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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed December 23rd, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 3 have been amended; claims 7-11 have been cancelled; claims 1-6 and 12 remain pending in this application.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 109492501 A, “Chen”) in view of Panchawagh et al. (US 20180373913 A1, “Panchawagh”) and Fennell et al. (US 10036734 B2, “Fennell”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an electronic device, comprising: a frame (Implicit, Fig. 1 (100), [attached machine translation, pg. 4], electronic device is a mobile phone)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that a mobile phone has a frame); a foldable screen, disposed above the frame (Fig. 1 [attached machine translation, pg. 4], (130) is a flexible display)(Implicit, Fig. 1 (100), [attached machine translation, pg. 4], electronic device is a mobile phone); an ultrasonic transducer, disposed between the frame and the foldable screen, and configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves (Fig. 1 (110) illustrates an ultrasonic sensing assembly disposed on a lower side of flexible display (130) and the bottom of electronic device (100) where the frame would implicitly be)([attached machine translation, pg. 3], ultrasonic sensing assembly (110) is capable of transmitting and receiving ultrasonic waves); and a reflective support member, disposed between the ultrasonic transducer and the frame, and configured to support the ultrasonic transducer, wherein at least some of ultrasonic waves emitted toward the frame are completely reflected by the reflective support member and then are emitted toward the foldable screen (Implicit, Fig. 1 (120) illustrates a reflective layer disposed between the ultrasonic sensing assembly (110) and the bottom of electronic device (100) where the frame would implicitly be); wherein the reflective support member is connected to the ultrasonic transducer; or the reflective support member is connected to the frame, wherein the reflective support member comprises an adhesive and foam that are connected to each other and the foam is connected to the ultrasonic transducer or the frame through the adhesive([attached machine translation, pg. 5],Fig. 1 illustrates the ultrasonic sensing assembly (110) connected to reflective support member (120) through bonding adhesive layer (170). The reflective support member is made of foam), wherein the ultrasonic transducer comprises a third area and a fourth area, and the third area is configured to transmit ultrasonic waves (Fig. 2, [attached machine translation, pg. 6], flexible display screen (130) has a non-display area (134) which surrounds the display area (132))([attached machine translation, pg. 2], detection area overlaps the ultrasonic assembly covering the detection area. The flexible display has a display area, with the position of the display area corresponding to the detection area) (it is the examiner’s interpretation that the non-display area is equivalent to the fourth area and does not transmit ultrasonic waves as it is not directly atop the ultrasonic sensing assembly (See annotated Fig. 1), and the display area is equivalent to the third area and is configured to transmit ultrasonic waves in the same manner as Fig. 16A of the present application): and the foam completely covers the third area, or partially covers the third area, or avoids the third area([attached machine translation, pg. 5],Fig. 1 illustrates the ultrasonic sensing assembly (110) connected to reflective support member (120) through bonding adhesive layer (170). The reflective support member is made of foam)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the ultrasonic sensing assembly corresponds to a third area, the foam (or reflective support member) covers the third area as it covers the entire width of the ultrasonic sensing assembly corresponding to the display area) wherein when the reflective support member is connected to the ultrasonic transducer, the foam is in contact with or separated from the third area([attached machine translation, pg. 5],Fig. 1 illustrates the ultrasonic sensing assembly (110) connected to reflective support member (120) through bonding adhesive layer (170). The reflective support member is made of foam)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the ultrasonic sensing assembly corresponds to a third area, the foam (or reflective support member) is in contact with the third area), wherein the fourth area is configured to be ultrasonic non-transmitting, wherein the adhesive is connected to the fourth area(Fig. 2, [attached machine translation, pg. 6], flexible display screen (130) has a non-display area (134) which surrounds the display area (132))([attached machine translation, pg. 2], detection area overlaps the ultrasonic assembly covering the detection area. The flexible display has a display area, with the position of the display area corresponding to the detection area)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the non-display area is equivalent to the fourth area and does not transmit ultrasonic waves as it is not directly atop the ultrasonic sensing assembly (See Fig. 1) and is situated in the same manner as Fig. 16A of the present application. It is also the examiner’s interpretation that as the third and fourth area are connected, the adhesive would implicitly be connected indirectly to the fourth area), wherein the foam is shaped to provide mechanical support for a central area and a corner of the third area (Fig. 1 illustrates reflective support member (120) being located under central area of flexible display screen (130) underneath the ultrasonic sensing assembly (110) and covers the entirety of the ultrasonic sensing assembly)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the portion of flexible display screen (130) covered in a width direction by ultrasonic sensing assembly corresponds to the third area, that the reflective support member provides mechanical support for both a central area and corner of the third area)
PNG
media_image1.png
421
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Annotated)
Chen may not explicitly teach wherein when the foam completely or partially covers the third area, a hollow is provided on the foam, and the hollow covers the third area
Panchawagh teaches the foam completely or partially covers the third area, a hollow is provided on the foam, and the hollow covers the third area ([0113], air backing layer may be combined with the foam backing layer and be positioned in contact with the transceiver electrode layer of the ultrasonic fingerprint sensor)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the air backing layer being combined with the foam backing layer amounts to providing a hollow on the foam with the motivation of providing additional acoustic isolation).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Chen, to include the third area coverage of Panchawagh with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing mechanical cushioning and reflecting ultrasonic waves [0117].
Chen, as modified in view of Panchawagh may not explicitly teach a hollow is provided on the adhesive.
Fennell teaches a hollow is provided on the adhesive ([column 15, lines 24-35], Backing layer may be provided on an outer side of the transmitter or be positioned in between the transmitter and the backside cap. Backing layer may include a open-cell foam adhesive)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that an open-cell foam adhesive implicitly includes a hollow where the openings are present).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Chen, as modified in view of Panchawagh to include the adhesive hollow and foam placement of Fennell with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of avoiding undue loss of acoustic energy into the backing layer[column 15, lines 31-37].
Regarding claim 2, Chen, as modified in view of Panchawagh and Fennell teaches the electronic device according to claim 1. Chen further teaches the foldable screen comprises a first area and a second area, and the first area is foldable; and the ultrasonic transducer is located between the second area and the frame (Fig. 1 (130) illustrates a flexible display with an adhesive layer(180) and the ultrasonic sensing assembly (110) located below and above the implicitly present frame)(it is the examiner’s interpretation the flexible display represents a first area and the adhesive layer (180) constitutes a second area resulting in the ultrasonic sensing assembly being located between a second area and the frame).
Regarding claim 3, Chen, as modified in view of Panchawagh and Fennell teaches the electronic device according to claim 1. Panchawagh further teaches the acoustic impedance of the reflective support member is less than the acoustic impedance of the ultrasonic transducer ([0112] foam backing layer may have substantially lower acoustic impedance compared to piezoelectric transceiver layer).
Regarding claim 4, Chen, as modified in view of Panchawagh and Fennell teaches the electronic device according to claim 1. Chen further teaches the ultrasonic transducer is attached to the reflective support member; or an air layer exists between the ultrasonic transducer and the reflective support member ([attached machine translation, pg. 5],Fig. 1 illustrates the ultrasonic sensing assembly (110) connected to reflective support member (120) through bonding adhesive layer (170)).
Regarding claim 5, Chen, as modified in view of Panchawagh and Fennell teaches the electronic device according to claim 1. Panchawagh further teaches the reflective support member is an elastic layer ([0111] Fig. 11B, (1155) is a foam backing layer); and a free-state thickness of the elastic layer is greater than or equal to a distance between the ultrasonic transducer and the frame([0122], foam backing layer may come in a variety of different thickness ranges)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the foam backing layer may come in a variety of thicknesses, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably select a free state thickness of the foam backing layer is greater than a distance between the transducer and the frame).
Regarding claim 6, Chen, as modified in view of Panchawagh and Fennell teaches the electronic device according to claim 1. Panchawagh further teaches the reflective support member is an elastic layer([0111] Fig. 11B, (1155) is a foam backing layer); and a free-state thickness of the elastic layer is less than a distance between the ultrasonic transducer and the frame([0122], foam backing layer may come in a variety of different thickness ranges)([0117], foam backing layer may provide a number of benefits including mechanical cushioning as well as acoustic function (reflection of ultrasonic waves). Foam backing layer may be combined with an air backing layer)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that in the event an air backing layer is combined with foam backing layer, the thickness of the foam may be chosen such where the free state thickness is less than a distance between the transducer and frame).
Regarding claim 12, Chen, as modified in view of Panchawagh and Fennell teaches the electronic device according to claim 1. Panchawagh further teaches wherein an attaching surface, facing a side of the frame, of the foldable screen is a metal surface ([0115] sensor housing includes one or more metal layers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23rd, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 2-3 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Chen fails to teach the limitations of amended claim 1 for the following reason:
Chen fails to disclose a third and fourth area and does not teach the specific structure corresponding to such areas
With respect to (1), The examiner respectfully disagrees that Chen fails to teach the specific structures corresponding the third and fourth areas that are reflected in Applicant’s amendment as well as the replacement drawings provided. Replacement Fig. 16A of the present applications illustrate the third and fourth areas comprising a display and non-display area, with the third area capable of transmitting ultrasonic waves, and the fourth area being non-transmitting. Chen at [attached machine translation, pg. 6] (and illustrated in Fig. 2), states that the flexible display screen (130) has a non-display area (134) which surrounds the display area (132). Chen also states at [attached machine translation, pg. 2], that the detection area overlaps the ultrasonic assembly covering the detection area. The flexible display has a display area, with the position of the display area corresponding to the detection area. It is the examiner’s interpretation that these portions of Chen indicate that an area of the flexible display (130) which is capable of transmitting ultrasonic waves corresponds to display area (132) and is equivalent to the claimed third area, while the non-display area (134) is not capable of transmitting ultrasonic waves and would therefore be equivalent to a fourth area. Additionally, it is the examiner’s interpretation that the display area and non-display area correspond to specific structures corresponding to the claimed third and fourth area. Therefore the rejection of amended claim 1 is maintained.
On pg. 4-5 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Panchawagh and Fennell do not teach the limitations of amended claim 1 for the following reasons:
Panchawagh and Fennell do not teach the specific structures regarding the third and fourth areas
The adhesive of Fennell has a different intended purpose other than providing mechanical support to the third and fourth area through it’s connection to the foam.
With respect to (1), the examiner agrees that Panchawagh and Fennell do not teach the specific structures corresponding to the third and fourth area, however they are not relied upon to do so. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to amended claim 1, above, Chen teaches the specific structures corresponding to the third and fourth area.
With respect to (2), inasmuch as the examiner understands what Applicant is arguing, Fennell is not relied upon to teach the limitations requiring the foam to provide mechanical support to the third area, rather Chen is. Fennell is relied upon to teach a hollow being provided on the adhesive, which he does at [column 15, lines 24-35], which states that the adhesive may be an open-cell foam adhesive. Additionally, as Chen teaches an adhesive layer (Fig. 1 (170)) being provided on a foam reflective support member (120) which provides mechanical support for the third area (See annotated Fig. 1, above). Including the open-cell foam adhesive of Fennell in place of the adhesive layer of Chen teaches the claim limitation. Therefore the rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. is maintained.
On pg. 5 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of amended claim 1, that dependent claims 2-6 and 12 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments regarding claim 1, above, the rejection of amended claim 1 has been maintained under 35 U.S.C. 103 and therefore so are the rejections of claims 2-6 and 12.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Esteve et al. (US 20140035881 A1, “Esteve”) which discloses a touch sensitive display with acoustic isolation
Prest et al. (US 20200057525 A1, “Prest”) which discloses an electronic device with a glass enclosure
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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645