DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on December 17, 2025 has been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Response to Arguments
The previously issued specification objection is hereby withdrawn in view of the amended title.
The Applicant’s remarks with respect to claims #1-10, 12, and 17-20 in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0280569 A1), hereafter “You”, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0074365 A1), hereafter “Lee”.
As to claim 1, You teaches:
A substrate SUB2. See You, FIG. 6.
A light emitting element 160 disposed on the substrate and configured to emit light.
A photoelectric conversion element PD disposed on the substrate and configured to sense incident light L1, L2.
A light blocking layer BA disposed on the photoelectric conversion element and having an opening OPN.
An optical filter OF disposed in the opening of the light blocking layer to transmit incident light.
However, You does not teach the optical filter substantially eliminates light incident on the photoelectric conversion element at an angle of about 30° to about 40°.
On the other hand, Lee teaches an optical filter 210 substantially eliminating incident light on the photoelectric conversion element at an angle of about 30° to about 40°, when combined with You. See Lee, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, ¶¶ [0090]-[0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the angular filter as taught by Lee for the optical filter as taught by You, in order to yield the predictable benefit of blocking light incident at oblique angles, to improve device characteristics. Id. at ¶ [0098].
As to claim 2, Lee teaches a laminated optical filter structure having high and low refractive indices. Id. at FIG. 5, ¶¶ [0103]-[0105].
As to claim 3, Lee teaches the plurality of low and high refractive layers are alternately disposed in a thickness direction. Id.
As to claim 4, You teaches a window CW disposed on the optical filter but does not teach a refractive index of the window is lower than the refractive index of the high refractive layer.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a window material with a low refractive index, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 5, Lee teaches SiO2. See Lee, ¶ [0105].
As to claim 6, You teaches the optical filter blocks wavelengths greater than 580 nm, thereby transmitting wavelengths less than that which include the color green inherently spanning 495-570 nm. See You, ¶ [0163]. You’s photoelectric conversion element is necessarily capable of sensing light of a green wavelength if the optical filter passes such a band therethrough.
As to claim 10, You teaches the opening of the light blocking layer overlaps the photoelectric conversion element in a thickness direction of the substrate, and a width of the opening of the light blocking layer in one direction is smaller than a width of the photoelectric conversion element in the one direction. Id. at FIG. 6.
As to claim 12, You teaches a thickness of the optical filter is smaller than a thickness of the light blocking layer. Id. at FIG. 8.
As to claim 17, You teaches:
A substrate SUB2. See You, FIG. 6.
A light emitting element 160 disposed on the substrate and configured to emit light.
A photoelectric conversion element PD disposed on the substrate and configured to sense incident light L1, L2.
An encapsulation layer TFEL1 disposed on the light emitting element and the photoelectric conversion element.
A light blocking layer BA disposed on the photoelectric conversion element and including an opening OPN.
An optical filter OF overlapping the photoelectric conversion element in a thickness direction of the substrate and having a multilayer film.
However, You does not teach the optical filter substantially eliminates light incident on the photoelectric conversion element at an angle of about 30° to about 40°.
On the other hand, Lee teaches an optical filter 210 substantially eliminating incident light on the photoelectric conversion element at an angle of about 30° to about 40°, when combined with You. See Lee, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, ¶¶ [0090]-[0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the angular filter as taught by Lee for the optical filter as taught by You, in order to yield the predictable benefit of blocking light incident at oblique angles, to improve device characteristics. Id. at ¶ [0098].
As to claim 18, You teaches the light blocking layer BA is in contact with a lateral side surface of the optical filter OF. See You, FIG. 6.
As to claim 19, You teaches the light blocking layer BA includes a first bottom surface (bottommost surface of BA) and a second bottom surface (underside of top surface of BA), wherein the first bottom surface is disposed on the encapsulation layer, and the second bottom surface is disposed on the optical filter, and a distance between the photoelectric conversion element and the first bottom surface is shorter than a distance between the photoelectric conversion element and the second bottom surface because of the added thickness of the light blocking layer. Id.
As to claim 20, neither You nor Lee teaches a width of the opening in one direction is smaller than a width of the optical filter in the one direction.
On the other hand, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, a change in shape i.e. from a square opening to a pyramidal/trapezoidal opening would result in a width of the opening in one direction being smaller than a width of the optical filter in the one direction.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You and Lee as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190371866 A1), hereafter “Kim”.
As to claim 7, neither You nor Lee teaches the optical filter is configured to reflect light of a red wavelength band.
On the other hand, Kim teaches an optical filter 140 that reflects light of a red wavelength band. See Kim, ¶ [0161].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the optical filter reflecting red light as taught by Kim with the overall fingerprint detection device having an optical filter as taught by You and Lee, in order to yield the predictable benefit of improving efficiency. Id.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over You as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gao et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0093839 A1), hereafter “Gao”.
As to claim 8, neither You nor Lee teaches inter alia a color filter.
On the other hand, Gao teaches a color filter 340 formed over a light blocking layer 330 (corresponding to You’s light blocking layer BA). See Gao, FIG. 10. Since You’s optical filter is formed in a same layer as the light blocking layer, Gao’s color filter is therefore also disposed on the optical filter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the color filter formed over a light blocking layer as taught by Gao with the overall fingerprint detection device having a light blocking layer as taught by You and Lee, in order to yield the predictable benefit of differentiating between real and fake fingers in anti-counterfeit applications. Id. at ¶ [0110].
As to claim 9, Gao teaches the color filter may transmit green light therethrough. Id. at ¶ [0122].
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893