Detailed Action
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 Amendment filed on 10/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 12, and 18 have been amended. Claims 2-10, 14, 16-17, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1, 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 remain pending in the application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Applicant amended claim1 in accordance with Fig. 5 and [0050]-[0051] of the specification. Claim 1 recites new limitations “wherein the anti-reflection layer comprises metal materials”. An anti-reflective material is a medium to minimize reflections and maximize light transmission. However, metals are not anti-reflective materials. In fact, metals are highly light-reflective materials. For examples, copper has reflectivity of ~90% of visible light and aluminum has reflectivity of ~75% of visible light. Therefore, claim 1 recites the limitations in contradictory with each other. Claim 1 should be amended to further define the corresponding structure of the materials for performing the anti-reflective function.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 11 is rejected as being dependent upon a cancelled claim 3. Furthermore, claim 11 cannot depend on claim 1 because claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the anti-reflection layer comprises metal materials” and claim 11 recites the limitations “wherein the anti-reflection layer has a surface containing a plurality of microstructures”, however, nowhere in the specification discloses the anti-reflection layer comprises metal materials and has a surface containing a plurality of microstructures. Applicant appears to mix different embodiments (e.g., [0051] and [0059] of the specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HE (US 20240215332 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HE discloses an electronic device, comprising: a sensing device (e.g., Figs. 4 and 23-24; a display device and an optical sensing device), comprising: an anti-reflection unit comprising a substrate (substrate 10) and an anti-reflection layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the anti-reflection layer comprises metal materials (metal layer 41/31; [0091] and [0169]); a circuit layer (circuit layer 201) comprising a thin-film transistor (transistor 210) disposed on the anti-reflection unit (metal layer 41/31); and a light-sensing element (light-sensing element 202; [0080]) disposed on the circuit layer (circuit layer 201) and electrically connected to the thin-film transistor (transistor 210).
7. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20230116805 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses an electronic device, comprising: a sensing device, comprising: a substrate comprising a first side and a second side opposite the first side, an anti-reflection layer disposed on the first side (Figs. 6-7; base layer BL is a multi-layered structure comprising an intermediate layer corresponding to a base substrate, a first resin layer and a second resin layer are disposed on a bottom side and a top side of the base substrate, each of the first resin layer and the second resin layer comprises an acrylate-based polymer or a polyimide-based polymer, which functions as an anti-reflection layer, in addition, layer BFL and layer BRL comprising a silicon oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer and acting as an anti-reflective layer; [0135]-[0138]); a circuit layer comprising a thin-film transistor (Figs. 5-7; circuit layer DP_CL comprising transistors of sensor driving circuit SDC; [0061] and [0092]) disposed on the second side; and a light-sensing element (Figs. 5-7; light-sensing element OPD) disposed on the circuit layer (Figs. 5-7; circuit layer DP_CL) and electrically connected to the thin-film transistor (Figs. 5-7; transistors of sensor driving circuit SDC); and a frame, wherein the sensing device is attached to the frame through the anti-reflection layer (e.g., Fig. 1 shows housing structure that accommodates the display device including the optical sensor and the anti-reflection layer; Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 (cross-section view) show the housing structure includes a top cover, side frames, and a bottom base substrate, and Figs. 1-2 and 6-7 further disclose the sensing device is attached on the bottom base, and the anti-reflective layer is disposed between the sensing device and the bottom base).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over HE (US 20240215332 A1) in view of ZHANG (US 20180203281 A1).
Regarding claim 11, HE (e.g., Figs. 4 and 23-24) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 3, but does not disclose wherein the anti-reflection layer has a surface containing a plurality of microstructures. However, ZHANG (e.g., Figs. 6 and 11) discloses an anti-reflection unit, wherein the anti-reflection layer has a surface containing a plurality of microstructures (e.g., Figs. 6 and 11; anti-reflective microstructures; [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from ZHANG to the anti-reflection layer of HE. The combination/motivation would be to provide an anti-reflection film to reduce the amount of light reflected from the base substrate of the electronic device.
10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kim (US 20230116805 A1) in view of Zhou (US 20240049580 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kim (e.g., Figs. 1 and 5-7) discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the anti-reflection layer comprises colloid and light-absorbing materials doped in the colloid. However, Zhou (e.g., Figs. 3-4) discloses an anti-reflection layer (anti-reflection layer 4) comprises colloid and light-absorbing materials doped in the colloid (e.g., Figs. 3-4; [0058], [0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from Zhou to the anti-reflection layer of Kim. The combination/motivation would be to provide an anti-reflection film to effectively reduce the light reflection from the base substrate of the electronic device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. Claims 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Hai (US 20220351539A A1) and SAKAMOTO (US 20170279084 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hai (e.g., Figs. 6 and 10) discloses an electronic device, comprising: a sensing device, comprising: a circuit layer comprising a thin-film transistor (TFT circuit layer including transistors TFT1 and TFT2); a light-sensing element (light-sensing element 1021) disposed on the circuit layer and electrically connected to the thin-film transistor (transistor TFT2); and an anti-reflection unit (anti-reflection unit comprising a layer 115/116, the layer 115/116 comprising silicon nitride, which functions as an anti-reflective layer; [0105]-[0106]) disposed on the circuit layer (TFT circuit layer including transistors TFT1 and TFT2) to suppress light passing through the light-sensing element (light-sensing element 1021), wherein the anti-reflection unit comprises a first planarization layer (planarization layer 115/116) and a second planarization layer (planarization layer 112), the first planarization layer (planarization layer 115/116) is located below the light-sensing element (light-sensing element 1021), the second planarization layer (planarization layer 112) is disposed on the first planarization layer (planarization layer 115/116), the second planarization layer (planarization layer 112) surrounds the light-sensing element (light-sensing element 1021), and the first planarization layer and the second planarization layer comprise light-absorbing materials ([0116] and [0105]-[0106]; planarization layer 112 comprising black pigment, which is a light-absorbing material, and planarization layer 115/116 comprising silicon nitride, which is a light-absorbing material).
The examiner further cites SAKAMOTO as a reference. SAKAMOTO (e.g., Figs. 6 and 14-16) discloses an electronic device similar to that disclosed by HAI, comprising: a circuit layer comprising a thin-film transistor (TFT circuit layer including transistors TFT); a light-emitting element (light-emitting element OLED) disposed on the circuit layer and electrically connected to the thin-film transistor (transistor TFT); and an anti-reflection unit (anti-reflection unit comprising an anti-reflective layer LA-PL (e.g., Fig. 15) or LAL (e.g., Fig. 16); [0062], [0046]) disposed on the circuit layer (TFT circuit layer) to absorb light. The anti-reflection unit comprises a first planarization layer (planarization layer LA-PL or LAL) corresponding to the first planarization layer (planarization layer 115/116) as disclosed by HAI, and comprising light-absorbing materials ([0062], [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from SAKAMOTO to the electronic device of Kim. The combination/motivation would be to provide an anti-reflection layer to effectively suppress unwanted light signal.
Regarding claim 13, Hai in view of SAKAMOTO discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the anti-reflection unit (anti-reflection layer 115/116 as taught by Hai (e.g., Figs. 6 and 10) and antireflection layer LAL or LA-PL as taught by SAKAMOTO (e.g., Figs. 6 and 14-16)) is disposed on the thin-film transistor (TFT circuit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from SAKAMOTO to the electronic device of Kim for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 15, Hai in view of SAKAMOTO discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 14, Hai (e.g., Figs. 6 and 10) discloses wherein the second planarization layer comprise organic or inorganic materials with black substances added (planarization layer 112; [0116]). SAKAMOTO (e.g., Figs. 6 and 14-16) discloses wherein the first planarization layer comprise organic or inorganic materials with black substances added (anti-reflective layer LAL or LA-PL; [0046], [0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from SAKAMOTO to the electronic device of Kim for the same reason above.
Response to Arguments
14. Regarding claim 1, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. In view of amendments, the reference of HE (US 20240215332 A1) and ZHANG (US 20180203281 A1) have been used for new ground rejection.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is amended to incorporate claim 14 and the new limitations “the first planarization layer and the second planarization layer comprise light-absorbing materials”. Hai (e.g., Figs. 6 and 10) discloses an electronic device, wherein an anti-reflection unit comprises a first planarization layer 115/116 and a second planarization layer 112, the first planarization layer 115/116 is located below the light-sensing element 1021, the second planarization layer 112 is disposed on the first planarization layer 115/116, the second planarization layer 112 surrounds the light-sensing element 1021, the first planarization layer 115/116 comprising silicon nitride ([0105]-[0106]), which is a light-absorbing material, and the second planarization layer 112 comprising black pigment ([0116]), which is a light-absorbing material.
According to [0040]-[0041] and [0061], light-absorbing material include silicon nitride and black material, which are same as that disclosed by HAI ([0105]-[0106] and [0116]).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner further cites SAKAMOTO as a reference. SAKAMOTO (e.g., Figs. 6 and 14-16) discloses an electronic device similar to that disclosed by HAI, comprising: wherein an anti-reflection unit comprising an anti-reflective layer LA-PL (e.g., Fig. 15) or LAL (e.g., Fig. 16) ([0062], [0046]) disposed on the circuit layer (TFT circuit layer) to absorb light. The anti-reflection unit comprises a first planarization layer LA-PL or LAL, corresponding to the first planarization layer 115/116 as disclosed by HAI and comprising light-absorbing materials ([0062], [0046]). Therefore, HAI and SAKAMOTO, individual or in combination discloses the claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is amended to incorporate claim 19. Applicant further argues Kim does not disclose “wherein the sensing device is attached to the frame through the anti-reflection layer”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. Kim (e.g., Fig. 1) discloses a housing structure that accommodates a display device including an optical sensor and an anti-reflection layer. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 (cross-section view) show the housing structure includes a top cover, side frames, and a bottom base substrate, and Figs. 1-2 and 6-7 further disclose the sensing device is attached on the bottom base, and the anti-reflective layer is disposed between the sensing device and the bottom base.
PNG
media_image3.png
475
1523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Housing structure as disclosed by Kim
According to Fig. 4 of the drawing and [0047]-[0048] of the specification, applicant discloses a frame 72, which is merely a bottom base substrate and essentially same as the bottom base as disclosed by Kim.
PNG
media_image4.png
796
1016
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Fig. 4
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUZHEN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1407. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-18:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7772. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUZHEN SHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623