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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strohmann et al. (US 2022/0198172).
In regard to claim 1, Strohmann et al. teach an apparatus, comprising: a fingerprint sensor stack (fig. 6 element 604), comprising: a first fingerprint sensor electrode layer (element 616); a polymer layer (element 606 and paragraph 52, Strohmann et al. teach the acoustics configuration layer is PET which is a polymer) and; a second fingerprint sensor electrode layer residing on the polymer layer (element 612 is a tft layer which acts as a sensing pixel layer. See paragraph 65. TFTs include electrodes); and a first piezoelectric layer (element 610 and paragraph 65) residing between the first fingerprint sensor electrode layer and the polymer layer (fig. 6, element 610 is between element 616 and element 606); and an adhesive layer residing adjacent the fingerprint sensor stack (element 608 and paragraph 65), wherein the first fingerprint sensor electrode layer, the polymer layer and the first piezoelectric layer are layers of one or more acoustic resonators configured to produce a local maximum of ultrasonic wave transmission at a frequency in a range from 1 MHz to 20 MHz (paragraph 66, depending on the layer thickness of the polymer layer 606 the operational frequency will be less than or greater than 10 MHz).
In regard to claim 11, Strohmann et al. teach a display stack, wherein the adhesive layer resides between the fingerprint sensor stack and the display stack, where the adhesive layer and the sensor layer have areas that are less than or equal to a display stack area (element 602 and paragraph 64 display).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmann et al. in view of Hong et al. (US 2023/0214044).
In regard to claim 2, Strohmann et al. teach all the elements of claim 2 except wherein the fingerprint sensor stack has a modulus of elasticity in a range from 2-5 gigapascals (GPa) (Strohmann et al. is silent as to the modulus of elasticity. Strohmann et al. do teach a flexible display in fig. 4).
Hong et al. teach a piezoelectric sensor in a flexible display with a modulus of elasticity in a range from 2-5 gigapascals (GPa) (paragraph 39).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint sensors in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. with the sensor flexibility of Hong et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. with the sensor flexibility of Hong et al. because a Young’s modulus, as shown in Hong et al., would allow the device to be deformed while maintaining durability.
Claim(s) 3, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmann et al. in view of Strohmann et al. (US 11436857, hereafter referred to as the ‘857 patent).
In regard to claim 3, Strohmann et al. teach all the elements of claim 3 except wherein a thickness of the fingerprint sensor stack equals a quarter wavelength corresponding to the frequency.
The ‘857 patent teaches wherein a thickness of the fingerprint sensor stack equals a quarter wavelength corresponding to the frequency (column 17 lines 22-27, the ‘857 patent teaches the resonator 310e having a thickness corresponding to an odd multiple of the quarter-wavelength of the resonance frequency. The resonator includes a piezoelectric layer, electrode and epoxy film).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint sensors in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. with the resonator thickness of the ‘857 patent. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. with the resonator thickness of the ‘857 patent because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the thickness of the resonator is integral to the operation of the device. The quarter-wavelength thickness as described in the ‘857 patent would allow the device to operate at an appropriate frequency while reducing interference and improving accuracy.
In regard to claim 23, Strohmann et al. teach a first polymer layer (element 606) and an epoxy layer (element 618 and paragraph 65) but does not specifically teach a second polymer layer.
The ‘857 patent teaches the base layer can be either epoxy or a polymer (element 212 and column 10 lines 48-50).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint sensors in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the epoxy layer of Strohmann et al. with the polymer layer of the ‘857 patent. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to substitute the epoxy layer of Strohmann et al. with the polymer layer of the ‘857 patent because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the polymer film of the ‘857 patent would work equally as well as the epoxy of Strohmann et al. The two would work interchangeably and predictably as a base layer and either could be chosen based on factors such as cost, weight and availability of materials.
In regard to claim 25, Strohmann et al. teach wherein the second fingerprint sensor electrode layer comprises a two-dimensional array of pixelated electrodes having associated thin-film transistor (TFT) circuity (paragraph 45 and 65. The sensing layer is an array of TFT electrodes).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmann et al. in view of the ‘857 patent further considered with Lu et al. (US 2020/0125815).
In regard to claim 4, Strohmann et al. and the ‘857 patent teach all the elements of claim 4 except wherein the adhesive layer comprises a high-impedance layer having an acoustic impedance in a range from 10–50 MRayls (Strohmann et al. teach an acoustics configuration layer 420 that is made of metal (paragraph 53). Fig. 4 of Strohmann et al. show this is formed on the bottom layer of the display stack directly above the adhesive layer 608).
Lu et al. teach wherein the adhesive layer comprises a high-impedance layer having an acoustic impedance in a range from 10–50 MRayls (paragraph 116, Lu et al. teach a high-z organic adhesive layer with an acoustic impedance greater than 8 MRayls).
The three are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint sensors in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. and ‘857 patent with the high-z adhesive layer of Lu et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. and ‘857 patent with the high-z adhesive layer of Lu et al. because the combination of the high-acoustic impedance layer would work equally as well as the separate layers of Strohmann et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination of the two layers into a single layer would work predictably and would provide advantages such as decreasing manufacturing complexity and reducing the number of parts.
In regard to claim 5, Strohmann et al. teach wherein the polymer layer resides between the first piezoelectric layer and the adhesive layer (element 606 is between elements 608 and 610).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmann et al. in view of Lin et al. (US 2023/0063693).
In regard to claim 12, Strohmann et al. teach a high-impedance stiffener layer (element 516 and paragraph 60, Strohmann et al. teach a steel stiffener) but does not teach having an acoustic impedance in a range from 10–50 MRayls, the high-impedance stiffener layer residing between the adhesive layer and the display stack.
Lin et al. teach having an acoustic impedance in a range from 10–50 MRayls, the high-impedance stiffener layer residing between the adhesive layer and the display stack (element 113 and paragraph 45).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint sensors in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. with the stiffener of Lin et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. with the stiffener of Lin et al. because the stiffener would allow the display to be folded while maintaining physical integrity.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmann et al. in view of the ‘857 patent further considered with Ganapathi et al. (US 2012/0092350).
In regard to claim 24, Strohmann et al. and the ‘857 patent teach all the elements of claim 24 except wherein the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer are flexible polymers layers having moduli of elasticity in a range from 0.1 gigapascals (GPa) to 11 GPa.
Ganapathi et al. teach wherein the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer are flexible polymers layers having moduli of elasticity in a range from 0.1 gigapascals (GPa) to 11 GPa (paragraph 127. Ganapathi et al. teach a flexible device with a fingerprint sensor. The substrate is made of PET with a modulus of elasticity of .5-5GPa).
The three are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint sensors in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. and ‘857 patent with the PET layer of Ganapathi et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Strohmann et al. and ‘857 patent with the PET layer of Ganapathi et al. because the PET layer would work equally as well in the apparatus of Strohmann et al. and the ‘857 patent as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the PET layer of Ganapathi et al. would work predictably and would allow for a sensor that is compatible with a flexible display.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 7 that “In other words, the ‘polymer layer’ and the ‘second fingerprint sensor electrode layer residing on the polymer layer’ that are recited in claim 1 replace the TFT circuitry and rigid substrates of some previously-disclosed fingerprint sensors.” Applicant continues to argue on page 9 that the acoustics configuration layer of Strohmann is not a TFT substrate on which TFT circuity resides.
The claim makes no mention of TFT circuitry or a TFT substrate. The claim requires a polymer layer and a second fingerprint sensor layer residing on the polymer layer. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., TFT substrate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621