DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Newly amended language: “without using an optical sensor for fingerprint recognition”, is a negative limitation which lacks support in the Specification as filed. Further paragraph [0006] of the Specification teaches using optical fingerprint sensor for fingerprint detection, which contradicts the newly amended claim language.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Newly amended language: “without using an optical sensor for fingerprint recognition”, is a negative limitation which lacks support in the Specification as filed. Further paragraph [0006] of the Specification teaches using optical fingerprint sensor for fingerprint detection, which contradicts the newly amended claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 20 and 23, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2017/0024602) in view of Dangy (US 2020/0160025).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses an electronic device (fig. 5) comprising a display in which a plurality of transmission metal mesh lines (Tx in fig. 5) and a plurality of reception metal mesh lines (Rx in fig. 5) are arranged (para. 65);
one or more processors (18, fig. 4 and para. 62); and
memory storing instructions (para. 62) that, when executed by the one or more processors during a touch sensing operation (para. 62), cause the electronic device to:
configure a plurality of Tx channels by grouping predetermined number of the plurality of Tx metal mesh lines (GPa-Tx and GPb-Tx in fig. 5 and para. 64-65, 67),
configure a plurality of Rx channels by grouping the predetermined number of the plurality of Rx metal mesh lines (GPa-Rx and GPb-Rx in fig. 5 and para. 64-65, 67),
supply a first Tx signal to the plurality of Tx channels for touch sensing (para. 67)
detect a touch input, based on the a first Rx signal from the plurality of Rx channels while the first Tx signal is supplied to the plurality of Tx channels (para. 67).
Han fails to disclose generating a fingerprint image based on a received second Rx signal.
Dangy discloses identify at least one Tx channel among the plurality of Tx channels based on the detected touch input (para. 106-107), supply a second Tx signal to the identified at least one Tx channel corresponding to a touch location of the detected touch input (para. 106-107), receive a second Rx signal from at least one Rx channel corresponding to the touch location (para. 106-107), and generate a fingerprint image based on the received second Rx signal (para. 106-107, 104), and wherein the fingerprint image is generated based on capacitive sensing (para. 67; wherein capacitive sensing is used for both touch sensing and fingerprint sensing) through the plurality of Tx metal mesh lines and the plurality of Rx metal mesh lines at the touch location (para. 67, 106-107 and fig.8c), without using an optical sensor (para. 67; wherein capacitance detection and not an optical sensor is used).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Dangy in the device of Han. The motivation for doing so would have been to save power when sensing a fingerprint on a touch display (Dangy; para. 106; wherein a fingerprint can be sensed on any part of the screen, however fingerprint sensing is only performed locally to touched areas). Further wherein the entire screen of Han would be able to detect fingerprint input, instead of only in the location of a dedicated fingerprint sensor, creating greater usability. Further wherein both Han and Dangy are capacitive touch sensors.
Regarding claim 4, Dangy discloses identify at least one Rx channel among the plurality of Rx channels based on the detected touch input (para. 106-107), and
Receive the second Rx signal from the identified at least one Rx channel (para. 106-107).
Regarding claim 8, Dangy discloses further to generate the fingerprint image, based on the second Rx signal of each of the plurality of Rx lines during a fingerprint sensing operation (para. 106-107).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1. See above rejection.
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 4. See above rejection.
Claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8. See above rejection.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view Dangy in further view of Kremin (US 2012/0050216).
Regarding claim 2, Han fails to disclose multiplexers.
Kremin discloses further comprising a first multiplexer (130, fig. 1) electrically connected to the plurality of Tx metal mesh lines (para. 18),
wherein the plurality of Tx channels are configured using the first multiplexor (para. 8).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Kremin in the device of Han. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a multiplexer for grouping electrodes in the array for sending and receiving signals when determining a capacitive touch (Kremin; para. 18, 16, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Han fails to disclose multiplexers.
Kremin discloses further comprising a second multiplexer (140, fig. 1) electrically connected to the plurality of Tx metal lines (para. 18), wherein the plurality of Tx channels are configured using the first multiplexor (para. 18).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Kremin in the device of Han. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a multiplexer for grouping electrodes in the array for sending and receiving signals when determining a capacitive touch (Kremin; para. 18, 16, Abstract).
Claims 21-22 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-3, respectively. See above rejections.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Dangy in further view of Kwon (US 2018/0217679).
Regarding claim 11, Han fails to disclose reference fingerprint images.
Kwon discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors during a fingerprint sensing operation, cause the electronic device to:
obtain a reference fingerprint image stored in the memory (para. 180), and
perform a fingerprint authentication by comparing the generated fingerprint image with the reference fingerprint image (para. 180).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Kwon in the device of Han. The motivation for doing so would have been to have a fingerprint sensor to unlock a flexible/rollable display (para. 180, resulting in a more secure device).
Regarding claim 12, Kwon discloses wherein the fingerprint image is generated in an entire area of the display (para. 180).
Claims 29-30 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 11-12, respectively. See above rejections.
Claim(s) 9 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Dangy in further view of Jin (US 2020/0264755).
Regarding claim 9, Han fails to disclose removing a noise signal from a fingerprint image.
Jin discloses to cause the electronic device to:
obtain a background noise value of the touch location, wherein the background noise value comprises at least one of a first background noise value comprising a fixed noise value regardless of driving of a plurality of pixels (para. 44), or a second background noise value comprising a noise value which is changed based on the driving of the plurality of pixels (para 44), and generate the fingerprint image from which the background noise value of the touch location is removed (para. 44).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Jin the device of Han in view of Dangy. The motivation for doing so would have been to have a more accurate fingerprint image by removing the noise (Jin; para. 44). Wherein e.g. a more accurate fingerprint image would create more accurate fingerprint unlocks and use of the device.
Claim 27 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Dangy fails to disclose the feature “generate a fingerprint image based on the received second Rx signal”. The Office disagrees. Specifically, Dangy teaches wherein both the fingerprint sensor ad the touch sensor use capacitance to detect a user fingerprint and a user touch (see para. 67; wherein “The input sensing module 259 may include at least one fingerprint recognition sensor 201 and at least one touch sensor 203. The input sensing module 259 may include the fingerprint recognition sensor 201 and the touch sensor 203 that detect an input with the same sensing method. For example, both the fingerprint recognition sensor 201 and the touch sensor 203 of the input sensing module 259 may detect an input with a capacitive method.”) Further Dangy teaches detecting a fingerprint after detecting a user touch (para. 107, 67 and fig. 8c; wherein the device first detects a user touch using capacitive detection having e.g. a first Rx signal and then second detects a user fingerprint using capacitive detection having e.g. a second Rx signal). Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBIN J MISHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7251. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, NITIN PATEL can be reached on (571)272-7677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBIN J MISHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628