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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0373565) hereinafter “Liu” in view of Lin et al. (CN 111999935) hereinafter “Lin” (English translation attached) and Zhu et al. (US 2023/0165045) hereinafter “Zhu” and in further view of Woo et al. (US 2021/0074780) hereinafter “Woo”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 2 of Liu teaches a display module, comprising: a display panel (Item 20); and a support layer (Combination of Items 302 and 301) disposed on a non-display side of the display panel (Item 20), the support layer including a support plate (Item 302) and a first support part (Item 301) connected with the support plate (Item 302); wherein the support plate (Item 302) is provided with a first hole, and the first support part (Item 301) is disposed in the first hole; and at least a portion of the first support part (Item 301) is light permeable (Paragraph 0069); a whole side surface of the support plate (Item 302) proximate to the display panel (Item 20) is substantially flush with a side surface of the first support part (Item 301) proximate to the display panel (Item 20).
Liu does not teach where the thickness of the support layer is in a range of approximately 10 µm to approximately 200 µm, inclusive.
Fig. 3 of Lin teaches a thickness of the support layer (Item 203) is in a range of approximately 10 µm to approximately 200 µm, inclusive (Where the thickness is 100 µm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the support layer is in a range of approximately 10 µm to approximately 200 µm, inclusive because this thickness satisfies display requirements (Lin Page 11 of the English translation).
Liu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except the device further comprising: a buffer layer disposed on a side of the support layer proximate to the display panel, the buffer layer including a second support part that is light permeable, where the buffer layer is provided with a third hole, and the second support part is disposed in the third hole.
Fig. 11 of Zhu teaches a buffer layer (Item 132) disposed on a side of a support layer (Item 131) proximate to a display panel, the buffer layer (Item 132) including a hole that is light permeable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a buffer layer disposed on a side of the support layer proximate to the display panel, the buffer layer including a third hole that is light permeable because the buffer layer serves as a heat dissipation layer (Zhu Paragraph 0083) and the third hole allows light to travel through the buffer layer such that the light can reach a sensor below.
Fig. 3 of Lin further teaches where a hole is in an opaque layer (Item 203) and where the hole is filled with a support part (Item 203a) that is light permeable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the third hole of the buffer layer be filled with a second support part that is light permeable because this allows light to travel to a sensor below, and the second support part be disposed in the third hole because the second support part prevents material above the hole from sagging (Lin Page 11 of the English translation).
Liu does not teach where an orthographic projection of the first hole on the display panel lies within a range of an orthographic projection of the third hole on the display panel.
Fig. 6A of Woo teaches where a component (Item 520) is below a display (Item 400) , where the display (Item 400) includes a display panel (Item 431), a support layer (Item 444) and a buffer layer (Item 442) between the display panel (Item 431) and the support layer (Item 444), where the buffer layer (Item 442) and the support layer each have a respective hole and an orthographic projection of the hole in the support layer on the display panel lies within a range of an orthographic projection of the hole in the buffer layer on the display panel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an orthographic projection of the first hole on the display panel lies within a range of an orthographic projection of the third hole on the display panel because this allows a desired amount of light to go through the display to reach an optical component below the display (Paragraphs 0098-0099).
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 2 of Liu further teaches where the entire first support part (Item 301) is made of a transparent material (Paragraph 0069), and a side wall of the first support part (Item 301) in a thickness direction of the display panel is fixedly connected to a wall of the first hole.
Regarding claim 3, Liu further teaches where a light transmittance of the first support part is greater than or equal to 90% (Paragraph 0069 where Item 301 is greater than or equal to 92%).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the support layer further includes an adhesive part, wherein the adhesive part is disposed between the first support part and the wall of the first hole, and the support plate and the first support part are connected by the adhesive part.
Fig. 3 of Lin further teaches where the support layer (Item 203) further includes an adhesive part, wherein the adhesive part (Where Item 203 and 203a are fixed by double sided adhesive bonding) is disposed between the first support part and the wall of the first hole, and the support plate (Item 203) and the first support part (Item 203a) are connected by the adhesive part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support layer further includes an adhesive part, wherein the adhesive part is disposed between the first support part and the wall of the first hole, and the support plate and the first support part are connected by the adhesive part because the adhesive fixes the first support part to the support plate (Liu Page 12 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first support part includes a plurality of support strips, and at least two of the plurality of support strips are connected to a wall of the first hole; and the plurality of support strips and the wall of the first hole define a plurality of second holes.
Fig. 10 of Lin further teaches where the first support part (Item 203) includes a plurality of support strips (Black lines within Item 203a) , and at least two of the plurality of support strips are connected to a wall of the first hole (Item M1); and the plurality of support strips and the wall of the first hole define a plurality of second holes (Item M2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first support part include a plurality of support strips, and at least two of the plurality of support strips are connected to a wall of the first hole; and the plurality of support strips and the wall of the first hole define a plurality of second holes because this results in the first support part and the support plate to be more firmly fixed together (Liu Page 13 of the English translation).
Regarding clam 8, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the plurality of support strips and the wall of the first hole are connected to form a honeycomb structure of a grid structure.
Fig. 3 of Lin further teaches where the plurality of support strips (Black lines within Item 203a) and the wall of the first hole (Item M1) are connected to form a grid structure (See Examiner’s Note below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of support strips and the wall of the first hole be connected to form a honeycomb structure of a grid structure because this results in the first support part and the support plate to be more firmly fixed together (Liu Page 13 of the English translation).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that a grid can be comprised of any shaped openings.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where an orthographic projection of a second hole on the display panel is in a shape of a regular polygon, a circle or an ellipse.
Fig. 3 of Lin further teaches where an orthographic projection of a second hole (Item M2) on the display panel is in a shape of a regular polygon, a circle or an ellipse (Where the shape may be a square, round or other shapes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an orthographic projection of a second hole on the display panel be in a shape of a regular polygon, a circle or an ellipse because this results in the first support part and the support plate to be more firmly fixed together (Liu Page 13 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a material of the second support part includes polyethylene terephthalate; and/or a light transmittance of the second support is greater than or equal to 90%; and/or an elastic modulus of the second support part is in a range of 0.5 Gpa to 1.5 Gpa, inclusive.
Fig. 3 of Lin further teaches where a hole is in an opaque layer (Item 203) and where the hole is filled with a support part (Item 203a) that is transparent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmittance of the second support be greater than or equal to 90% because the light transmittance of the second support being greater than or equal to 90% allows light to travel through the buffer layer into the sensor below.
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 2 of Liu teaches a display apparatus, comprising: the display module according to claim 1 (For brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here; See the rejection of claim 1 above where Liu, Lin and Zhu are relied upon); and an optical device disposed on a non-display side of the display module (Item 10).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0373565) hereinafter “Liu” in view of Lin et al. (CN 111999935) hereinafter “Lin” (English translation attached), Zhu et al. (US 2023/0165045) hereinafter “Zhu” and Woo et al. (US 2021/0074780) hereinafter “Woo” and in further view of Chen (US 2023/0301136) hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a material of the adhesive part includes a light shielding material.
Chen teaches where an adhesive is a black light-shielding adhesive material (Paragraph 0017).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a material of the adhesive part includes a light shielding material because this allows the adhesive part to also prevent light from propagating to undesired areas of the display module (Chen Paragraph 0017).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0373565) hereinafter “Liu” in view of Lin et al. (CN 111999935) hereinafter “Lin” (English translation attached), Zhu et al. (US 2023/0165045) hereinafter “Zhu” and Woo et al. (US 2021/0074780) hereinafter “Woo” and in further view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0157386) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a material of the adhesive part includes a single-component epoxy adhesive; and/or a viscosity of the adhesive part is in a range of 10000 cP to 20000 cP, inclusive; and/or a distance between the first support part and the wall of the first hole is in a range of 15 µm to 500 µm, inclusive.
Kim teaches an adhesive composition, where the viscosity of the adhesive is between 300 cP and 50000 cP (Paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the viscosity of the adhesive part be in a range of 10000 cP to 20000 cP because within this viscosity range an adhesive composition is known to have good coatability and thickness uniformity (Kim Paragraph 0095).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0373565) hereinafter “Liu” in view of Lin et al. (CN 111999935) hereinafter “Lin” (English translation attached), Zhu et al. (US 2023/0165045) hereinafter “Zhu” and Woo et al. (US 2021/0074780) hereinafter “Woo” and in further view of Lius et al. (US 2023/0292578) hereinafter “Lius” and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0392963) hereinafter “Chen2”.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the display panel includes a plurality of sub-pixels, and orthographic projections of the plurality of support strips on the display panel are staggered with light emitting regions of the plurality of sub-pixels.
Lius teaches a display comprising a plurality of subpixels (Item 18) over a fingerprint sensor region (Item FR).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display panel include a plurality of subpixels because OLED subpixels are known to be an effective light emitting unit for a display panel (Lius Paragraph 0033).
Chen2 teaches where the spacing between subpixels is a result effective variable (Paragraph 0069—0070 where a spacing distance between two adjacent light emitting regions in a pixel region is adjusted to adjust an arrangement structure of light emitting regions of subpixels in a pixel region, so as to implement different structures of two adjacent pixel regions). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the spacing between subpixels such that orthographic projections of the plurality of support strips on the display panel are staggered with light emitting regions of the plurality of sub-pixels because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a width of a support strip is less than or equal to a distance between light emitting regions of two adjacent sub- pixels; and/or an area of a second hole is greater than or equal to an area of a light emitting region of a sub-pixel.
Chen2 teaches where the spacing between subpixels is a result effective variable (Paragraph 0069—0070 where a spacing distance between two adjacent light emitting regions in a pixel region is adjusted to adjust an arrangement structure of light emitting regions of subpixels in a pixel region, so as to implement different structures of two adjacent pixel regions). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the spacing between subpixels such that a width of a support strip is less than or equal to a distance between light emitting regions of two adjacent sub- pixels because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0373565) hereinafter “Liu” in view of Lin et al. (CN 111999935) hereinafter “Lin” (English translation attached), Zhu et al. (US 2023/0165045) hereinafter “Zhu” and Woo et al. (US 2021/0074780) hereinafter “Woo” and in further view of Lius et al. (US 2023/0292578) hereinafter “Lius”.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the entire buffer layer is made of transparent material.
Lius teaches where a buffer layer (Item 44) includes a transparent insulating material (Paragraph 0074).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the entire buffer layer be made of transparent material because this more easily allows light to pass through towards the sensor below (Lius Paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a material of the buffer layer includes thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer rubber; and/or a light transmittance of the buffer layer is greater than or equal to 92%; and/or an elastic modulus of the buffer layer is in a range of 0.1 Gpa to 0.15 Gpa, inclusive.
Lius further teaches where a light transmittance of the buffer layer is greater than or equal to 92% (Paragraph 0074 where the buffer layer is transparent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light transmittance of the buffer layer is greater than or equal to 92% because this allows light to pass through to a sensor below (Lius Paragraph 0074).
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0373565) hereinafter “Liu” in view of Lin et al. (CN 111999935) hereinafter “Lin” (English translation attached), Zhu et al. (US 2023/0165045) hereinafter “Zhu” and Woo et al. (US 2021/0074780) hereinafter “Woo” and in further view of Li et al. (US 2024/0221542) hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except an adhesive layer disposed on a side of the buffer layer proximate to the display panel, the second support part being bonded to the adhesive layer.
Fig. 1 of Li teaches an adhesive layer (Item 100b4) disposed on a side of a buffer layer (Item 50) proximate to a display panel (Item 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adhesive layer disposed on a side of the buffer layer proximate to the display panel because this allows the buffer layer to be bonded to the display panel (Li Paragraph 0020).
When the second support part is included in the buffer layer in the manner stated above the second support part will be bonded to the adhesive layer.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0373565) hereinafter “Liu” in view of Lin et al. (CN 111999935) hereinafter “Lin” (English translation attached), Zhu et al. (US 2023/0165045) hereinafter “Zhu” and Woo et al. (US 2021/0074780) hereinafter “Woo” in further view of Sim et al. (US 2018/0341290) hereinafter “Sim”.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu and Woo teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except the apparatus further comprising: a light shielding layer, disposed on a side, away from the display panel, of the support layer in the display module and covering the optical device.
Fig. 5A of Sim teaches a light shielding layer (Item 565), disposed on a side, away from a display panel (Item 530), of the support layer (Item 550) in the display module and covering a optical device (Item 590).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light shielding layer, disposed on a side, away from the display panel, of the support layer in the display module and covering the optical device because the light shielding layer shields electromagnetic waves from propagating from above or below the shielding sheet, or may diffuse heat generated from other elements (Sim Paragraph 0100).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that while not explicitly stated, the inclusion of copper and graphite in the shield will shield the fingerprint sensor from at least some of the external light impinging on the bottom of the display module.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Liu, Lin, Zhu, Woo and Sim teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Lin does not teach where an orthographic projection of the first hole of the support plate of the support layer on the display panel is in a range of an orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the display panel; or the orthographic projection of the first hole of the support plate of the support layer on the display panel is in the range of the orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the display panel; and the first support part of the support layer includes a plurality of second holes, orthographic projections of the plurality of second holes on the display panel are in the range of the orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the display panel.
Sim teaches where an orthographic projection of a first hole (Item “opening”) of the support plate (Item 550) of the support layer on the display panel (Item 530) is in a range of an orthographic projection of the light shielding layer (Item 560) on the display panel (Item 530).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an orthographic projection of the first hole of the support plate of the support layer on the display panel is in a range of an orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the display panel because this prevents electromagnetic waves from propagating out of or into the device and may diffuse heat generated from other elements (Sim Paragraph 0100).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, more specifically the limitation “an orthographic projection of the first hole on the display panel lies within a range of an orthographic projection of the third hole on the display panel” under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Woo.
However, Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 with respect to Zhu have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant avers that Zhu does not teach the buffer layer in a position between a display and a support layer as the Applicant avers that Item 131 in Zhu is not a support layer. The Examiner disagrees. Item 131 in Zhu is below all of the layers above it which include the rest of the functional layer (Items 132 and 133) and the display panel (Item 11). Thus, Item 131 is a layer that supports the layers above it. As such, the buffer layer (Item 132) is between a support layer (Item 131) and a display panel (Item 11) in Zhu. Further, the Applicant argues that Item 131 is not a support layer because it does not have a hole filled with transmissive material. While the Examiner concedes that the hole in Item 131 in Zhu is not filled with transmissive material, the Examiner in the combination does not bring in the structure of the support layer from Zhu but instead is stating that the structure and location of the buffer layer is obvious based on the teachings in Zhu. As such, the support layer in Zhu does not need to have the specific structure denoted in claim 1. Instead, in the combination presented in the rejection, the Liu reference teaches the support layer having the specific structure (hole filled with transmissive material) required by the claim. Thus, when considering the combination of Liu and Zhu, a buffer layer having a hole will be present between a support layer and display layer. A new reference, Woo, has been included in the current rejection of claim 1 to state why it would be obvious to have an orthographic projection of the first hole on the display panel lies within a range of an orthographic projection of the third hole on the display panel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights