DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication filed 22 April 2026.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant' s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS). The IDS(es) has/have been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Group I embodiment in the reply filed on 3 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 9-13 and 20, drawn to a nonelected embodiment, are withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 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.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The § 112(a) rejection of claim 8 is withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
The § 112(b) rejection of claim 8 is withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Publication No. KR20180062205A (published June 8, 2018) (hereinafter “Lee 1”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0006169 (filed Aug. 28, 2020) (hereinafter “Karri”) .
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee 1 discloses: A display device comprising:
a substrate (FIG. 2, lower substrate 10, [0024]);
a transistor (FIG. 2, thin film transistor 110, [0032]) disposed on the substrate (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the thin film transistor 110 is disposed on the lower substrate 10); and
a plurality of light emitting devices (FIG. 2, light emitting diode 30, [0035]; see also [0027], disclosing wherein there are a plurality of banks, anodes, and organic light emitting layers and thus a plurality of light emitting diodes; see also [0034], disclosing pixels P ) that are electrically connected to the transistor (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the light emitting diode 30 is electrically connected to the transistor), and
wherein the
each light emitting device of the plurality of light emitting devices comprises:
a first electrode (FIG. 2, anode electrode 151, [0035]) that is electrically connected to the transistor (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the anode electrode 151 is electrically connected to the thin film transistor 110);
a second electrode (FIG. 2, cathode electrode 154, [0035]) disposed on the first electrode (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the cathode electrode 154 is disposed on the anode electrode 151);
a light emitting layer (FIG. 2, light emitting layers 153, [0035]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the light emitting layers 153 are disposed between the cathode electrode 154 and the anode electrode 151);
a hole transport layer (FIG. 3, hole transport layer 230, [0048]) disposed between the first electrode and the light emitting layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the hole transport layer 230 is disposed between the anode electrode 210 and the light emitting layer 250); and
an electron blocking layer (FIG. 3, electron blocking layer 240, [0049]) disposed between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the electron blocking layer 240 is disposed between the hole transport layer 230 and the light emitting layer 250),
mobility of the hole transport layer is equal to or less than about 2.0*10-3 cm2/(Vs) (FIG. 3, disclosing wherein the mobility of the hole transport layer 230 ranges from 10-4 cm 2/(Vs) or more and 10-3 cm 2/(Vs) or less, [0049]).
Lee 1 does not specifically disclose a sensor disposed at a rear surface of the substrate, wherein the sensor overlaps multiple light emitting devices of the plurality of light emitting devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Karri discloses a display panel including a substrate and a plurality of light emitting devices (FIGS. 3/5, depicting a display panel 300/500 including a substrate 350 and a plurality of pixels 337 and anodes 518, oled layer 514, and cathode layer 512, [0045], [0049]), wherein a sensor is disposed at a rear surface of the substrate (FIGS. 3/5, depicting a sensor 502 disposed behind an opaque layer 526, [0048]-[0049]), and further wherein the sensor overlaps multiple light emitting devices of the plurality of light emitting devices (FIGS. 3/5, depicting wherein the sensor overlaps a plurality of anodes 518 of the light emitting devices comprising anodes 518, OLED layer 514, and cathode layer 512, [0049]). Regarding the light sensor configuration, in [0047], Karri states: “FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of mobile device 400 that includes a light sensor (e.g., a proximity sensor) 402 located under a display panel 404 interacting with an object 406 that is a distance, D, away from a front surface of the display panel 404. . . . The proximity sensor 402 can operate by determining an amount of electromagnetic radiation (e.g., an intensity) that is emitted from the transmitter 408, reflected off the object 406, and then is received by the receiver 410. The amount of light received by the receiver 410 can be used as a signal for how close the front surface of the display panel 404 is to an object 406 under the assumption that the amount of light received by the intensity of received light increases monotonically with decreasing distance, D, between the display panel 404 and the object 406. The amount of light received at the receiver can be correlated with a distance between the object and the display panel . . . .” In [0032], Karri further states: “The front surface of a mobile device includes a display typically operating as a graphic user interface (GUI) and one or more optical devices operating as sensors/emitters in areas below the display and facing the front surface. The one or more optical devices can be configured for a variety of functions, including (but not limited to) sensing lighting conditions (e.g. an ambient light sensor), sensing proximity of objects near the display (e.g., electromagnetic sensor), capturing images (e.g., a fingerprint sensor).” In [0035], Karri further states: “An ambient light sensor may include a receiver of light and may determine an amount of ambient light received by the sensor.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Lee 1 by adding the light sensor configuration of Karri behind the lower substrate 10 and overlapping a plurality of pixels including light emitting diodes 30 in order to enable the display device to sense and determine an amount of ambient light received by the sensor as disclosed in Karri. See Karri [0047].
Applicant further claims “a real part of impedance of the light emitting device is equal to or less than about 100 Ω, in a frequency range of about 105 Hz to about 106 Hz.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01(I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Lee 1 in view of Karri discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, including wherein a real part of impedance of the light emitting device is equal to or less than about 100 Ω, in a frequency range of about 105 Hz to about 106 Hz. See Lee 1 [0001]-[0083].
Accordingly, Lee 1 in view of Karri discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure disclosed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus renders obvious claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Lee 1 in view of Karri further discloses wherein the sensor includes an ambient luminance sensor (Karri FIGS. 3/5, [0032]: “The one or more optical devices can be configured for a variety of functions, including (but not limited to) sensing lighting conditions (e.g. an ambient light sensor), sensing proximity of objects near the display (e.g., electromagnetic sensor), capturing images (e.g., a fingerprint sensor).”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee 1 in view of Karri further discloses a support member disposed between the substrate and the sensor (FIG. 5, back cover 526, [0049]), wherein the support member includes a hole overlapping the sensor (FIG. 5, depicting wherein the back cover 526 includes an opening 528, [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee 1 in view of Karri further discloses an auxiliary layer disposed on the plurality of light emitting devices, wherein the auxiliary layer includes at least one of a color filter, a quantum dot color conversion layer, a touch sensor, or a polarization layer (Lee 1 FIG. 2, polarizing film 60, [0030]).
Regarding independent claim 14, Lee 1 discloses: A display device comprising:
a display panel (FIG. 1, depicting an organic light emitting diode display, [0012]);
wherein the display panel comprises:
a transistor (FIG. 2, thin film transistor 110, [0032]) disposed on a substrate (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the thin film transistor 110 is disposed on a lower substrate 10, [0024]); and
a plurality of light emitting devices (FIG. 2, light emitting diode 30, [0035]; see also [0027], disclosing wherein there are a plurality of banks, anodes, and organic light emitting layers and thus a plurality of light emitting diodes; see also [0034], disclosing pixels P) that are electrically connected to the transistor (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the light emitting diode 30 is electrically connected to the transistor),
each light emitting device of the plurality of light emitting devices comprises:
a first electrode (FIG. 2, anode electrode 151, [0035]) that is electrically connected to the transistor (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the anode electrode 151 is electrically connected to the thin film transistor 110);
a second electrode (FIG. 2, cathode electrode 154, [0035]) disposed on the first electrode (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the cathode electrode 154 is disposed on the anode electrode 151);
a light emitting layer (FIG. 2, light emitting layers 153, [0035]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (FIG. 2, depicting wherein the light emitting layers 153 are disposed between the cathode electrode 154 and the anode electrode 151);
a hole transport layer (FIG. 3, hole transport layer 230, [0048]) disposed between the first electrode and the light emitting layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the hole transport layer 230 is disposed between the anode electrode 210 and the light emitting layer 250);
an electron blocking layer (FIG. 3, electron blocking layer 240, [0049]) disposed between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the electron blocking layer 240 is disposed between the hole transport layer 230 and the light emitting layer 250), and
Lee 1 does not specifically disclose a sensor disposed at a rear surface of the display panel, and wherein the sensor overlaps multiple light emitting devices of the plurality of light emitting devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Karri discloses a display panel including a substrate and a plurality of light emitting devices (FIGS. 3/5, depicting a display panel 300/500 including a substrate 350 and a plurality of pixels 337 and anodes 518, oled layer 514, and cathode layer 512, [0045], [0049]), wherein a sensor is disposed at a rear surface of the display panel (FIGS. 3/5, depicting a sensor 502 disposed behind an opaque layer 526, [0048]-[0049]), and further wherein the sensor overlaps multiple light emitting devices of the plurality of light emitting devices (FIGS. 3/5, depicting wherein the sensor overlaps a plurality of anodes 518 of the light emitting devices comprising anodes 518, OLED layer 514, and cathode layer 512, [0049]). Regarding the light sensor configuration, in [0047], Karri states: “FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of mobile device 400 that includes a light sensor (e.g., a proximity sensor) 402 located under a display panel 404 interacting with an object 406 that is a distance, D, away from a front surface of the display panel 404. . . . The proximity sensor 402 can operate by determining an amount of electromagnetic radiation (e.g., an intensity) that is emitted from the transmitter 408, reflected off the object 406, and then is received by the receiver 410. The amount of light received by the receiver 410 can be used as a signal for how close the front surface of the display panel 404 is to an object 406 under the assumption that the amount of light received by the intensity of received light increases monotonically with decreasing distance, D, between the display panel 404 and the object 406. The amount of light received at the receiver can be correlated with a distance between the object and the display panel . . . .” In [0032], Karri further states: “The front surface of a mobile device includes a display typically operating as a graphic user interface (GUI) and one or more optical devices operating as sensors/emitters in areas below the display and facing the front surface. The one or more optical devices can be configured for a variety of functions, including (but not limited to) sensing lighting conditions (e.g. an ambient light sensor), sensing proximity of objects near the display (e.g., electromagnetic sensor), capturing images (e.g., a fingerprint sensor).” In [0035], Karri further states: “An ambient light sensor may include a receiver of light and may determine an amount of ambient light received by the sensor.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Lee 1 by adding the light sensor configuration of Karri behind the lower substrate 10 and overlapping a plurality of pixels including light emitting diodes 30 in order to enable the display device to sense and determine an amount of ambient light received by the sensor as disclosed in Karri. See Karri [0047].
Applicant further claims “a real part of impedance of the light emitting device is equal to or less than about 100 Ω, in a frequency range of about 105 Hz to about 106 Hz.”
When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01(I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” Id. (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). “Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.” Id. (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).
In the instant case, Lee 1 in view of Karri discloses a display device structure that is identical to the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure claimed in Applicant’s claim 1, including wherein a real part of impedance of the light emitting device is equal to or less than about 100 Ω, in a frequency range of about 105 Hz to about 106 Hz. See Lee 1 [0001]-[0083].
Accordingly, Lee 1 in view of Karri discloses a display device that necessarily possesses the properties of the display device structure disclosed in Applicant’s claim 1, and thus renders obvious claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Lee 1 in view of Karri discloses wherein mobility of the hole transport layer is equal to or less than about 2.0*10-3 cm2/(Vs) (FIG. 3, disclosing wherein the mobility of the hole transport layer 230 ranges from 10-4 cm 2/(Vs) or more and 10-3 cm 2/(Vs) or less, [0049]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee 1 in view of Karri discloses wherein the sensor includes an ambient luminance sensor (Karri FIGS. 3/5, [0032]: “The one or more optical devices can be configured for a variety of functions, including (but not limited to) sensing lighting conditions (e.g. an ambient light sensor), sensing proximity of objects near the display (e.g., electromagnetic sensor), capturing images (e.g., a fingerprint sensor).”).
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 1 in view of Karri, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0275469 (effectively filed Apr. 22, 2022) (hereinafter “Kawakami”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee 1 in view of Karri does not specifically disclose wherein a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV.
In the same field of endeavor, Kawakami discloses a display device including a hole transport layer (FIG. 1D, hole-transport layer 112-1, [0085]) and a hole blocking layer (FIG. 1D, electron blocking layer 112-2), wherein a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV ([0085]: “ In the same case, a difference (ΔE1) between the HOMO level of the first organic compound and the HOMO level of the electron-blocking material is preferably less than or equal to 0.30 eV, further preferably less than or equal to 0.10 eV.”). Regarding the differences in HOMO levels, in [0085], Kawakami states: “With the above structure, a barrier due to a step in the HOMO level between the layers is reduced, so that hole transport to the light-emitting layer can be smooth. Accordingly, the driving voltage of the light-emitting device can be reduced, and the light-emitting device with low power consumption can be provided. Since the emission efficiency can be improved, a light-emitting device with high reliability can be obtained. Moreover, a change in voltage with respect to the initial voltage in the driving test can be inhibited.” Thus, noted in Kawakami, the difference in HOMO energy levels is a result-effective variable for optimizing hole transport properties, driving voltage, and emission efficiency.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the difference in HOMO energy levels, identified by Kawakami as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer that is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV in order to achieve a desired hole transport property, driving voltage, and emission efficiency as disclosed in Kawakami in [0085]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[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.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)); see also MPEP § 2144.05 (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”) (quoting In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976).
Regarding claim 16, Lee 1 in view of Karri does not specifically disclose wherein a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV.
In the same field of endeavor, Kawakami discloses a display device including a hole transport layer (FIG. 1D, hole-transport layer 112-1, [0085]) and a hole blocking layer (FIG. 1D, electron blocking layer 112-2), wherein a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV ([0085]: “ In the same case, a difference (ΔE1) between the HOMO level of the first organic compound and the HOMO level of the electron-blocking material is preferably less than or equal to 0.30 eV, further preferably less than or equal to 0.10 eV.”). Regarding the differences in HOMO levels, in [0085], Kawakami states: “With the above structure, a barrier due to a step in the HOMO level between the layers is reduced, so that hole transport to the light-emitting layer can be smooth. Accordingly, the driving voltage of the light-emitting device can be reduced, and the light-emitting device with low power consumption can be provided. Since the emission efficiency can be improved, a light-emitting device with high reliability can be obtained. Moreover, a change in voltage with respect to the initial voltage in the driving test can be inhibited.” Thus, noted in Kawakami, the difference in HOMO energy levels is a result-effective variable for optimizing hole transport properties, driving voltage, and emission efficiency.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the difference in HOMO energy levels, identified by Kawakami as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a difference between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the hole transport layer and a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer that is equal to or less than about 0.1 eV in order to achieve a desired hole transport property, driving voltage, and emission efficiency as disclosed in Kawakami in [0085]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[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.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)); see also MPEP § 2144.05 (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”) (quoting In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976).
Claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 1 in view of Karri, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0363217 (effectively filed May 9, 2022) (hereinafter “Lee 2”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee 1 in view of Karri does not specifically disclose wherein the sensor is configured to determine an amount of external light when the light emitting device is in an off state.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee 2 discloses a display device including a sensor (FIG. 3A/10, ALS package 200, [0070]), and further wherein the sensor is configured to determine an amount of external light when the light emitting device is in an off state (FIG. 3A/10, depicting wherein the ALS package is operated to determine an amount of external light when a computing device including an OLED display is in an off state (i.e., shut); [0104]: “At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut).”). Regarding the ALS package 200 configuration, in [0104], Lee 2 states: “the ALS sensor of the multi-functional ALS package of a computing device is utilized to obtain an ALS measurement. It will be appreciated that ambient brightness levels may vary through variety of conditions—for example, in an office environment, the ambient brightness level may be in the range of 300 to 500 Lux, while for an outdoor environment on the order of 10,000 Lux or more. At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut). . . . Further, it will be appreciated that if the ambient light is detected as being above the threshold and the computing device is thus in the open position, the magnitude of the ALS measurement may be used for other purposes, such as to adjust a brightness of the display of the computing device.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Lee 1 and Karri by adding the ALS package 200 configuration of Lee 2 order to enable adjustment of brightness of the display of the display device, whether the screen is covered, whether the screen is open or closed, or wherein whether a device has been shut. See Lee 2 [0104].
Regarding claim 6, Lee 1 in view of Karri and Lee 2 further discloses wherein the sensor is configured to detect incident light outside the display device, and the sensor is configured to adjust a brightness of the display device according to an amount of the incident light (FIG. 3A, [0104]: “Further, it will be appreciated that if the ambient light is detected as being above the threshold and the computing device is thus in the open position, the magnitude of the ALS measurement may be used for other purposes, such as to adjust a brightness of the display of the computing device.”).
Regarding claim 18, Lee 1 in view of Karri does not specifically disclose wherein the sensor is configured to determine an amount of external light when the light emitting device is in an off state.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee 2 discloses a display device including a sensor (FIG. 3A/10, ALS package 200, [0070]), and further wherein the sensor is configured to determine an amount of external light when the light emitting device is in an off state (FIG. 3A/10, depicting wherein the ALS package is operated to determine an amount of external light when a computing device including an OLED display is in an off state (i.e., shut); [0104]: “At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut).”). Regarding the ALS package 200 configuration, in [0104], Lee 2 states: “the ALS sensor of the multi-functional ALS package of a computing device is utilized to obtain an ALS measurement. It will be appreciated that ambient brightness levels may vary through variety of conditions—for example, in an office environment, the ambient brightness level may be in the range of 300 to 500 Lux, while for an outdoor environment on the order of 10,000 Lux or more. At stage 1103, based on a predetermined ambient light threshold level (which may be user-defined), the computing device may determine whether the computing device is in a closed position or an open position (e.g., if the computing device is a laptop, it may determine whether its lid is open or closed; if the computing device is a tablet or smartphone, it may determine whether the screen is covered; or if the computing device is a foldable smartphone, it may determine whether the foldable smartphone has been folded shut). . . . Further, it will be appreciated that if the ambient light is detected as being above the threshold and the computing device is thus in the open position, the magnitude of the ALS measurement may be used for other purposes, such as to adjust a brightness of the display of the computing device.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Lee 1 and Karri by adding the ALS package 200 configuration of Lee 2 order to enable adjustment of brightness of the display of the display device, whether the screen is covered, whether the screen is open or closed, or wherein whether a device has been shut. See Lee 2 [0104].
Regarding claim 19, Lee 1 in view of Karri and Lee 2 further discloses wherein the sensor is configured to detect incident light outside the display device, and the sensor is configured to adjust a brightness of the display device according to an amount of the incident light (FIG. 3A, [0104]: “Further, it will be appreciated that if the ambient light is detected as being above the threshold and the computing device is thus in the open position, the magnitude of the ALS measurement may be used for other purposes, such as to adjust a brightness of the display of the computing device.”).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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 Gauthier can be reached at (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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813 /STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights