 15, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches a display module comprising:
the display device according to claim 3; and
Chung further teaches a connector (via interconnecting 120 and 210/22/2310) or an integrated circuit (120 and 210/22/2310 and accompanying conductive lines) {¶0075}.
Regarding claim 16, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches an electronic device comprising:
the display module according to claim 15; and
Chung further teaches at least one of an antenna, a battery, a housing, a camera, a speaker, a microphone, a touch sensor, and an operation button {¶0100, touch sensor}.
Regarding claim 17, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the electronic device according to claim 16,
wherein the electronic device comprises an imaging device (image processor) {¶0080, [c]harges light-received by the NIR organic detector 220 are read by a transistor array 120 c for an NIR organic detector and go through an image processor to be processed by the image processor to obtain a fingerprint image}.
wherein the imaging device (image processor) is configured to receive first reflective light by the light-receiving element (modified 220) when the visible light is emitted by the first light-emitting element (modified 210) {Fig. 11; ¶0100; S1001, S1008}, and
wherein the imaging device (image processor) is configured to receive second reflective light by the light-receiving element (modified 220) when the invisible light is emitted by the second light-emitting element (modified 311) {Fig. 11; ¶0100; S1008}.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (WO2020075009A1), using Nakagawa et al. (US20210391388A1) as the English translation.
Regarding claim 5, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the display device according to claim 3, but Chung does not teach further comprising:
a first protective layer,
wherein the first protective layer comprises an inorganic insulating material;
wherein the first protective layer is between the first resin layer and the first light-emitting element and between the first resin layer and the light-receiving element, and
wherein the first resin layer is along a top surface of the first protective layer.
In an analogous art, Nakagawa teaches in Fig. 15:
a first protective layer (195a) {¶0287, 0289},
wherein the first protective layer (195a) comprises an inorganic insulating material {¶0287, 0289};
wherein the first protective layer (195a) is between a first layer (195c) and a first light-emitting element (190) and between the first layer (195c) and a light-receiving element (110) {¶0287, 0289}, and
wherein the first layer (195c) is along a top surface of the first protective layer (195a) {¶0287, 0289}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu based on the teachings of Nakagawa such that Nakagawa’s layer (195) comprising the above-identified multiple layers (195a, 195c) is substituted for Chung’s first layer (250) or, alternatively, Nakagawa’s protective layer (195a) is disposed between Chung’s first layer (250) and both Chung’s first light-emitting element (210) and light-receiving element (220) to yield the predictable result whereby entry of impurities such as water into the sensor element … and the light-emitting element … can be inhibited, leading to an increase in the reliability of the sensor element … and the light-emitting element. Nakagawa ¶0285; MPEP §2143(I)(B). Moreover, substituting equivalents known for the same purpose would be obvious to a skilled artisan. MPEP §2144.06(II). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
For the above-mentioned alternative whereby Nakagawa’s layer (195) comprising the above-identified multiple layers (195a, 195c) is substituted for Chung’s first layer (250), Chung as modified by Nakagawa above does not teach that Nakagawa’s first layer (195c) is resin. However, Nakagawa teaches in paragraph [0287] this first layer (195c) is an insulating layer. And Nakagawa teaches in paragraph [0281] that resin may be used for an insulating material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, Liu, and Nakagawa based on the further teachings of Nakagawa – such that Nakagawa’s first layer is resin – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the display device according to claim 3, but Chung does not teach further comprising:
a second protective layer,
wherein the second protective layer comprises an inorganic insulating material,
wherein the second protective layer is between the second resin layer and the second light-emitting element, and
wherein the light-blocking layer is along a bottom surface of the second resin layer.
Nakagawa teaches in Fig. 15:
a second protective layer (195c) {¶0287, 0289},
wherein the second protective layer (195c) comprises an inorganic insulating material {¶0287, 0289}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu based on the teachings of Nakagawa such that Nakagawa’s layer (195) comprising the above-mentioned second protective layer (195c), which is disposed above a second layer (195a) is substituted for Chung’s second layer (360) or, alternatively, Nakagawa’s protective layer (195c) is disposed between Chung’s second layer (360) and Chung’s second light-emitting element to yield the predictable result whereby entry of impurities such as water into the sensor element … and the light-emitting element … can be inhibited, leading to an increase in the reliability of the sensor element … and the light-emitting element. Nakagawa ¶0285; MPEP §2143(I)(B). Moreover, substituting equivalents known for the same purpose would be obvious to a skilled artisan. MPEP §2144.06(II). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Consequences of this modification are that: (1) Nakagawa’s second protective layer (195c) is between Nakagawa’s second layer (195a)/Chung’s modified second resin layer (360) and Chung’s second light-emitting element (2310) and (2) Chung’s light-blocking layer (layer of 2313) is along a bottom surface of Nakagawa’s second layer (195a)/Chung’s modified second resin layer (360).
For the above-mentioned alternative whereby Nakagawa’s layer (195) comprising the above-identified multiple layers (195a, 195c) is substituted for Chung’s second layer (360), Chung as modified by Nakagawa above does not teach that Nakagawa’s first layer (195a) is resin. However, Nakagawa teaches in paragraph [0287] this first layer (195a) is an insulating layer. And Nakagawa teaches in paragraph [0281] that resin may be used for an insulating material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, Liu, and Nakagawa based on the further teachings of Nakagawa – such that Nakagawa’s first layer is resin – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the display device according to claim 3, but Chung does not teach
wherein the first resin layer exhibits a first refractive index with respect to light with a wavelength of 850 nm,
wherein the second resin layer exhibits a second refractive index with respect to the light with a wavelength of 850 nm, and
wherein a difference between the first refractive index and the second refractive index is less than or equal to 10% of the first refractive index.
Nakagawa teaches in paragraph [0291] a resin layer (149) having a refractive index of at least 1.3 through which light having a peak wavelength of 700 nm or greater is conveyed to an image sensor (e.g., 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu based on the teachings of Nakagawa – such that Chung’s modified first resin layer and modified second resin layer each have the refractive index characteristic of Nakagawa’s resin layer to thereby achieve the features identified above – so as to reduce the difference in refractive indices between the two resin layers and thereby increase the amount of light conveyed by (e.g., light transmittance of) the two resin layers to the image sensor. Stated another way for increased understanding, the greater the difference in refractive indices, the more light that is reflected at an interface of the two resin layers (e.g., see Snell’s Law).
Regarding claim 8, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the display device according to claim 3, and Chung further teaches
wherein the first light-emitting element (210) comprises a first pixel electrode (213), a first light-emitting layer (211), and a first electrode (215) {¶0070},
wherein the light-receiving element (220) comprises a second pixel electrode (223), an active layer (221), and another first electrode (225) {¶0072},
wherein the first light-emitting layer (211) and the active layer (221) comprise different organic compounds from each other {¶0070, 0072, organic Chemical Formula 1 for 211, organic Chemical Formula 2 for 221},
wherein the first electrode (215) comprises a portion overlapping with the first pixel electrode (213) with the first light-emitting layer (211) therebetween and the other first electrode (225) comprises a portion overlapping with the second pixel electrode (223) with the active layer (221) therebetween {Fig. 9; ¶0070, 0072}, and
wherein the first pixel electrode (213) and the second pixel electrode (223) comprise the same conductive material {¶0071, last two sentences identify reflective material of 213 (which is mislabeled as 215) as Al, etc.; ¶0073 last two sentences identify reflective material of 223 as Al, etc.}.
Chung does not teach the first electrode and the other first electrode are the same electrode.
Nakagawa teaches in Fig. 15 and paragraph [0188] that a light-emitting element (190) and a light-receiving element (110) share a common electrode (115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu based on the teachings of Nakagawa – such that Chung’s first light-emitting element and light-receiving element share a common electrode – to reduce manufacturing resources (e.g., fabrication operations, time, materials, costs, etc.). Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., light-emitting element, light-receiving element, electrode) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Nakagawa) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US20220077430A1).
Regarding claim 11, Chung as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu teaches the display device according to claim 3, and Chung further teaches
wherein the second light-emitting element (2310) comprises a third pixel electrode (315), a second light-emitting layer (311), and a second electrode (2313) from the second substrate (450) side {¶0095},
wherein the third pixel electrode (315) has a light-transmitting property with respect to the invisible light {¶0095}.
Chung does not teach:
a reflective layer,
wherein the second electrode has a light-transmitting property with respect to the invisible light,
wherein the reflective layer has a reflective property with respect to the invisible light and is positioned between the light-blocking layer and the second electrode, and
wherein the reflective layer is positioned inside the outline of the light-blocking layer in the plan view.
In an analogous art, Choi teaches in Fig. 10 and paragraph [0133] a reflective layer disposed beneath a transparent conductive layer used for an electrode (210a) for a pixel (OLED1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chung’s display device as modified by Kim, Park, Ting, and Liu based on the teachings of Choi – to include Choi’s reflective layer disposed beneath a transparent conductive layer used for an electrode – because all the claimed elements (e.g., electrode, reflective layer, transparent conductive layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Choi) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Consequences of this modification are that: (1) Chung’s modified second electrode comprising Choi’s transparent conductive layer has a light-transmitting property with respect to the invisible light, (2) Choi’s reflective layer has a reflective property with respect to the invisible light and is positioned between Chung’s light-blocking layer and Chung’s second electrode comprising Choi’s transparent conductive layer, and (3) Choi’s reflective layer is positioned inside the outline of Chung’s light-blocking layer in the plan view.
Conclusion
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 DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights