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 .
Restriction/Election
Pursuant to the election of invention I on December 2, 2025, non-elected claims 9-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Although the applicant states in the response that there would not be an undue burden to examine all of the claims, the applicant has not given an explanation of why this would be so. “If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse” (MPEP 818.01(c)). This response is treated as an election without traverse.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on July 17, 2023, August 28, 2025, and December 16, 2025 have been considered.
Foreign Priority
The applicant’s claims to priority to Korean application KR10-2022-0134200 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner proposes: DISPLAY WITH LIGHT SENSING PIXELS SURROUNDED BY PARTITION WALLS
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 (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 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, US 2016/0064460.
Claim 1: Kim discloses
a substrate (10);
and a plurality of unit pixels disposed on the substrate, wherein each of the unit pixels includes a plurality of sub-pixels (EA+OA), a plurality of light sensing pixels (SA), and a plurality of partition wall members (400),
Note that although a single subpixel is illustrated, Kim discloses at [0005] that “[d]isplays generate an image via selective light emission from a matrix of pixels”, as was well known in the art, and those in the art would understand that this is a single unit that is repeated.
wherein each of the sub-pixels includes a light emitting element (200) that emits light and a light emitting area (OA) from which the light is emitted,
wherein each of the light sensing pixels includes a light receiving element (300) that outputs a sensing signal corresponding to the light and a light receiving area that receives the light,
and wherein in a plan view, each of the partition wall members surrounds the corresponding light receiving area and overlaps at least some of the sub-pixels (FIG. 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Kim does not specifically disclose that each of the unit pixels includes a plurality of light sensing pixels, this is mere duplication of parts, and would not be a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa, US 2021/0391388.
Claim 1: Nakagawa discloses
a substrate (151);
and a plurality of unit pixels (45) disposed on the substrate,
wherein each of the unit pixels includes a plurality of sub-pixels (190), a plurality of light sensing pixels (110), and a plurality of partition wall members (219),
wherein each of the sub-pixels includes a light emitting element that emits light (190) and a light emitting area (above 190) from which the light is emitted,
wherein each of the light sensing pixels includes a light receiving element (110) that outputs a sensing signal corresponding to the light and a light receiving area that receives the light,
and wherein in a plan view, each of the partition wall members surrounds the corresponding light receiving area and overlaps at least some of the sub-pixels (FIG. 13A).
PNG
media_image2.png
298
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although Kim does not specifically disclose that each of the unit pixels includes a plurality of light sensing pixels, this is mere duplication of parts, and would not be a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Di, CN 107480639 A. Alternatively, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di.
Claim 1: Di discloses
a substrate (10);
and a plurality of unit pixels (50) disposed on the substrate,
wherein each of the unit pixels includes a plurality of sub-pixels (50R, 50R, 50B), a plurality of light sensing pixels (201), and a plurality of partition wall members (40),
wherein each of the sub-pixels includes a light emitting element that emits light and a light emitting area from which the light is emitted,
wherein each of the light sensing pixels includes a light receiving element that outputs a sensing signal corresponding to the light and a light receiving area that receives the light,
and wherein in a plan view, each of the partition wall members surrounds the corresponding light receiving area and overlaps at least some of the sub-pixels (50G).
In the examine of FIG. 4, the partition wall members 40 partially surround the light receiving area 102, which reads on claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
600
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, in FIG. 6, one subpixel and the light receiving area 102 are completely surrounded by the partition wall members 40. Di discloses that “not only can ensure the shading wall 40 can block light from each direction of the touch electrode 30 is reflected to the photosensitive diode 201, which completely avoids the touch electrode 30 caused by the noise light, the fingerprint recognition accuracy, and also can guarantee the single organic light emitting units 50 as the fingerprint identification unit 20 of the light source and higher fingerprint identification sensitivity.” (See the attached machine translation, page 7, first full paragraph.) It would have been obvious to have altered the embodiment of FIG. 4 to gain this benefit.
PNG
media_image4.png
446
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di in view of Yang, “The method of 2/3 sampled sub-pixel rendering for AMOLED display.” Journal of Display Technology 12.2 (2015): 158-164. While Nakagawa, Kim, and Di disclose specific subpixel layouts, their teachings on incorporating light sensing areas can be incorporated into different subpixel layouts. One class of subpixel layout is described by Yang. See e.g. FIG. 2(a):
PNG
media_image5.png
632
540
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Some pixels have been annotated with their colors for those seeing a black and white version of the image here.)
It would have been obvious to use this configuration to “utilize fewer sub-pixels to achieve the specified image resolution” (section III) and “eliminate the grid effect of current design” (section IV(C)).
Claim 2: Yang discloses that one of the unit pixels comprises
a first sub-pixel (B) positioned in a first column of the substrate;
two (2-1)-th sub-pixels (G) positioned in a second column adjacent to the first column in a first direction;
a third sub-pixel (R) positioned in a third column adjacent to the second column in the first direction;
two (2-2)-th sub-pixels (G) positioned in a fourth column adjacent to the third column in the first direction.
In Di in view of Yang, since Di, e.g. FIGS. 6 and 7, discloses a light sensing pixel (annotated LS) with each green pixel, applying Di to the subpixel arrangement of Yang, there would be a first light sensing pixel positioned in the second column; and a second light sensing pixel positioned in the fourth column:
PNG
media_image6.png
181
361
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: the two (2-1)-th sub-pixels and the two (2-2)-th sub-pixels emit light of a same color (green), and wherein all of the color of the light emitted by the two (2-1)-th sub-pixels and the two (2-2)-th sub-pixels, a color of light emitted by the first sub-pixel (blue), and a color of light emitted by the third sub-pixel (red) are different.
Claim 4: the first light sensing pixel is disposed between the two (2-1)-th sub-pixels in the second column (Di FIGS. 5 and 6; annotated Yang FIG. 2(a) above), wherein the second light sensing pixel is disposed between the two (2-2)-th sub-pixels in the fourth column (annotated Yang FIG. 2(a) above), and wherein the first sub-pixel, the third sub-pixel, the first light sensing pixel, and the second light sensing pixel are disposed in a same row (annotated Yang FIG. 2(a) above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The subject matter of claim 5, including the claims from which it depends, was not found in the prior art reviewed by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897