DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to the communications received May 15, 2026. Claims 1-16 and 22-25 are pending.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on May 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 15, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered.
Applicant’s Claim to Figure Comparison
It is noted that this comparison is merely for the benefit of reviewers of this office action during prosecution, to allow for an understanding of the examiner’s interpretation of the Applicant’s independent claims as compared to disclosed embodiments in Applicant’s Figures. No response or comments are necessary from Applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant discloses in Fig. 4, an electronic device, comprising:
a display (14) comprising a transparent substrate (42) and a plurality of light-emitting diodes (26) on the transparent substrate (on 42); and
a sensor (13) that senses light that passes through the display (through 14, light rays 50 reach 13),
wherein the display (14) has a normal region that does not overlap the sensor (area of 14 not overlapping 13, hereinafter referred to as ‘NR’) and a locally modified region that overlaps the sensor (area of 14 that is overlapping 13, hereinafter referred to as ‘LMR’),
wherein the locally modified region (LMR) has a modification (332, “The locally modified regions 332 may have some modification relative to normal display region 334 that mitigates diffraction artifacts. These regions may therefore sometimes be referred to as diffraction-artifact-mitigation regions 332, non-periodic regions 332, reduced periodicity regions 332, etc.”, ¶ 0073) relative to the normal region (NR) that mitigates diffraction artifacts in the light sensed by the sensor (see ¶ 0073-0078).
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backer et al. (US 11,864,452) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0203537).
PNG
media_image2.png
568
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
488
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
506
478
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of Backer discloses in Figs. 3, 4, 6a-6F and 13A-13B, an electronic device (see abstract, “An electronic device may include a display…”), comprising:
a display (“display 14”, col. 3, line 31) comprising a transparent substrate (The “transparent substrate” is interpreted to be the collection of elements of 300, 302 and 303 which has an opening 330 with “high transmittance area 324” which “Openings 328 and 330 may be filled with air or another desired transparent filler.”, col. 7, line 66 to col. 8, line 16. Hereinafter referred to as ‘SUB’) and a plurality of light-emitting diodes (“Organic light-emitting diode (OLED) layers 306”, col. 5, lines 54) on the transparent substrate (306 on SUB); and
a sensor (“sensor 13 may be an optical sensor such as a camera, proximity sensor, ambient light sensor, fingerprint sensor, or other light-based sensor.”, col. 6, lines 37-40) that senses light that passes through the display (“to increase the transmittance of light to sensor 13 under the display, the pixels in area 324 are removed”, col. 7, lines 28-30),
wherein the display has a normal region that does not overlap the sensor (region of SUB that does not overlap with 13) and a locally modified region that overlaps the sensor (First, the “normal region” of SUB is where the light emitter regions are located. Then, the region of SUB that is “locally modified” includes, the removal of material in area 330/324, which overlaps with 13. Further, the “locally modified” aspect includes the black masking which includes “patches”, col. 1, lines 53-58, further discussed in the last claim limitation teachings below.),
wherein the locally modified region has a modification relative to the normal region that mitigates diffraction artifacts in the light sensed by the sensor (“The patches may be optimally positioned to mitigate diffraction artifacts in the sensor that operates through the pixel removal region.”, see abstract, and also, “The black masking layer may additionally include patches in the apertures. The patches may reduce transmission through the pixel removal region. However, the patches may be optimally positioned to mitigate diffraction artifacts in the sensor that operates through the pixel removal region. The patches may have unique sizes and shapes.”, col. 1, lines 53-58, and, “Black masking layer patches may be added to pixel removal regions that have different initial layouts. For example, FIGS. 13A and 13B are top views of black masking layers that may be used in pixel removal regions 332-1 and 332-2 of FIG. 10, respectively. The black masking layer in FIG. 13A has the same layout as in FIG. 12A plus additional patches 54-P. The black masking layer in FIG. 13B has the same layout as in FIG. 12B plus additional patches 54-P. The additional patches may further mitigate diffraction artifacts in an image obtained using sensors 13-1 and 13-2.”, col. 15, lines 7-18. These teachings disclose that the “locally modified region” includes the features discussed as the black masking patches used to mitigate the diffraction artifacts that would ordinarily be induced in the sensors.).
Backer does not explicitly teach that glass substrate 300 is transparent, and therefore does not explicitly disclose, “a display comprising a transparent substrate”.
Kim discloses in ¶ 0097, “The substrate 10 may include a transparent substrate such as a glass substrate, a quartz substrate, a transparent resin substrate, etc.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation of, “a display comprising a transparent substrate”, as disclosed by Kim in the system of Backer, for the purpose of allowing for the transmission of light through the substrate for use in optical device setting. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of Backer et al. disclose the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the light-emitting diodes are organic light-emitting diodes (Backer discloses in Fig. 4, “Organic light-emitting diode (OLED) layers 306”, col. 5, lines 54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14, 16 and 22-25 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452) discloses in Fig. 4, the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the display (14) comprises a plurality of signal lines (in layer 304, there are equivalent “signal lines” which are shown in this layer 304. In layer 304 it is disclosed that, “The TFT layers 304 may include thin-film transistor circuitry such as thin-film transistors, thin-film capacitors, associated routing circuitry, and other thin-film structures formed within multiple metal routing layers and dielectric layers.”, col. 5, lines 50-54. The disclosed “associated routing circuitry … multiple metal routing layers” satisfy the limitation of “signal lines”, hereinafter referred to as ‘SL’).
However Backer does not show,
“wherein the signal lines are arranged in a periodic grid in the normal region, and
wherein the modification comprises the signal lines being arranged in a non-periodic grid in the locally modified region.”
The prior art does disclose periodic signal lines in a periodic grid, see for example Backer Fig. 2 (shown below), where data lines can be seen in a grid shape. Then Backer discloses an analogous region to the “locally modified region”, which they refer to as the “low pixel density region 332”, however Backer does not disclose how the “signal lines” are arranged in this region.
PNG
media_image5.png
556
496
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is objected to for the reason that claim 3 depends from claim 2.
“3. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 2, wherein the signal lines are linear in both the normal region and the locally modified region.”
For claim 4, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452), fails to teach the signal lines having the claimed configuration of zig zag configuration of the signal lines in the “locally modified region”, which Backer refers to as the “low pixel density region 332”, since Backer does not disclose signal line details in the “low pixel density region 332”.
“4. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the display comprises a plurality of signal lines, wherein the signal lines are linear in the normal region, and wherein the modification comprises the signal lines following zig-zag paths in the locally modified region.”
Claim 5 is objected to for the reason that claim 5 depends from claim 4.
“5. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 4, wherein the signal lines follow random zig-zag paths in the locally modified region.”
For claim 6, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452) as disclosed in Figs. 8A-B, fails to teach the vias having the claimed configuration of periodic orientation in one region and a non-periodic configuration of the vias in the “locally modified region”, which Backer refers to as the “low pixel density region 332”, since Backer does not disclose vias arranged in “non-periodic” configuration in the “low pixel density region 332”.
“6. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the display comprises a plurality of vias, wherein the vias are arranged in a periodic layout in the normal region, and wherein the modification comprises the vias being arranged in a non-periodic layout in the locally modified region.”
Claim 7 is objected to for the reason that claim 7 depends from claim 6.
“7. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 6, wherein the plurality of vias electrically connect a common electrode for the plurality of light-emitting diodes to thin- film transistor circuitry in the transparent substrate.”
For claim 8, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452) as disclosed in Figs. 8A-B, fails to teach the vias having the claimed configuration of rectangular opaque footprint in one region and a circular opaque footprint configuration of the vias in the “locally modified region” , which Backer refers to as the “low pixel density region 332”, since Backer does not disclose vias arranged in “circular opaque footprint” configuration in the “low pixel density region 332”.
“8. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the display comprises a plurality of vias, wherein each via has an associated rectangular opaque footprint in the normal region, and wherein the modification comprises each via having an associated circular opaque footprint in the locally modified region.”
For claim 9, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452), fails to teach the light-emitting diode having the claimed configuration of rectangular opaque footprint in one region and a circular opaque footprint configuration of the light emitting diodes in the “locally modified region” , which Backer refers to as the “low pixel density region 332”, since Backer does not disclose light emitting diodes associated with the “circular opaque footprint” configuration in the “low pixel density region 332”.
“9. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein each light-emitting diode has an associated opaque footprint, wherein each opaque footprint is rectangular in the normal region, and wherein the modification comprises each opaque footprint being circular in the locally modified region.”
For claim 10, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452), fails to teach the black masking layer with circular openings in the “locally modified region” , which Backer refers to as the “low pixel density region 332”.
“10. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the display comprises a black masking layer that overlaps the transparent substrate, wherein the modification comprises the black masking layer having a plurality of circular openings in the locally modified region.”
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to for the reason that claim 11 and 12 depend from claim 10.
“11. (Currently amended) The electronic device defined in claim 10, wherein the circular openings have [[the]] a same size and consistent center-to-center spacing in the locally modified region.”
“12. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 10, wherein the circular openings have different sizes and a plurality of different center-to-center spacings in the locally modified region.”
For claim 13, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452), fails to teach the black masking transition details between the “normal region” and the “locally modified region” , which Backer refers to as the “low pixel density region 332”.
“13. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the display comprises a black masking layer that overlaps the transparent substrate, wherein the black masking layer has a step change between opaque and transparent portions of the display in the normal region, and wherein the modification comprises the black masking layer having a gradual change in transparency between opaque and transparent portions of the display in the locally modified region.”
For claim 14, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452), fails to teach wherein the modification comprises a phase randomization film being included in the locally modified region, which Backer refers to as the “low pixel density region 332”. It is unclear which layer in the system of Backer would be the recipient of a phase modification element, and further prior art such as Bailey et al. (US 2007/0268694) which discusses the use of microparticles to improve color uniformity in ¶ 0129, but lacks a directly analogous film or layer that would be compatible with the Backer reference to obtain a reasonable motivation to combine the teaching into the Backer display.
“14. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the modification comprises a phase randomization film being included in the locally modified region.”
Claim 22 is objected to for the reason that claim 22 depends from claim 14.
“22. (Currently amended) The electronic device defined in claim 14[[21]], wherein the phase randomization film has a plurality of high-index layers formed in a low-index cladding, wherein each one of the high-index layers overlaps a respective pixel aperture in the display, and wherein the high-index layers have random thicknesses.”
For claim 16, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452), does teach that the opening in cathode 306-3 is formed in high-transmittance area 324 in Fig. 4 (col. 7, lines 38-52), but fails to disclose the feature of the opening is particularly in the arrangement of “random shapes”.
“16. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the display includes a cathode layer for the plurality of light-emitting diodes and wherein the modification comprises including a plurality of openings of random shapes in the cathode layer in the locally modified region.”
For claim 23, the prior art of Backer et al. (US 11,864,452), does teach that the dual nature of the signal lines being of different materials in different regions, as detailed in the limitation of claim 23.
“23. (Currently amended) The electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the display further comprises:
a plurality of signal lines, wherein the signal lines are formed from an opaque material in the normal region, and wherein the modification comprises the signal lines being formed from a transparent conductive material in the locally modified region.”
Claims 24 and 25 are objected to for the reason that claims 24 and 25 depend from claim 23.
“24. (Currently amended) The electronic device defined in claim 23, wherein the display further comprises:
a phase compensation film that is patterned to have an opening with a second footprint that matches a first footprint of the signal lines in the locally modified region and wherein the phase compensation film comprises a patterned layer on the transparent substrate.”
“25. (Original) The electronic device defined in claim 23, further comprising:
a dummy pattern that creates phase shift and mitigates diffraction artifacts in the light sensed by the sensor.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eduardo A Rodela whose telephone number is (571)272-8797. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5:00pm ET.
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, Yara B Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/EDUARDO A RODELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights