DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 12/03/2025.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 6-16 and 19-20 are withdrawn.
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 Amendments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 17-18 have been considered. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach all of the limitations of the amended claims. This argument is not found persuasive because the cited prior art does teach the limitations of the amended claims (see prior art rejections below).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0311373).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee teaches a display device (Figs. 2-5) comprising: a first area (Figs. 2 & 5, SA2, ¶ [0051]) comprising a plurality of first pixels (Fig. 3C, PXL in SA2, ¶ [0057]);
a second area (Figs. 2 & 5, SA1, ¶ [0051]) adjacent to the first area, and comprising a plurality of second pixels (Fig. 3A, PXL in SA1);
a first photo sensor (Fig. 3C, PHS2, ¶ [0061]) adjacent to the plurality of first pixels at the first area, and configured to sense light; and
a second photo sensor (Fig. 3A, PHS1, ¶ [0061]) adjacent to the plurality of second pixels at the second area, and configured to sense light,
wherein a size of an area of the second photo sensor is different from a size of an area of the first photo sensor (Fig. 5, ¶ [0095] teaches that photosensors PHS1 each have a larger size than photosensors PHS2).
and wherein a distance between centers of the second photo sensor and an adjacent second photo sensor in a first direction or a second direction crossing the first direction is equal to a distance between centers of the first photo sensor and an adjacent first photo sensor in the first direction or the second direction (Figs. 3A & 3C, the centers of photosensors PHS1 and PHS2 overlap the centers of pixels PXL. ¶ [0076] teaches that the pixels PXL have a constant distance between adjacent pixels in the matrix form of Figs. 3A and 3C. Therefore, the distance between adjacent photosensors that overlap pixels PXL have the same constant distance D (see annotated Figures below)).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lee Figs. 3A & 3C
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, and Lee teaches that the size of the area of the second photo sensor (Fig. 3A, PHS1, ¶ [0061]) is larger than the size of the area of the first photo sensor (Fig. 5, ¶ [0095] teaches that photosensors PHS1 each have a larger size than photosensors PHS2).
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LEE et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0311373).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the display device of claim 2.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach that the size of the area of the second photo sensor is greater than or equal to 1.5 times the size of the area of the first photo sensor.
However, Lee recognizes that the size of the photo sensors impacts the degree of integration, which impacts the sensing resolution (¶ [0151]). Lee further recognizes the need to have high resolution sensing in the region SA2 in order to increase sensing accuracy (¶ [0152]). Lee also teaches that the photo sensors PHS1 are larger than the photo sensors PHS2 (¶ [0095]). Therefore, the sizes of the first and second photo sensors are an art recognized variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive within the range of the claim 3 limitations, in order to achieve the desired balance between the impact of the photo sensor size on sensing resolution and the need for high sensing resolution as taught by Lee. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence of the criticality of the claimed range (i.e., the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LEE et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0311373) in view of LIUS et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0365099)
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the display device of claim 2.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach that the plurality of first pixels comprises:
a first first sub-pixel configured to emit light of a first color;
a second first sub-pixel adjacent to the first first sub-pixel in the first direction, and configured to emit light of a second color;
a third first sub-pixel adjacent to the second first sub-pixel in the second direction crossing the first direction, and configured to emit light of a third color; and
a fourth first sub-pixel adjacent to the first first sub-pixel in the second direction, adjacent to the third first sub-pixel in the first direction, and configured to emit light of the second color, and
wherein the first photo sensor is adjacent to the first first sub-pixel in a first diagonal direction crossing the first direction and the second direction.
However, Lius is a pertinent art that teaches the plurality of first pixels comprises:
a first first sub-pixel (Fig. 5, 161a, ¶ [0034], sub pixel A in annotated figure below) configured to emit light of a first color (¶ [0034]);
a second first sub-pixel (Fig. 5, 161b, ¶ [0034], sub pixel B in annotated figure below) adjacent to the first first sub-pixel in the first direction (positional relationship of Lius’s sub pixels and photo sensor is similar to Applicant’s embodiment of Fig. 9 and would therefore fulfill this limitation), and configured to emit light of a second color (¶ [0034]);
a third first sub-pixel (Fig. 5, 161c, ¶ [0034], sub pixel C in annotated figure below) adjacent to the second first sub-pixel in the second direction (positional relationship of Lius’s sub pixels and photo sensor is similar to Applicant’s embodiment of Fig. 9 and would therefore fulfill this limitation) crossing the first direction, and configured to emit light of a third color (¶ [0034]); and
a fourth first sub-pixel (Fig. 5,161b, sub pixel labeled D in annotated figure below) adjacent to the first first sub-pixel in the second direction, adjacent to the third first sub-pixel in the first direction (positional relationship of Lius’s sub pixels and photo sensor is similar to Applicant’s embodiment of Fig. 9 and would therefore fulfill this limitation), and configured to emit light of the second color (¶ [0034]), and
wherein the first photo sensor (Fig. 5, 181, ¶ [0034]) is adjacent to the first first sub-pixel in a first diagonal direction crossing the first direction and the second direction (positional relationship of Lius’s sub pixels and photo sensor is similar to Applicant’s embodiment of Fig. 9 and would therefore fulfill this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Lee’s sub pixels and sensors according to the teaching of Lius (Fig. 5) in order to increase screen to body ratio while providing biometric authentication (Lius ¶ [0041]).
PNG
media_image3.png
539
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lius Fig. 5
Regarding claim 5, Lee modified by Lius teaches the display device of claim 4, and Lee modified by Lius teaches the plurality of second pixels (the Examiner notes that it would be obvious to modify the sub pixel arrangements of both of Lee’s sensing areas according to the teaching of Lius in order to in order to increase screen to body ratio while providing biometric authentication (Lius ¶ [0041])) comprises:
a first second sub-pixel (Lee’s second sensing area SA1 modified according to Lius Fig. 5, 161a, ¶ [0034], sub pixel A in annotated figure above) configured to emit light of the first color;
a second second sub-pixel (Lee’s second sensing area SA1 modified according to Lius Fig. 5, 161b, ¶ [0034], sub pixel B in annotated figure above) adjacent to the first second sub-pixel in the first direction, and configured to emit light of the second color;
a third second sub-pixel (Lee’s second sensing area SA1 modified according to Lius Fig. 5, 161C, ¶ [0034], sub pixel C in annotated figure above) adjacent to the second second sub-pixel in the second direction, and configured to emit light of the third color; and
a fourth second sub-pixel (Lee’s second sensing area SA1 modified according to Lius Fig. 5, 161b, ¶ [0034], sub pixel D in annotated figure above) adjacent to the first second sub-pixel in the second direction, adjacent to the third second sub-pixel in the first direction, and configured to emit light of the second color, and
wherein the second photo sensor (Lee’s photo sensor in their second sensing area SA1 modified according to Lius Fig. 5, 181, ¶ [0034]) is adjacent to the first second sub-pixel in the first diagonal direction.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over LI et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0103363) in view of LEE et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0311373).
Regarding independent claim 17, Li teaches a display device (Figs. 7 & 10A) comprising:
a substrate (Figs. 7 & 10A, 11, ¶ [0121]);
light-receiving electrodes (Figs. 7 &10A, ¶ [0134] teaches that the plurality of photosensitive sensors in Fig. 7 can include electrode 102) spaced from one another on the substrate (Fig. 7, photosensitive sensors 100 are spaced apart);
pixel electrodes (Fig. 7, ¶ [0074] teaches a plurality of subpixels P1, P2 and P3. Fig. 10A, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134] teaches that subpixels include electrode 122) spaced from one another on the substrate (Fig. 7, sub pixels P1, P2, and P3 are spaced apart), and spaced from the light-receiving electrodes (Fig. 7);
a first emissive layer (Fig. 10A, 120, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134] teaches that the subpixels include light emitting layer 120) on a first pixel electrode from among the pixel electrodes;
a second emissive layer (Fig. 10A, 120, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134] teaches that the subpixels include light emitting layer 120) on a second pixel electrode from among the pixel electrodes;
a first photoelectric conversion layer (Fig. 10A, 101, ¶ [0035]) on a first light-receiving electrode from among the light-receiving electrodes (Figs. 7 & 10A, 101, ¶¶ [0133]-[0135] teaches that the sensing devices 100 include photosensitive sensing layer 101), and adjacent to the first emissive layer (Figs. 7 & 10A); and
a second photoelectric conversion layer (Figs. 7 & 10A, 101, ¶¶ [0133]-[0135] teaches that the sensing devices 100 include photosensitive sensing layer 101) on a second light-receiving electrode from among the light-receiving electrodes,
However, Li does not explicitly teach that a width of the second photoelectric conversion layer is different from a width of the first photoelectric conversion layer, and wherein a distance between centers of the second photoelectric conversion layer and an adjacent second photoelectric conversion layer in a first direction or a second direction crossing the first direction is equal to a distance between centers of the first photoelectric conversion layer and an adjacent first photoelectric conversion layer in the first direction or the second direction.
However, Lee is a pertinent art that teaches a width of the second photoelectric conversion layer (Fig. 3A, PHS1 + PHS2, ¶ [0061] teaches photo sensors corresponding to Li’s sensing devices) is different from a width of the first photoelectric conversion layer (Fig. 5, ¶ [0095] teaches that photosensors PHS1 each have a larger width than photosensors PHS2. Therefore, Li modified by Lee’s sensing devices and their corresponding photosensitive sensing layers would have different widths in Li modified by Lee’s first and second sensing areas SA1 and SA2 (Lee Figs. 2 & 5, ¶ [0051])),
and wherein a distance between centers of the second photoelectric conversion layer and an adjacent second photoelectric conversion layer in a first direction or a second direction crossing the first direction is equal to a distance between centers of the first photoelectric conversion layer and an adjacent first photoelectric conversion layer in the first direction or the second direction. (Figs. 3A & 3C, the centers of Lee’s photosensors PHS1 and PHS2 overlap the centers of pixels PXL. ¶ [0076] teaches that the pixels PXL have a constant distance between adjacent pixels in the matrix form of Figs. 3A and 3C. Therefore, the distance between Li modified by Lee’s photosensors would also have the same constant distance D (see annotated Figures below)).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lee Figs. 3A & 3C
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s photo sensors and their corresponding photosensitive layers to have different widths according to the teaching of Lee (Figs. 2 & 5) in order to increase sensing resolution and sensing accuracy in a particular sensing region of the device (Lee ¶¶ [0151]-[0152]).
Regarding claim 18, Li modified by Lee teaches the display device of claim 17, and Li modified by Lee teaches that the second emissive layer (Li Fig. 10A, 120, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134] teaches that the subpixels include light emitting layer 120. Lee teaches a plurality of pixels (Lee Fig. 3A, PXL in SA1, ¶ [0057]) adjacent to Lee’s second photosensors PH1. Therefore, Li modified by Lee’s display device would include light emitting layers in Lee’s second sensing area SA1 adjacent to Li modified by Lee’s photo sensors and corresponding photosensitive layers and would therefore fulfill this limitation) is located closer to the second photoelectric conversion layer (Li Fig. 10A, 101, ¶ [0035]) than the first photoelectric conversion layer, and wherein the first emissive layer is located closer to the first photoelectric conversion layer than the second photoelectric conversion layer (Li Fig. 10A, 120, ¶¶ [0133]-[0134] teaches that the subpixels include light emitting layer 120. Lee teaches a plurality of pixels (Lee Fig. 3C, PXL in SA2, ¶ [0057]) adjacent to Lee’s first photosensors PH2 . Therefore, Li modified by Lee’s display device would include light emitting layers in Lee’s first sensing area SA2 adjacent to Li modified by Lee’s photo sensors and corresponding photosensitive layers and would therefore fulfill this limitation).
Cited Prior Art
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.
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 RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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 B Gauthier can be reached on 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights