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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 7-9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12159000 in view of Chung et al. (US 2019/0294851).
In regard to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12159000 teach all the elements of claim 1 except the first region is overlapped with the finger touch region and greater than the finger touch region.
Chung et al. teach the first region is overlapped with the finger touch region and greater than the finger touch region (fig. 8, element 200 is smaller than the area occupied by element 160)
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint detection.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of the present application with the first and finger touch regions of Chung et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of the present application with the first and finger touch regions of Chung et al. because the regions of Chung et al. would work equally as well in the apparatus of the present application et al. as they do separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would opt for the arrangement of Chung et al. based on design specifications, cost and ease of manufacturing.
In regard to claim 3, Chung et al. teach a cover layer disposed on the second unit (fig. 7B, window glass on top of all layers).
In regard to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12159000 teaches light-emitting diodes or organic light-emitting diodes (claim 5).
In regard to claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12159000 teaches wherein one of the plurality of first sub- units emits a first light, another one of the plurality of first sub-units emits a second light, and a range of wavelength of the first light is different from a range of wavelength of the second light (claim 6).
In regard to claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12159000 teaches wherein the device comprises an active region, and the first unit, the second unit, and the third unit are located in the active region (claim 10).
Claims 2 and 4-6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12159000 in view of Chung et al. and Kang et al. (US 2019/0035859).
In regard to claim 2, Kang et al. teach wherein a density of the plurality of the second sub-units is less than a density of the plurality of the third sub-units (fig. 6, see where element 55 covers multiple pixels).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint detection.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12159000 and Chung et al. with the pixel and sensor arrangement of Kang et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12159000 and Chung et al. with the pixel and sensor arrangement of Kang et al. because the electrodes covering a larger area as shown in Kang et al. would work equally as well in the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12159000 and Chung et al. as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would opt for the arrangement of Kang et al. based on design specifications, cost and ease of manufacturing.
In regard to claim 4, Kang et al. teach an intermediate layer disposed between the first unit and the second unit (paragraph 85, Kang et al. teach an encapsulation layer to seal the electrode 35. The electrode 35 is at the top of the first sub-unit between that and the second sub-unit).
In regard to claim 5, Kang et al. teach wherein the intermediate layer further comprises an encapsulating layer (paragraph 85).
In regard to claim 6, Kang et al. teach wherein the first unit is encapsulated by the encapsulating layer (paragraph 85).
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2019/0294851) in view of Kang et al. (US 2019/0035859).
In regard to claim 1, Chung et al. teach an electronic device, comprising: a first unit comprising a plurality of first sub-units (element 140 and paragraph 22); a second unit receiving a first signal and comprising a plurality of second sub-units, wherein the second unit is overlapped with the first unit (fig. 8 element 160); and a third unit receiving a second signal different from the first signal and comprising a plurality of third sub-units, wherein the third unit is overlapped with the second unit and the first unit (fig. 8 element 200 and paragraphs 75-77), and the first unit is disposed between the second unit and the third unit (fig. 8 and paragraph 77, the capacitive touch unit 160 is above the display unit which is above the fingerprint sensor); a finger touch region (fig. 8 element 200) and a first region (fig. 8, the region occupied by element 160 is the first region), the first region is overlapped with the finger touch region and greater than the finger touch region (fig. 8, element 200 is smaller than the area occupied by element 160) but does not teach wherein a density of the plurality of the second sub-units is less than a density of the plurality of the first sub-units.
Kang et al. teach wherein a density of the plurality of the second sub-units is less than a density of the plurality of the first sub-units (figs. 6 and 7. The capacitive electrode overlaps numbers fingerprint sensors and OLEDs).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint detection.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Chung et al. with the pixel and sensor arrangement of Kang et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Chung et al. with the pixel and sensor arrangement of Kang et al. because the electrodes covering a larger area as shown in Kang et al. would work equally as well in the apparatus of Chung et al. as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would opt for the arrangement of Kang et al. based on design specifications, cost and ease of manufacturing.
In regard to claim 2, Kang et al. teach wherein a density of the plurality of the second sub-units is less than a density of the plurality of the third sub-units (fig. 6, see where element 55 covers multiple pixels).
In regard to claim 3, Chung et al. teach a cover layer disposed on the second unit (fig. 7B, window glass on top of all layers).
In regard to claim 4, Kang et al. teach an intermediate layer disposed between the first unit and the second unit (paragraph 85, Kang et al. teach an encapsulation layer to seal the electrode 35. The electrode 35 is at the top of the first sub-unit between that and the second sub-unit).
In regard to claim 5, Kang et al. teach wherein the intermediate layer further comprises an encapsulating layer (paragraph 85).
In regard to claim 6, Kang et al. teach wherein the first unit is encapsulated by the encapsulating layer (paragraph 85).
In regard to claim 7, Chung et al. teach wherein the first sub-units comprises light-emitting diodes or organic light-emitting diodes (paragraph 22).
In regard to claim 8, Chung et al. teach wherein one of the plurality of first sub-units emits a first light, another one of the plurality of first sub-units emits a second light, and a range of wavelength of the first light is different from a range of wavelength of the second light (paragraph 22, the OLEDs emit a plurality of colors).
In regard to claim 9, Chung et al. teach wherein the device comprises an active region, and the first unit, the second unit, and the third unit are located in the active region (figs 8 and 9, the display region contains the first, second and third sub-units).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 7 that Chung does not teach a density relationship and cannot teach the density relationship in different regions nor the relative positional and size relationships of the regions. Figure 8 of Chung shows the finger touch region (region covered by element 200). Chung also shows elements 160 (second unit) and 140 (first unit) covering the entire device. The entire area covered by elements 140 and 160 (first region) is greater than the area covered by 200 (finger touch region). Kang et al. show capacitive electrodes (second unit) being less dense than the pixels (first unit). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 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