DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mail 12/30/2025 Applicant amended claims 1, 11-12, 14, 16 and 19.
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claim 11-15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 11-15 has been amended to an invention directed to a display with the function of controlling brightness under different ambient light conditions classified in G09G2360/144
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11-15 are now withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 16-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20110122096 A1 to Kim et al. in view of US 20110242440 A1 to Noma et al. further in view of US 20100045633 A1 to Gettemy et al.
Regarding Claim 16. Kim discloses an electronic device, comprising: a display (See at least Fig. 1) having a substrate (Fig. 1 substrate 101) and an array of pixels on the substrate that form an active area (See Fig. 1 light emitting unit EL), wherein the display has a transparent portion located within the active area (See at least Fig. 1); and a light sensor aligned with the transparent portion and configured to detect light that passes through the substrate (See Fig. 1 and para 48 “Since the photo sensor unit S includes the photodiode, the photo sensor unit S generates (or causes a change in) a photoelectric current when receiving light”).
Kim does not specifically disclose that the light sensor detect infrared light that passes through the substrate, and the substrate is interposed between the array of pixels and the light sensor.
However, Noma discloses the light sensor detect infrared light that passes through the substrate (See at least Fig. 5(b) or Fig. 5(c) of infrared light sensor), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Further, Gettemy discloses the substrate is interposed between the array of pixels and the light sensor (See at least Fig. 5A sensor 510 between backlight 550 and display 211, therefore the sensors will be between the array of pixels and the substrate), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to include that the light sensor detect infrared light that passes through the substrate, and the substrate is interposed between the array of pixels and the light sensor.
Regarding Claim 17. Kim further discloses the substrate comprises a polymer substrate and wherein the transparent portion comprises transparent polymer in the polymer substrate (para 46 “first substrate 101 and the second substrate 102 may each be formed of a glass material, a metal material, and/or a plastic material”).
Regarding Claim 18. Kim further discloses the display has an additional transparent portion, the electronic device further comprising a light source configured to emit light through the additional transparent portion (See Fig. 1 light emitting unit EL).
Regarding Claim 19. Kim further discloses the light sensor forms an ambient light sensor (See para 145 “light sensor elements 30a constituting the visible light sensors 31A and those light sensor elements 30d constituting the light intensity sensor 50 with respect to the ambient illuminance”).
Regarding Claim 20. Kim further discloses the substrate has first and second opposing surfaces, wherein the transparent portion is located in the substrate, and wherein the light passes from the first surface to the second surface to reach the light sensor (as shown in Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights