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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 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.
Examiner’s Statement
Note that He (US 2017/0124370 A1) used in this rejection is not the same as He (WO 2018/210317 A1) relied upon in the non-final rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2017/0124370 A1) in view of Lang (CN 209842638 U).
Regarding Claim 1, He discloses a display assembly, comprising:
a display panel ([0055]: “The smartphone device 1 includes a touch panel assembly 10 with a display screen”);
a diverging piece ([0133]: “The divergent angle of the probe light beam is controlled by the structures of the light source 129 and the shape of the coupler 131's end surface.” The examiner maps the coupler 131 to the diverging piece of the instant application as it is disclosed to control a diverging angle.), wherein the diverging piece is arranged on a side of the display panel in a width direction ([0127]: “The fingerprint sensor 123 formed in the area 21 for optical fingerprint is located under the top cover glass or layer 50 so that the top surface of the cover glass or layer 50 serves as the top surface of the device as a contiguous and uniform glass surface across both the display screen of the touch display assembly 10 and the optical detector sensor module 23.”; Fig. 11, element 21 is outside the display screen.) All optical components are disclosed to be outside the display area.);
an emitting module ([0134]), wherein the emitting module is arranged on a non-display side of the display panel ([0127]), and the emitting module is configured to emit light to the diverging piece ([0133]), wherein the diverging piece is configured to diverge the emitted light to a detection target ([0130]-[0131] disclose light reflected from a target object.);
a receiving module ([0056] discloses the use of photodetectors as an optical sensor, which are used throughout.), wherein the receiving module is arranged on the non-display side of the display panel ([0127]), and the receiving module is configured to receive light reflected by the detection target after the diverged light from the diverging piece reaches and is reflected by the detection target ([0130]-[0131] disclose light reflected from a target object.); and
a cover plate ([0126]: “ the exemplary optical fingerprint sensor 123 is packaged under a screen cover glass, such as an enhanced cover glass 50 of a platform 100, such as a smartphone.”), wherein:
the cover plate is arranged on a display side of the display panel ([0126]: “Under the cover glass 150 can include a color material layer 52, display layers 54 (e.g., OLED layers or LCD layers) as part of the display screen in the touch panel assembly 10,”),
the diverging piece is arranged in a non-display area of the cover plate ([0127]: “The fingerprint sensor 123 formed in the area 21 for optical fingerprint is located under the top cover glass or layer 50 so that the top surface of the cover glass or layer 50 serves as the top surface of the device as a contiguous and uniform glass surface across both the display screen of the touch display assembly 10 and the optical detector sensor module 23.”; Fig. 11, element 21 is outside the display screen.), and the non-display area of the cover plate does not cover the display panel ([0055]),
He suggests but does not explicitly teach and Lee does teach a stretching structure is formed on the non-display area of the cover plate or the diverging piece ([0123]: “The difference between Embodiment 5 and Embodiment 1 is that the freeform surface light guide lens 520 includes a concave surface 521 located above the light source 590 for
expanding the light emitted by the light source 590.” The concave surface structure is mapped to a ‘stretching structure formed on the diverging piece’.), and the stretching structure is located on the side of the display panel in the width direction and configured to stretch light diverged by the diverging piece in the width direction of the display panel (The limitations regarding the location and configuration of the stretching structure follow from He, since the stretching structure is formed on the diverging piece disclosed therein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a stretching structure according to the teaching of Lang on the diverging piece of He. Forming the stretching structure directly on the diverging piece advantageously requires fewer components, and one skilled in the art would be motivated to incorporate this teaching in order to reduce the complexity and cost of the optical system.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, He further discloses wherein the emitting module comprises:
a light source, configured to emit light; and a light collimator, wherein:
the light emitted by the light source is casted to the light collimator ([0091]: “One or more light sources, such as LEDs (not shown), can be disposed around the collimator 506 to emit light,”), and
collimated light emitted by the light collimator is casted to the diverging piece ([0134]: “To obtain a clear fingerprint image without an optical lens, normally the light source 129's emitting area should be small as a point light source, or the probe light beam should be collimated.”).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 4, He further discloses wherein the emitting module further comprises: a housing structure, wherein the light source and the light collimator are encapsulated in the housing structure ([0054]: “The fingerprint sensor device marker 21 is shown to illustrate an exemplary position of the fingerprint sensor device 23 placed below the top glass cover 50 with respect to the smartphone device 1.”).
Regarding Claim 10, He discloses A display device, comprising a display assembly, comprising:
a display panel ([0055]: “The smartphone device 1 includes a touch panel assembly 10 with a display screen”);
a diverging piece ([0133]: “The divergent angle of the probe light beam is controlled by the structures of the light source 129 and the shape of the coupler 131's end surface.” The examiner maps the coupler 131 to the diverging piece of the instant application as it is disclosed to control a diverging angle.), wherein the diverging piece is arranged on a side of the display panel in a width direction ([0127]: “The fingerprint sensor 123 formed in the area 21 for optical fingerprint is located under the top cover glass or layer 50 so that the top surface of the cover glass or layer 50 serves as the top surface of the device as a contiguous and uniform glass surface across both the display screen of the touch display assembly 10 and the optical detector sensor module 23.”; Fig. 11, element 21 is outside the display screen.) All optical components are disclosed to be outside the display area.);
an emitting module ([0134]), wherein the emitting module is arranged on a non-display side of the display panel ([0127]), and the emitting module is configured to emit light to the diverging piece ([0133]), wherein the diverging piece is configured to diverge the emitted light to a detection target ([0130]-[0131] disclose light reflected from a target object.);
a receiving module ([0056] discloses the use of photodetectors as an optical sensor, which are used throughout.), wherein the receiving module is arranged on the non-display side of the display panel ([0127]), and the receiving module is configured to receive light reflected by the detection target after the diverged light from the diverging piece reaches and is reflected by the detection target ([0130]-[0131] disclose light reflected from a target object.); and
a cover plate ([0126]: “ the exemplary optical fingerprint sensor 123 is packaged under a screen cover glass, such as an enhanced cover glass 50 of a platform 100, such as a smartphone.”), wherein:
the cover plate is arranged on a display side of the display panel ([0126]: “Under the cover glass 150 can include a color material layer 52, display layers 54 (e.g., OLED layers or LCD layers) as part of the display screen in the touch panel assembly 10,”),
the diverging piece is arranged in a non-display area of the cover plate ([0127]: “The fingerprint sensor 123 formed in the area 21 for optical fingerprint is located under the top cover glass or layer 50 so that the top surface of the cover glass or layer 50 serves as the top surface of the device as a contiguous and uniform glass surface across both the display screen of the touch display assembly 10 and the optical detector sensor module 23.”; Fig. 11, element 21 is outside the display screen.), and the non-display area of the cover plate does not cover the display panel ([0055]),
He suggests but does not explicitly teach and Lee does teach a stretching structure is formed on the non-display area of the cover plate or the diverging piece ([0123]: “The difference between Embodiment 5 and Embodiment 1 is that the freeform surface light guide lens 520 includes a concave surface 521 located above the light source 590 for
expanding the light emitted by the light source 590.” The concave surface structure is mapped to a ‘stretching structure formed on the diverging piece’.), and the stretching structure is located on the side of the display panel in the width direction and configured to stretch light diverged by the diverging piece in the width direction of the display panel (The limitations regarding the location and configuration of the stretching structure follow from He, since the stretching structure is formed on the diverging piece disclosed therein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a stretching structure according to the teaching of Lang on the diverging piece of He. Forming the stretching structure directly on the diverging piece advantageously requires fewer components, and one skilled in the art would be motivated to incorporate this teaching in order to reduce the complexity and cost of the optical system.
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 4, He further discloses wherein the emitting module comprises:
a light source, configured to emit light; and a light collimator, wherein:
the light emitted by the light source is casted to the light collimator ([0091]: “One or more light sources, such as LEDs (not shown), can be disposed around the collimator 506 to emit light,”), and
collimated light emitted by the light collimator is casted to the diverging piece ([0134]: “To obtain a clear fingerprint image without an optical lens, normally the light source 129's emitting area should be small as a point light source, or the probe light beam should be collimated.”).
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 13, He further discloses wherein the emitting module further comprises: a housing structure, wherein the light source and the light collimator are encapsulated in the housing structure ([0054]: “The fingerprint sensor device marker 21 is shown to illustrate an exemplary position of the fingerprint sensor device 23 placed below the top glass cover 50 with respect to the smartphone device 1.”).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2017/0124370 A1) in view of Lang (CN 209842638 U) as applied to Claim 4, and further in view of Yang (WO 2020/024696 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 4, He in view of Lang does not teach and Yang further does teach wherein the emitting module further comprises:
an optical structure, wherein:
the optical structure adjusts a transmission direction of the collimated light emitted by the light collimator, and the collimated light with an adjusted transmission direction is casted to the diverging piece ([0065]: “In other embodiments, the light transmission element 5 may also include a light guide plate. A light guide plate can be placed between the first light source 2 and the diffusion film 501. The light guide plate is used to increase the uniformity of the light signal.” Figure 3, for example, shows rays undergoing internal reflection within the light guide before being emitted through the diverging piece).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yang to use a light guide to adjust a transmission direction of a collimated beam. Yang notes in [0065] that this element can be used to increase the uniformity of the light signal, which a skilled worker in the art would find advantageous for properly and uniformly illuminating a target object. Poorly illuminated regions can result in low-quality retrievals from the target.
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 5, He further discloses further a frame, wherein: the optical structure is arranged on the frame, and the cover plate is connected to the frame ([0054]: “The fingerprint sensor device marker 21 is shown to illustrate an exemplary position of the fingerprint sensor device 23 placed below the top glass cover 50 with respect to the smartphone device 1.”).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2017/0124370 A1) in view of Lang (CN 209842638 U) as applied to Claim 13, and further in view of Yang (WO 2020/024696 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, He in view of Lang does not teach and Yang further does teach wherein the emitting module further comprises:
an optical structure, wherein:
the optical structure adjusts a transmission direction of the collimated light emitted by the light collimator, and the collimated light with an adjusted transmission direction is casted to the diverging piece ([0065]: “In other embodiments, the light transmission element 5 may also include a light guide plate. A light guide plate can be placed between the first light source 2 and the diffusion film 501. The light guide plate is used to increase the uniformity of the light signal.” Figure 3, for example, shows rays undergoing internal reflection within the light guide before being emitted through the diverging piece).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yang to use a light guide to adjust a transmission direction of a collimated beam. Yang notes in [0065] that this element can be used to increase the uniformity of the light signal, which a skilled worker in the art would find advantageous for properly and uniformly illuminating a target object. Poorly illuminated regions can result in low-quality retrievals from the target.
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 14, He further discloses further a frame, wherein: the optical structure is arranged on the frame, and the cover plate is connected to the frame ([0054]: “The fingerprint sensor device marker 21 is shown to illustrate an exemplary position of the fingerprint sensor device 23 placed below the top glass cover 50 with respect to the smartphone device 1.”).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Lang as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Mikhailov (CN 110994353 A).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, He in view of Lang does not teach and Mikhailov does teach a first groove is arranged on the cover plate to form the stretching structure, a bottom wall of the first groove is an arc surface, and the first groove is located in a position on the cover plate that corresponds to the diverging piece (Figure 1, element 20, [0038] shows a concave-plano optical element which stretches the incident beam);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mikhailov to use a convex-plano optical element to stretch light into the device of He in view of Lang. Using convex surfaces to stretch images is well known in the optical arts, and a skilled worker would have found the inclusion of such a component to have predictable results.
Mikhailov does not explicitly teach that the first groove is located on a side of the cover plate that is distant from the display panel, and an opening of the first groove faces away from the diverging piece; or
the first groove is located on a side of the cover plate that is close to the display panel, and an opening of the first groove faces the diverging piece.
Mikhailov does teach that a beam shaping unit (20) (which provides the stretch required by the limitations of the instant application) is placed in line with an optical waveguide.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed element to position the groove of Mikhailov such that the groove faces the diverging piece, since it has been held that the particular placement of the elements is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1 He in view of Lang does not teach and Mikhailov does teach a second groove is arranged on a side of the diverging piece that is close to the cover plate to form the stretching structure, a bottom wall of the second groove is an arc surface (Figure 1, element 20, [0038] shows a concave-plano optical element which stretches the incident beam);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mikhailov to use a convex-plano optical element to stretch light into the device of He in view of Lang. Using convex surfaces to stretch images is well known in the optical arts, and a skilled worker would have found the inclusion of such a component to have predictable results.
Mikhailov does not explicitly teach an opening of the second groove faces the cover plate.
Mikhailov does teach that a beam shaping unit (20) (which provides the stretch required by the limitations of the instant application) is placed in line with an optical waveguide.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed element to position the groove of Mikhailov such that the groove faces the cover plate, since it has been held that the particular placement of the elements is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Lang and in view of Yang as applied to claim 5 above, and in view of Mikhailov (CN 110994353 A).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 5, He in view of Lang and in view of Yang does not teach and Mikhailov does teach wherein the emitting module further comprises:
wherein the optical structure is triangular prism-shaped (Figure 2, element 11 is a triangular waveguide for redirecting a collimated beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mikhailov to use a triangular prism-shaped waveguide to redirect a collimated beam. The use of triangular prism-shaped waveguides is common in the art and a skilled worker would have found the inclusion of such a component to yield predictable results.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Lang as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Mikhailov (CN 110994353 A).
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 10, He in view of Lang does not teach and Mikhailov does teach a first groove is arranged on the cover plate to form the stretching structure, a bottom wall of the first groove is an arc surface, and the first groove is located in a position on the cover plate that corresponds to the diverging piece (Figure 1, element 20, [0038] shows a concave-plano optical element which stretches the incident beam);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mikhailov to use a convex-plano optical element to stretch light into the device of He in view of Lang. Using convex surfaces to stretch images is well known in the optical arts, and a skilled worker would have found the inclusion of such a component to have predictable results.
Mikhailov does not explicitly teach that the first groove is located on a side of the cover plate that is distant from the display panel, and an opening of the first groove faces away from the diverging piece; or
the first groove is located on a side of the cover plate that is close to the display panel, and an opening of the first groove faces the diverging piece.
Mikhailov does teach that a beam shaping unit (20) (which provides the stretch required by the limitations of the instant application) is placed in line with an optical waveguide.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed element to position the groove of Mikhailov such that the groove faces the diverging piece, since it has been held that the particular placement of the elements is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 10 He in view of Lang does not teach and Mikhailov does teach a second groove is arranged on a side of the diverging piece that is close to the cover plate to form the stretching structure, a bottom wall of the second groove is an arc surface (Figure 1, element 20, [0038] shows a concave-plano optical element which stretches the incident beam);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mikhailov to use a convex-plano optical element to stretch light into the device of He in view of Lang. Using convex surfaces to stretch images is well known in the optical arts, and a skilled worker would have found the inclusion of such a component to have predictable results.
Mikhailov does not explicitly teach an opening of the second groove faces the cover plate.
Mikhailov does teach that a beam shaping unit (20) (which provides the stretch required by the limitations of the instant application) is placed in line with an optical waveguide.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed element to position the groove of Mikhailov such that the groove faces the cover plate, since it has been held that the particular placement of the elements is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Lang and in view of Yang as applied to claim 14 above, and in view of Mikhailov (CN 110994353 A).
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 14, He in view of Lang and in view of Yang does not teach and Mikhailov does teach wherein the optical structure is triangular prism- shaped (Figure 2, element 11 is a triangular waveguide for redirecting a collimated beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mikhailov to use a triangular prism-shaped waveguide to redirect a collimated beam. The use of triangular prism-shaped waveguides is common in the art and a skilled worker would have found the inclusion of such a component to yield predictable results.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Lang as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Zhou (CN 106412159 A).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, He in view of Lang does not teach and Zhou does teach wherein:
a non-display area of the cover plate is coated with an ink layer, and the ink layer is capable of transmitting the light emitted by the emitting module (Abstract: “The invention claims a panel, panel assembly and terminal; the panel comprises a display area, provided with a transparent ink layer set on the lower surface of the non-display area”; Figures 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhou to apply a transparent ink layer to a non-display surface to the display assembly of He in view of Lang. Zhou notes in [0055] that “since the light-transmitting ink layer 170 covers and hides the light emitting hole 180 and the light receiving hole 181, the user cannot see the light emitting hole 180 and the light receiving hole 181 when looking at the front of the terminal 1000, as shown in Figure 1, thus achieving the effect of simplifying the structure of the terminal 1000.” A simpler structure can yield both a simpler and less expensive manufacturing process, and a better user experience.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Lang as applied to Claim 10 above, and in view of Zhou (CN 106412159 A).
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 10, He in view of Lang does not teach and Zhou does teach wherein:
a non-display area of the cover plate is coated with an ink layer, and the ink layer is capable of transmitting the light emitted by the emitting module (Abstract: “The invention claims a panel, panel assembly and terminal; the panel comprises a display area, provided with a transparent ink layer set on the lower surface of the non-display area”; Figures 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhou to apply a transparent ink layer to a non-display surface to the display assembly of He in view of Lang. Zhou notes in [0055] that “since the light-transmitting ink layer 170 covers and hides the light emitting hole 180 and the light receiving hole 181, the user cannot see the light emitting hole 180 and the light receiving hole 181 when looking at the front of the terminal 1000, as shown in Figure 1, thus achieving the effect of simplifying the structure of the terminal 1000.” A simpler structure can yield both a simpler and less expensive manufacturing process, and a better user experience.
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 BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights