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 Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lee fails to disclose “wherein the touch sensing circuit is configured to receive signals transmitted from the touch sensing element, and the bio-feature sensing circuit is configured to receive signals transmitted from the bio-feature sensing element”, since Lee discloses in paragraph [0146] that a touch signal is generated in area FPA (rather than the touch signal being received by the touch sensing circuit). However, the operation of the device of [0146], in addition to the other operational embodiments of figures 21 and 22, anticipate the claimed limitation. First, touch sensing elements TE output signals based on capacitive signal, that is then sent to the touch sensing circuit TP1/TP2 ([0129]). Second, bio-feature sensing elements FPS detect infrared light from the user’s finger to output a detection signal to the bio-feature sensing circuit FPA ([0009], “a sensor layer disposed below black matrix layer includes a plurality of fingerprint recognition sensors that are infrared sensors that receive infrared light emitted by the black matrices and reflected from an external object”). Thus, both TE and FPS electrodes receive signals (capacitance change / IR light, respectively) and transmit them to the respective sensing circuits. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0133414).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an electronic device (see figures 10-11, 17-18 and 30, for instance), comprising: a first substrate (SUB, comprising area NDA, see fig. 17); a first circuit layer (see figure 18) overlapped with the first substrate; a touch sensing element (SL2) overlapped with the first substrate (SUB) and comprising a plurality of touch sensing electrodes (TE); a touch sensing circuit (TP1/TP2) coupled to the touch sensing element through the first circuit layer (see figure 18, for instance); a second substrate (CW) overlapped with the first substrate (SUB); a bio-feature sensing element (FPS within SL1, including OLED element [0049]), overlapped with the first substrate (SUB) and the plurality of touch sensing electrodes (TE), wherein the bio-feature sensing element comprises at least one first switching element (TFT1 and/or TFT2, see figure 11), and a portion of the plurality of touch sensing electrodes (TE) is not overlapped with the bio-feature sensing element (FPS in area FPA of figure 17); a second circuit layer (including elements of Fig. 11) overlapped with the second substrate (CW); a bio-feature sensing circuit (FPA) coupled to the bio-feature sensing element (FPS) through the second circuit layer (see figure 11); wherein the touch sensing circuit (TP1/TP2) is configured to receive signals transmitted from the touch sensing element (TE; [0129]), and the bio-feature sensing circuit (FPA) is configured to receive signals transmitted from the bio-feature sensing element (FPS; [0009]); see Response to Arguments, above); a plurality of pixels (SP), wherein the plurality of pixels comprises a plurality of second switching elements (120), and the bio-feature sensing element (FPS) overlaps at least two of the plurality of pixels (SP; particularly in overlapping elements 171); and a blocking layer (BM), disposed on the bio-feature sensing element (FPS), simultaneously overlapped with the at least one first switching element (TFT1, since BM completely covers FPS, see figure 30) of the bio-feature sensing element (fig. 11) and at least one of the plurality of second switching elements (120, since BM covers a portion thereof) of the plurality of pixels (PX), wherein the first substrate (SUB) comprises a first side edge farthest away from the touch sensing circuit (top edge of NDA, see modified figure 17, below), the second substrate (CW) comprises a second side edge (adjacent top edge of NDA, as per modified figure 17) farthest away from the bio-feature sensing circuit (RCV / FPA), and a distance between the second side edge and the bio-feature sensing circuit is less than a distance between the first side edge and the touch sensing circuit (With reference to Fig. 17, the side edge is defined as the top edge as noted in the modified figure. The bio-feature sensing circuit is defined within region FPA, as also shown in figure 10, to include element RCV at the top edge of FPA, as noted below. Therefore, D1 is the defined as the distance between the side edge and the bio-feature sensing circuit. With reference to figure 18, touch sensing circuit is defined as including elements TP1 and TP2, since these are connected to an external driving circuit, which would be analogous to element RCV of the bio-feature sensing circuit. Thus, distance D2 is defined as the distance between the side edge and the touch sensing circuit. As Examiner notes in modified figure 17 of Lee above, D1<D2).
PNG
media_image1.png
561
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 30 of Lee.
PNG
media_image2.png
711
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 10 of Lee
PNG
media_image3.png
743
501
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 17 of Lee
PNG
media_image4.png
745
561
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 18 of Lee
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the bio-feature sensing element (SL1) comprises an ultrasonic fingerprint sensor ([0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the bio-feature sensing element (SL1) comprises a plurality of bottom electrode layers ([0108]-[0109]; “control electrode”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a self-light-emitting medium layer ([0049]), and the self-light-emitting medium layer is overlapped with the touch sensing element (SL1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the self-light-emitting medium layer ([0049]) comprises an organic light-emitting diode or an inorganic light-emitting diode (“OLED”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the electronic device comprises a foldable electronic device or a flexible electronic device (since peripheral areas can be bent, see [0047]; see also figure 18, elements TL1, which are bent as part of a printed circuit board).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the blocking layer (BM) comprises a black matrix layer.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ishizaki et al. (US 2018/0284513).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second substrate (CW) is disposed on a surface of the first substrate (SUB), and in a direction parallel to the surface. However, Lee does not expressly disclose wherein a width of the second substrate is less than a width of the first substrate.
Ishizaki discloses an electronic device (see figures 1-2, for instance), wherein a width of the second substrate (SUB2) is less than a width (particularly adjacent elements T1) of the first substrate (SUB1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the substrate width relationships as Ishizaki in the device of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the frame narrower for a sensor-equipped display device, as taught by Ishizaki ([0130]).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Han et al. (US 2018/0113346).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses electronic device of claim 1. However, Lee does not expressly disclose wherein at least a portion of the touch sensing circuit is not overlapped with the bio-feature sensing circuit.
Han discloses an electronic device (see figure 5, for instance), wherein at least a portion of the touch sensing circuit (TSU) is not overlapped with the bio-feature sensing circuit (FSU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the placement of the touch sensing and bio-feature sensing circuits as Han in the device of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a touch screen panel having a narrow bezel area since the touch screen panel does not require a separate fingerprint sensor area in the bezel area, as taught by Han ([0107]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1. However, Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the touch sensing circuit is not overlapped with the second substrate.
Han discloses an electronic device (see figure 4, for instance), wherein the touch sensing circuit (20) is not overlapped with the second substrate (TSP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the substrate and touch sensing circuit arrangement as Han in the device of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a touch screen panel having a narrow bezel area since the touch screen panel does not require a separate fingerprint sensor area in the bezel area, as taught by Han ([0107]).
Conclusion
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 NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571)-272-9791. 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 1/27/2026