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 Amendment filed January 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 and 21-22 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo et. al. (US 20210036047 A1), hereinafter Heo.
Regarding claim 1, Heo teaches a display panel (Fig 3 display 301, [0067]) for a display device (Fig 3 electronic device 300, [0067]), the display panel (Fig 3 display 301, [0067]) comprising: a plurality of subpixels (Fig 6 color subpixels a red-light subpixel 652R, a green-light subpixel 652G, and a blue-light subpixel 652B, [0086]) disposed on a substrate (Fig 6 substrate 660, [0087]) and configured to display an image ([0086]); a first display area (Fig 3 regions around verification area S1, [0072]-[0072]; Fig 22 region outside of areas R1-4, [0160]) including a first portion of the plurality of subpixels (Fig 4 display panel 430 has a plurality of pixels); a second display area (Fig 3 region S1, [0072]-[0072]; Fig 22 areas R1-4, [0160]; Fig 19 pixel structure 1910, [0143] shows a possible layout in the sensing areas previously listed) including a second portion of the plurality of subpixels (Fig 19 subpixels 1930R/G/B, [0143] corresponds to Fig 6 color subpixels a red-light subpixel 652R, a green-light subpixel 652G, and a blue-light subpixel 652B, [0086]) and a plurality of transparent areas (Fig 6 area over light receiver 652p, [0086]); one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 6 infrared element 652Ir, [0086]) disposed on the substrate (Fig 6 substrate 660, [0087]) and configured to emit light ([0086]); and one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 6 light receiver 652p, [0086]) disposed on the substrate (Fig 6 substrate 660, [0087]) and configured to receive reflected light based on the light emitted ([0086]) by the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 6 infrared element 652Ir, [0086]), wherein the one or more light-emitting elements (optional so not considered) or the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 6 light receiver 652p, [0086]) are disposed in the plurality of transparent areas (Fig 6 area over light receiver 652p, [0086]).
Regarding claim 4, Heo teaches the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 6 infrared element 652Ir, [0086]) and the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 6 light receiver 652p, [0086]) are disposed between (Fig 6) the plurality of subpixels (Fig 6 color subpixels a red-light subpixel 652R, a green-light subpixel 652G, and a blue-light subpixel 652B, [0086]).
Regarding claim 5, Heo teaches the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 6 infrared element 652Ir, [0086]) or the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 6 light receiver 652p, [0086]) are disposed on a same layer (Fig 6) as the plurality of subpixels (Fig 6 color subpixels a red-light subpixel 652R, a green-light subpixel 652G, and a blue-light subpixel 652B, [0086]).
Regarding claim 6, Heo teaches the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 20 infrared element area 2060, [0147]) or the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 20 light reception area 2070, [0147]) are disposed on a different layer (Fig 20) than the plurality of subpixels (Fig 20 color subpixel area 2030, [0149]).
Regarding claim 17, Heo teaches the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 20 infrared element area 2060, [0147]) are disposed in a first area (Fig 20 position X21) of the display panel (Fig 3 display 301, [0067]), and wherein the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 20 light reception area 2070, [0147]) are disposed in a second area (Fig 20 position X13) of the display panel (Fig 3 display 301, [0067]) spaced apart from the first area (Fig 20 position X21) of the display panel (Fig 3 display 301, [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Heo teaches the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 6 infrared element 652Ir, [0086]) and the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 6 light receiver 652p, [0086]) are alternatingly disposed (Fig 6) throughout the display panel (Fig 3 display 301, [0067]).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et. al. (US 20210036047 A1), hereinafter Heo, in view of Plank et. al. (US 20220149016 A1), hereinafter Plank.
Regarding claim 2, Heo fails to teach the light emitted by the one or more light- emitting elements is infrared laser light.
However, Plank teaches the light emitted by the one or more light- emitting elements (Fig 1 second light emitting element 112-i, [0030] corresponds to Heo: Fig 6 infrared element 652Ir, [0086]) is infrared laser light (infrared laser diode, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heo to incorporate the teachings of Plank by having the one or more light- emitting elements be an infrared laser light. This would allow a flood illuminator with good signal shape to be created ([0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Heo as modified by Plank in claim 2 teaches the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 1 optical sensor 120, [0024] corresponds to Heo: Fig 6 light receiver 652p, [0086]) are configured to generate a three-dimensional map (the sensor can have circuitry to determine the light reflected back from various points, [0024]-[0025]) for recognizing a face of a user ([0032]) based on the infrared laser light (infrared laser diode, [0030]) emitted by the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 1 second light emitting element 112-i, [0030] corresponds to Heo: Fig 6 infrared element 652Ir, [0086]).
Regarding claim 16, Heo fails to teach the one or more light-emitting elements or the one or more light-receiving elements are disposed in a grid arrangement or an array arrangement.
However, Plank teaches one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 7 second light-emitting elements 112-i, [0060]) or the one or more light-receiving elements (optional so not considered) are disposed in a grid arrangement (Fig 7) or an array arrangement (optional so not considered).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heo to incorporate the teachings of Plank by having one or more light-emitting elements disposed in a grid arrangement. This would minimize the shadows of the second light emitting elements on the sensed objects ([0060]).
Claims 7-10, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et. al. (US 20210036047 A1), hereinafter Heo, in view of Bok et. al. (US 20210191552 A1), hereinafter Bok.
Regarding claim 7, Heo fails to teach the one or more light-emitting elements or the one or more light-receiving elements are only included in the second display area and are absent from the first display area.
However, Bok teaches the one or more light-emitting elements (optional so not considered) or the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 9A component 40 such as a sensor sensing infrared light, [0193]) are only included in the second display area (Fig 9A) and are absent from the first display area (Fig 9A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heo to incorporate the teachings of Bok by having a first display area including a first portion of the plurality of subpixels; a second display area including a second portion of the plurality of subpixels, wherein the one or more light-emitting elements or the one or more light-receiving elements are only included in the second display area and are absent from the first display area . This would allow for the arrangement of sensing devices as needed for the desired application ([0259]).
It is noted for clarity of the record that even though Heo is silent on a first display area including a first portion of the plurality of subpixels; a second display area including a second portion of the plurality of subpixels, wherein the one or more light-emitting elements or the one or more light-receiving elements are only included in the second display area and are absent from the first display area, Heo teaches the light emission and sensing portions can be divided into different parts of the display device (Heo: [0159]) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light-emitting elements and light receiving elements would be in the areas taught by Heo and not in other regions (Heo: [0159]).
Regarding claim 8, Heo as modified in claim 7 teaches the first portion (Bok: main subpixels, [0010]) of the plurality of subpixels in the first display area (Bok: Fig 8A main display area MDA, [0193]) has a density (Bok: Fig 12) that is different than a density (Bok: Fig 13) of the second portion (Bok: auxiliary subpixels, [0011]) of the plurality of subpixels in the second display area (Bok: Fig 8A component area CA, [0193]).
Regarding claim 9, Heo as modified in claim 7 teaches the first portion (Bok: main subpixels, [0010]) of the plurality of subpixels in the first display area (Bok: Fig 8A main display area MDA, [0193]) has a density (Bok: Fig 12) that is same as a density (Bok: Fig 29B) of the second portion (Bok: auxiliary subpixels, [0011]) of the plurality of subpixels in the second display area (Bok: Fig 8A component area CA, [0193]).
Regarding claim 10, Heo modified in claim 7 fail to teach at least some of the plurality of subpixels in the second display area have a size that is smaller than at least some of the subpixels in the first display area.
However, Heo teaches it is possible to adjust the number and size of color subpixels ([0144]). The subpixels being arranged so as to allow light emitted to reach a sensor through transparent areas ([0145]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to change the size of at least some of the plurality of subpixels in the second display area to have a size that is smaller than at least some of the plurality of subpixels in the first display area. This would allow more light to reach sensors beneath the subpixels ([0145]).
Regarding claim 19, Heo as modified in claim 1 fails to teach an anode and a cathode, each of the plurality of subpixels being connected between the anode and the cathode, wherein the one or more light-emitting elements or the one or more light-receiving elements are disposed under one or more holes in the cathode.
However, Bok teaches an anode (Fig 17 pixel electrode 121, [0389]) and a cathode (Fig 17 opposite electrode 123, [0391]), each of the plurality of subpixels (Fig 17 main subpixel Pm and auxiliary subpixel Pa, [0363] corresponds to Heo: Fig 6 color subpixels a red-light subpixel 652R, a green-light subpixel 652G, and a blue-light subpixel 652B, [0086]) being connected between (Fig 17) the anode (Fig 17 pixel electrode 121, [0389]) and the cathode (Fig 17 opposite electrode 123, [0391]), wherein the one or more light-emitting elements (optional so not considered) or the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 9A component 40, [0193] corresponds to Heo: Fig 20 light reception area 2070, [0147]) are disposed under one or more holes (Fig 17 transmission hole TAH, [0402]) in the cathode (Fig 17 opposite electrode 123, [0391]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heo to incorporate the teachings of Bok by having a light receiving element disposed under a hole in the cathode. This would allow more light to travel to the light receiving element as there is improved light transmittance due to the hole in the cathode ([0403]).
Regarding claim 22, Heo fails to teach a cathode electrode includes a plurality of openings overlapping with the plurality of transparent areas.
However, Bok teaches a cathode electrode (Fig 17 opposite electrode 123, [0403]) includes a plurality of openings (Fig 17 transmission hole TAH, [0403]) overlapping with the plurality of transparent areas (Fig 17 transmission area TA, [0403] corresponds to Heo: Fig 6 area over light receiver 652p, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heo to incorporate the teachings of Bok by having openings in the cathode electrode overlapping with transparent areas. This would increase the light transmittance of the transparent areas ([0403]).
Claims 11-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et. al. (US 20210036047 A1), hereinafter Heo, in view of Plank et. al. (US 20220149016 A1), hereinafter Plank, in further view of Noudo et. al. (US 20230238416 A1), hereinafter Noudo.
Regarding claim 11, Heo fails to teach at least one diffraction pattern disposed over the one or more light-emitting elements.
Regarding at least one diffraction pattern disposed over the one or more light-emitting elements. Plank teaches an optical element is used to widen the light beam from a laser diode ([0030]). Noudo teaches at least one diffraction pattern (Fig 80 diffractive lens 126, [0794]). Noudo further teaches the purpose of a lens is to condense the light, so it is incident where needed ([0468]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to modify Heo to incorporate the teachings of Noudo by having at least one diffractive pattern disposed over one or more light-emitting elements. This would cause the light from the light emitting elements to widen, as taught by Plank. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
Regarding claim 12, Heo as modified in claim 11 teaches at least one first lens (Noudo: Fig 81 inner lens 118, [0795]) disposed over the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 81 subpixels 106 ([0436]) correspond to Heo: Fig 6 color subpixels a red-light subpixel 652R, a green-light subpixel 652G, and a blue-light subpixel 652B, [0086]), wherein the at least one first lens (Noudo: Fig 81 inner lens 118, [0795]) is disposed between (Noudo: Fig 81) the at least one diffraction pattern (Fig 81 diffractive lens 124, [0795]) and the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 81 subpixels 106 ([0436]) correspond to Heo: Fig 6 color subpixels a red-light subpixel 652R, a green-light subpixel 652G, and a blue-light subpixel 652B, [0086]).
It is noted for clarity of the record that the subpixels of Noudo are used for light imaging. Examiner is using the subpixels of Noudo as a placeholder for the placement of light emitting elements of Heo. Heo has already been modified to incorporate the teachings of Plank and Noudo to use optical elements to widen the light emitted from the light emitting elements.
Regarding claim 13, Heo fails to teach the one or more light-emitting elements are disposed under the substrate, and wherein the plurality of subpixels are disposed between at least one diffraction pattern and the one or more light-emitting elements.
However, Plank teaches an optical element is used to widen the light beam from a laser diode ([0030]). Noudo teaches at least one diffraction pattern (Fig 80 diffractive lens 126, [0794]). Noudo further teaches the purpose of a lens is to condense the light, so it is incident where needed ([0468]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to modify Heo to incorporate the teachings of Noudo by having at least one diffractive pattern disposed over one or more light-emitting elements. This would cause the light from the light emitting elements to widen, as taught by Plank. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
In applying the teachings of Plank and Noudo to Heo, the structure of Heo would have one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 20 infrared element area 2060, [0147]) disposed under (Fig 20) the substrate (Fig 20 subpixel layer 2030, [0147]; Examiner notes the subpixels are disposed on a substrate), and wherein the plurality of subpixels (Fig 20 unit pixels X11 to X33, [0149]) are disposed between at least one diffraction pattern (Noudo: Fig 82 diffraction grating, [0798]; similar to claim 1, Heo was modified to include the diffraction pattern from Noudo) and the one or more light-emitting elements (Fig 20 infrared element area 2060, [0147]).
Regarding claim 21, Heo fails to teach the light emitted by the one or more light-emitting elements passes through a diffraction pattern and is divided into a zero-order beam and a first-order beam, wherein the one or more light-receiving elements are configured to receive the first-order beam, and wherein a diffraction ratio of the zero-order beam and the first-order beam is in a range of 1:2 to 1:7
However, Plank teaches an optical element is used to widen the light beam from a laser diode ([0030]). Noudo teaches the light emitted (Fig 82) by the one or more light- emitting elements (not shown corresponds to Heo: Fig 6 infrared element 652Ir, [0086]) passes through a diffraction pattern (Fig 82 diffraction grating, [0798]) and is divided into a zero-order beam (Fig 82 zero-order beam) and a first-order beam (Fig 82 first-order beam). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to modify Heo to incorporate the teachings of Noudo by having a diffraction pattern over the light emitted by the one or more light- emitting elements. This would cause the light from the light emitting elements to widen, as taught by Plank. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
In addition, Plank teaches optical elements can be used to widen the beam of the emitted light for use in time of flight applications (ToF) ([0030]), such as face recognition applications ([0032]). Plank also teaches the optical elements cab increase the light beam to create a flood illuminator ([0030]). The
diffraction ratio of the zero-order beam and the first-order beam is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the diffraction ratio of the zero-order beam and the first-order beam as Plank has identified the diffraction ratio as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a diffraction ratio of the zero-order beam and the first-order beam in a range of 1:2 to 1:7, in order to achieve the desired balance between usefulness for ToF applications and flood illumination, as taught by Plank. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed diffraction ratio for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed ratio).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et. al. (US 20210036047 A1), hereinafter Heo, in view of Noudo et. al. (US 20230238416 A1), hereinafter Noudo.
Regarding claim 14, Heo fails to teach at least one second lens disposed over the one or more light-receiving elements.
However, Noduo teaches at least one second lens (Fig 6 lens 104, [0455]) disposed over the one or more light-receiving elements (Fig 6 subpixels 106, [0455]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Heo to incorporate the teachings of Noudo by having at least one second lens disposed over the one or more light-receiving elements. This would condense the light, so it is incident where needed ([0468]).
Regarding claim 15, Heo as modified in claim 14 teaches the at least one second lens (Noudo: Fig 86 diffractive lens 124, [0817]) includes at least two second lenses (Noudo: Fig 86 diffractive lens 124C and correspond unlabeled diffractive lens on far right, [0819]) shifted in opposite directions along a horizontal plane that is parallel to the substrate (Noudo: Fig 86) relative to a corresponding light-receiving element (Noudo: Fig 86 pixels 102, [0816] corresponds to Fig 6 subpixels 106, [0455]) among the light-receiving elements (Noudo: Fig 86 pixels 102, [0816] corresponds to Fig 6 subpixels 106, [0455]) for adjusting a focus (Noudo: light is shifted, [0818]) of the one or more light-receiving elements (Noudo: Fig 86 pixels 102, [0816] corresponds to Fig 6 subpixels 106, [0455]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see 35 USC §103 section beginning page 8, filed January 26, 2026, with
respect to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the transparent area of Heo. The transparent area of Heo that Applicant is referring to, at the bottom of page 8, appears to be [0068] in Heo. The light transmitting area 1940 pointed out by Applicant is a transparent area that allows light through to a light reception area 1970. Further, Heo teaches the transparent area allows light to pass through to a sensor that may be arranged on the rear surface of the display (similar to Fig 20, [0145]) or in the embodiment of Fig 19 allow light to a light reception area 1970 on the same substrate as subpixels ([0148]). The amended limitations of claim 1 are met with either embodiment of Heo.
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.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights