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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 5, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “OPN2”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “a circular ring-type and a pill-like ring-type” in claims 5 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a circular ring-type and a pill-like ring-type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Interpretation
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “sensor area” in claims 1-12 is used by the claim to mean “dummy area or trim,” while the accepted meaning is “ area for receiving sensor or forming a sensors.” The priority document and translation should be examined to ensure this is the intended term and best possible translation based on proper idiomatic English as well as the support in the priority document.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat Pub No. 20220367841 A1 to Kim Sanghoon et al (hereinafter Sanghoon).
Regarding claim 1, Sanghoon teaches mask (520) comprising: a sensor area (area including MA2 and excluding MA1) including at least one half-etched area (HEA in MA2); a first deposition area (MA1) disposed external to the sensor area; and a second deposition area (MA2) disposed in the sensor area. (See Sanghoon, Abstract, Figs. 5-12, page 9, paragraph 120 to page 13, paragraphs 131, 162.)
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220367841 A1 to Kim Sanghoon et al (hereinafter Sanghoon) and US Pat Pub No. 20210305542 A1 to Sanghoon Kim, Jongsung Park, et al (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 2, Sanghoon teaches each of the first and the second deposition areas (MA1, MA2) includes an opening (OA1, OA2) . (See Sanghoon, Abstract, Figs. 5-12, page 9, paragraph 120 to page 13, paragraph 162.)
Sanghoon does not explicitly teach the opening of each of the first and the second deposition areas comprises: a first etched area formed by etching the mask in a direction from a first surface of the mask toward a second surface of the mask; and a second etched area formed by etching the mask in a direction from the second surface of the mask toward the first surface of the mask.
Park is directed to a method of manufacturing a display apparatus using a mask.
Park teaches the opening of each of the first and the second deposition areas comprises: a first etched area (1235 top) formed by etching the mask in a direction from a first surface (1231) of the mask (1200) toward a second surface (1233) of the mask; and a second etched area (1235 bottom) formed by etching the mask in a direction from the second surface (1233) of the mask toward the first surface (1231) of the mask. (See Park, Abstract, paragraph 85; Fig.5 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the opening of each of the first and the second deposition areas comprises: a first etched area formed by etching the mask in a direction from a first surface of the mask toward a second surface of the mask; and a second etched area formed by etching the mask in a direction from the second surface of the mask toward the first surface of the mask, because Park teaches this would enable the mask to be etched a predetermined depth to form the plurality of deposition openings. (See Park, Abstract, paragraph 85; Fig.5 .)
Regarding claim 3, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach the half-etched area (HEA) includes the second etched area.
Park is directed to a method of manufacturing a display apparatus using a mask.
Park teaches the opening can be made by etching the first surface (1231) of the mask (1200) toward a second surface (1233) of the mask; and opening can be made by etching a second etched area (1235 bottom) formed by etching the mask in a direction from the second surface (1233) of the mask toward the first surface (1231) of the mask. (See Park, Abstract, paragraph 85; Fig. 5 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the half-etched area (HEA) includes the second etched area, because Park teaches this would enable the mask to be etched a predetermined depth to form the plurality of deposition openings. (See Park, Abstract, paragraph 85; Fig. 5 .)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220367841 A1 to Kim Sanghoon et al (hereinafter Sanghoon) and US Pat Pub No. 20210305542 A1 to Sanghoon Kim, Jongsung Park, et al (hereinafter Park) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20110041758 A1 to Chi-Wook An (hereinafter An).
Regarding claim 4, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach a depth of the second etched area is equal to or greater than half of a thickness of the mask.
An teaches a deposition mask for forming layers with different thicknesses.
An teaches a depth of the second etched area is equal to or greater than half of a thickness of the mask. (See An, Abstract, paragraphs 45, 53.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a depth of the second etched area is equal to or greater than half of a thickness of the mask, because An teaches this would enable layers of different thicknesses to be produced with one mask, enabling the number of masks and the number of mask processes to be reduced to improve the production efficiency. (See An, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 45, 53, and 64-65.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220367841 A1 to Kim Sanghoon et al (hereinafter Sanghoon) as applied to claim 1 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200381495 A1 to Jeon et al (hereinafter Jeon).
Regarding claim 5, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach the sensor area has a shape selected from a circular ring-type and a pill-like ring-type.
Jeon is directed to a method of manufacturing a display apparatus using a mask (M1) with a sensor area (SA).
Jeon teaches the sensor area (SA) has a shape selected from a circular ring-type (SA in Fig. 18) and a pill-like ring-type (SA in Fig 13) . (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraphs, 46, 82, and 207 Figs. 13, 18 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sensor area has a shape selected from a circular ring-type, because Jeon teaches this would enable the sensor area (Sa) to receive more than one component (20). (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraphs 81-84 and 242-247, Figs. 13, 18.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220367841 A1 to Kim Sanghoon et al (hereinafter Sanghoon) and US Pat Pub No. 20210313515 A1 to Jung et al (hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claim 6, Sanghoon teaches a mask assembly comprising a mask including: a sensor area (area including MA2 and excluding MA1) including at least one half-etched area (HEA in MA2) ; at least one deposition area (MA1) disposed external to the sensor area and at least one second deposition area (MA2) disposed in the sensor area. (See Sanghoon, Abstract, Figs. 5-12, page 9, paragraph 120 to page 13, paragraph 162.)
Sanghoon does not explicitly teach a mask frame including a global opening, the global opening overlapping each of the first deposition area, the half-etched area, and the second deposition area.
Jung is directed to a mask (100) having four side surfaces on the outermost portion of the deposition mask. (See Jung, Abstract, Figs. 14-15 and paragraphs 111, 126, 155-156, 159, 161-162, 183, 200-203, 212.)
Jung teaches a mask frame including a global opening, the global opening overlapping each of the first deposition area, the half-etched area, and the second deposition area. (See Jung, Abstract, Figs. 14-15 and paragraphs 159, 161, and 183.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mask frame including a global opening, the global opening overlapping each of the first deposition area, the half-etched area, and the second deposition area, because Jung teaches this structure allows the mask to be supported directly on the frame in the non-deposition region (NDA) so that a plurality of deposition pattern portions may be fixed simultaneously. (See Jung, Abstract, Figs. 14-15 and paragraphs 111, 126, 155-156, 159, 161-162, 183, 200-203, 212.)
Regarding claim 6, Sanghoon teaches the mask extends in a first direction and comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion that are successively disposed, the first portion includes a notch recessed by a depth in the first direction, the second portion is coupled to the mask frame, and the third portion includes a plurality of unit panel manufacturing areas, each of the plurality of unit panel manufacturing areas including the sensor area, the first deposition area, and the second deposition area (See Sanghoon, Abstract, Figs. 5-12, page 9, paragraph 120 to page 13, paragraph 162.)
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220367841 A1 to Kim Sanghoon et al (hereinafter Sanghoon) and US Pat Pub No. 20210313515 A1 to Jung et al (hereinafter Jung) as applied to claim 6 and US Pat Pub No. 20210305542 A1 to Sanghoon Kim, Jongsung Park, et al (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 7, Sanghoon teaches each of the first and the second deposition areas (MA1, MA2) includes an opening (OA1, OA2). (See Sanghoon, Abstract, Figs. 5-12, page 9, paragraph 120 to page 13, paragraph 162.)
Sanghoon does not explicitly teach the opening of each of the first and the second deposition areas comprises: a first etched area formed by etching the mask in a direction from a first surface of the mask toward a second surface of the mask; and a second etched area formed by etching the mask in a direction from the second surface of the mask toward the first surface of the mask.
Park is directed to a method of manufacturing a display apparatus using a mask.
Park teaches the opening of each of the first and the second deposition areas comprises: a first etched area (1235 top) formed by etching the mask in a direction from a first surface (1231) of the mask (1200) toward a second surface (1233) of the mask; and a second etched area (1235 bottom) formed by etching the mask in a direction from the second surface (1233) of the mask toward the first surface (1231) of the mask. (See Park, Abstract, paragraph 85; Fig. 5 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the opening of each of the first and the second deposition areas comprises: a first etched area formed by etching the mask in a direction from a first surface of the mask toward a second surface of the mask; and a second etched area formed by etching the mask in a direction from the second surface of the mask toward the first surface of the mask, because Park teaches this would enable the mask to be etched a predetermined depth to form the plurality of deposition openings. (See Park, Abstract, paragraph 85; Fig. 5 .)
Regarding claim 8, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach the half-etched area (HEA) includes the second etched area.
Park is directed to a method of manufacturing a display apparatus using a mask.
Park teaches the opening can be made by etching the first surface (1231) of the mask (1200) toward a second surface (1233) of the mask; and opening can be made by etching a second etched area (1235 bottom) formed by etching the mask in a direction from the second surface (1233) of the mask toward the first surface (1231) of the mask. (See Park, Abstract, paragraph 85; Fig. 5 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the half-etched area (HEA) includes the second etched area, because Park teaches this would enable the mask to be etched a predetermined depth to form the plurality of deposition openings. (See Park, Abstract, paragraph 85; Fig. 5 .)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220367841 A1 to Kim Sanghoon et al (hereinafter Sanghoon) and US Pat Pub No. 20210313515 A1 to Jung et al (hereinafter Jung) as applied to claim 6 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180065143 A1 to Baek et al (hereinafter Baek).
Regarding claim 9, Sanghoon teaches the mask (520) extends in a first direction and the third portion includes a plurality of unit panel manufacturing areas, each of the plurality of unit panel manufacturing areas including the sensor area (MA2) , the first deposition area (MA1), and the second deposition area (MA2). (See Sanghoon, Abstract, Figs. 5-12, page 9, paragraph 120 to page 13, paragraphs 131, 162.)
Sanghoon does not explicitly teach the mask comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion that are successively disposed the first portion includes a notch recessed by a depth in the first direction, the second portion is coupled to the mask frame.
Baek teaches the mask comprises a first portion (122) , a second portion (linear horizontal portion nearly between 120 and 110 in Fig. 3A), and a third portion (110) that are successively disposed, the first portion (122) includes a notch recessed by a depth in the first direction, the second portion (linear horizontal portion nearly between 120 and 110 in Fig. 3A) is coupled to the mask frame (200). (See Baek, Abstract, paragraphs 22, 32, and 50-51; Fig. 3A .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first portion includes a notch recessed by a depth in the first direction, the second portion is coupled to the mask frame, because Baek teaches this would enable patterning accuracy to be improved. (See Baek, Abstract, paragraphs 22, 32, and 50-51; Fig. 3A .)
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220367841 A1 to Kim Sanghoon et al (hereinafter Sanghoon) and US Pat Pub No. 20210313515 A1 to Jung et al (hereinafter Jung) as applied to claim 6 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200381495 A1 to Jeon et al (hereinafter Jeon) .
Regarding claim 10, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach the sensor area comprises: a first sensor area having a circular ring-type shape; and a second sensor area having a pill-like ring-type shape.
Jeon is directed to a method of manufacturing a display apparatus using a mask (M1) with a sensor area (SA).
Jeon teaches the sensor area (SA) has a shape selected from a circular ring-type (SA in Fig. 18) and a pill-like ring-type (SA in Fig 13). (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraphs 46, 82, and 207 Figs. 13, 18.)
Jeon teaches location of the sensor area (SA) and the number of sensor areas SA may be variously modified. (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 67.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sensor area comprise: a first sensor area having a circular ring-type shape; and a second sensor area having a pill-like ring-type shape, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper size and shape for the component, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal area for each component. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraphs 46, 67, 82, and 207 Figs. 1-2, 13, 18.)
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, dimensions, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 11, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach a surface area of the second sensor area is greater than a surface area of the first sensor area.
Jeon teaches location of the sensor area (SA) and the number of sensor areas SA may be variously modified. (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 67.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a surface area of the second sensor area is greater than a surface area of the first sensor area, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper size and shape for the component, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal area for each component. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraphs 46, 67, 82, and 207 Figs. 1-2, 13, 18.)
Regarding claim 12, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach a number of openings disposed in the second sensor area is greater than a number of openings disposed in the first sensor area.
Jeon teaches location of the sensor area (SA) and the number of sensor areas SA may be variously modified. (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 67.)
Jeon teaches an opening (185OP) corresponding to the sensor area (SA). (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 81.)
Jeon teaches components having a high light transmittance (i.e. camera) may be arranged in the opening area (OA) of the sensor area (SA). (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 246.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a number of openings disposed in the second sensor area is greater than a number of openings disposed in the first sensor area, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper light transmittance for each component in the sensor area, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal location for each component in the sensor area. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraphs 46, 67, 81-82, 207, and 246; Figs. 1-2, 13, 18.)
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220367841 A1 to Kim Sanghoon et al (hereinafter Sanghoon) and US Pat Pub No. 20210313515 A1 to Jung et al (hereinafter Jung) as applied to claim 6 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240188341 A1 to Paek et al (hereinafter Paek) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200381495 A1 to Jeon et al (hereinafter Jeon).
Regarding claim 10, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach the sensor area comprises: a first sensor area having a circular ring-type shape.
Paek is directed to a method of manufacturing a display apparatus using a mask.
Paek teaches the sensor area (TA in which sensors are disposed) has a shape selected from a circular shape. (See Paek, Abstract, paragraphs 85, 122, 140, 169-170, Figs. 8 and 9.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sensor area comprise: a first sensor area having a circular ring-type shape, because this would allow the substrate to be formed with the desired number and shape of first openings to be formed in the substrate. (See Paek, Abstract, paragraphs 85, 122, 140, 169-170, Figs. 8 and 9.)
Regarding claim 10, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach the sensor area comprises: a second sensor area having a pill-like ring-type shape.
Paek teaches the sensor area (TA in which sensors are disposed) has a shape selected from an elliptical shape. (See Paek, Abstract, paragraphs 85, 122, 140, 169-170, Figs. 8 and 9.) Examiner is considering a pill shape to be equivalent to an elliptical shape.
Jeon teaches location of the sensor area (SA) and the number of sensor areas SA may be variously modified. (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 67.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sensor area comprise: a first sensor area having a circular ring-type shape; and a second sensor area having a pill-like ring-type shape, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper size and shape for the component, as a result-effective variable, in order to the substrate to be formed with the desired number and shape of first openings to be formed in the substrate. (See Paek, Abstract, paragraphs 85, 122, 140, 169-170, Figs. 8 and 9.)
Regarding claim 11, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach a surface area of the second sensor area is greater than a surface area of the first sensor area.
Jeon teaches location of the sensor area (SA) and the number of sensor areas SA may be variously modified. (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 67.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a surface area of the second sensor area is greater than a surface area of the first sensor area, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper size and shape for the component, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal area for each component. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraphs 46, 67, 82, and 207 Figs. 1-2, 13, 18.)
Regarding claim 12, Sanghoon does not explicitly teach a number of openings disposed in the second sensor area is greater than a number of openings disposed in the first sensor area.
Jeon teaches location of the sensor area (SA) and the number of sensor areas SA may be variously modified. (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 67.)
Jeon teaches an opening (185OP) corresponding to the sensor area (SA). (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 81.)
Jeon teaches components having a high light transmittance (i.e. camera) may be arranged in the opening area (OA) of the sensor area (SA). (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraph 246.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a number of openings disposed in the second sensor area is greater than a number of openings disposed in the first sensor area, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper light transmittance for each component in the sensor area, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal location for each component in the sensor area. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Jeon, Abstract, paragraphs 46, 67, 81-82, 207, and 246; Figs. 1-2, 13, 18.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights