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 Amendment The amendment filed 08/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 17–20 are canceled, claim 21 is amended, and claims 22–25 are new. Claims 1–16 and 21–25 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to: "in parallel to one other" should read "in parallel to one another."
Claim 23 is objected to: "such that that" repeats a word.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 14-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8, 14–16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, "the feeding line" lacks antecedent basis (claim 7 recites "a feed line"), and it is unclear whether "the first ground pattern" is the previously recited "first ground conductive pattern." For examination these are read as the feed line of claim 7 and the first ground conductive pattern.
Regarding claim 14, "the non-display area" (two occurrences) lacks antecedent basis; claim 14 earlier recites "a non-display region." For examination it is read as the non-display region. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected as depending from claim 14.
Regarding claim 22, "the protruding area" lacks antecedent basis (claim 1 recites "a protruded area"), and "the non-display area" is unclear because claim 1 recites a non-display region and three separate non-display areas. For examination these are read as the protruded area and the non-display region of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1–3, 9–11, 14–16 and 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0205381 A1 (“Yoon”) in view of KR 10-2022-0008348 A (“Zhen”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel 300 having a display area DA and a non-display area NDA outside it ([0053], [0054]);
the display panel including a flexible substrate SUB1 ([0071]) with a sub-area SBA protruding from one side of the main area ([0053], [0055], [0081]);
the display panel having a long side and a short side ([0048]);
an antenna circuit board 350 connected to the protruded area ([0062], [0063], [0185]; FIG. 1);
a transmitting antenna TAP in the display panel ([0070], [0101]) along the long side, in or near the non-display area ([0094], [0103]) — the first non-display area; and
a plurality of receiving antennas RAP adjacent to the transmitting antenna along the same side ([0103]; FIG. 18) — the plurality of first receiving antennas.
Yoon also places antennas along the short side of the panel ([0103]) and contemplates antennas on any side ([0102]).
Yoon does not disclose a second receiving antenna in a corner non-display area joining the long-side and short-side areas.
Zhen teaches placing a second antenna in a separate region of the display from the first antenna, so that when the user's hand blocks one region, reception switches to the other ([0035]–[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a second receiving antenna to Yoon in a separate region of the non-display area, as taught by Zhen, so that sensing continues when the user's hand covers the first antennas. The edge of Yoon's rectangular panel offers a small, known set of places for that antenna: the long sides, the short sides, and the corners joining them. Choosing the corner joining the long-side and short-side areas is a choice among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is claim 1 with the long and short sides swapped. Yoon places antennas on any side ([0102]), so putting the transmit/receive group on the short side instead is a choice between the two known side locations. Claim 9 is obvious for the reasons given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, insofar as definite, claim 14 is claim 1 except that the second receiving antenna is on the short side, not the corner. Yoon already places antennas along the short side ([0103]). It would have been obvious to put the second receiving antenna there, as a separate region per Zhen ([0035]–[0040]), for the blockage reason given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is claim 1 with "first side and a second side orthogonal to the first side" in place of long and short sides, and "electronic device" in place of display device. Yoon's long and short sides are orthogonal sides ([0048]), and Yoon's display device is an electronic device. Claim 21 is obvious for the reasons given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Yoon as modified discloses the device of claim 1, with a transmitting antenna TAP (first antenna) and receiving antennas RAP (second and third antennas) (FIG. 18). Zhen teaches millimeter-wave dipole antennas arranged in parallel and identical in shape and size ([0023], [0031], [0032]). It would have been obvious to form Yoon's antennas as Zhen's parallel identical dipoles, a known millimeter-wave radiator for a display stack, with predictable results. Parallel dipoles of identical shape necessarily have the same polarization, since a dipole's polarization is set by the orientation of its arms. MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Yoon as modified discloses the device of claims 9 and 14, with the second and third antennas in parallel (Zhen [0031]), for the reasons given for claim 2.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 16, Zhen teaches the dipoles identical in shape and size ([0032], [0038]). Obvious for the reasons given for claim 2.
Regarding claim 22, insofar as definite, Yoon's flexible substrate SUB1 has a first portion forming the protruded sub-area SBA and an adjacent second portion forming part of the non-display area ([0053], [0055], [0081]). Yoon does not state that an antenna electrode layer is formed within an opening of that second portion. The Examiner takes Official Notice that connecting an antenna electrode to a feed line on the opposite side of a substrate through a via or contact hole formed in the substrate was well known. It would have been obvious to so connect Yoon's antenna to its feed, to route the feed along the underside of the substrate into the protruded area.
Regarding claim 23, Zhen teaches dipole antennas ([0031]). The Examiner takes Official Notice that dipoles with arms of unequal length were well known and used to tune resonance and adjust polarization and beam direction. It would have been obvious to make the transmitting and first receiving antennas asymmetric dipoles for those reasons, and to give all the antennas, including the second receiving antenna, substantially the same polarization direction to minimize polarization mismatch loss between transmitter and receivers.
Regarding claim 24, Yoon discloses that the transmitting antenna TAP emits a wave that reflects off an object such as a finger and is received by the receiving antennas RAP, from which the object's position and speed are computed ([0192]–[0199]; FIGS. 17–19). As modified per claim 1, the second receiving antenna senses the reflected signal in the same way.
Regarding claim 25, Yoon as modified discloses the device of claim 1, with the transmitting and first receiving antennas in the touch sensor area TSA adjacent to its edge, or outside it in the touch peripheral area TPA, which overlaps the non-display area NDA (at least FIGS. 4–5) — that is, in or near the first non-display area. Yoon does not disclose the antennas extending into the protruded sub-area SBA. Yoon, however, routes the antenna feed lines FL, formed in the same sensor layer as the antenna patterns, from the antenna patterns to antenna pads FP at the lower side of the panel (at least FIG. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the transmitting and first receiving antenna patterns partly into the protruded area along the path of their own feed lines, to enlarge the radiating area available to the antennas without widening the non-display border of the main area.
Claims 4–8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yoon in view of Zhen and US 2023/0231294 A1 ("Kim").
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kim teaches display antennas of different radiator shapes and types, including mesh and solid radiators ([0012]) and dipole, monopole and patch antennas ([0033]). It would have been obvious to give the second receiving antenna, which sits in a different location, a different shape from the first to third antennas, as taught by Kim, to fit the space available at that location.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches monopole antennas as a known display-antenna type ([0033]). It would have been obvious to make the second receiving antenna a monopole, to fit the smaller corner area, with the first to third antennas being dipoles as discussed for claim 2.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the Official Notice taken for claim 23 applies: dipoles with arms of unequal length were well known. It would have been obvious to make the first to third antennas asymmetric for the reasons given for claim 23.
Regarding claim 7, a dipole of the kind noticed above has a feed electrode from which two arms extend in opposite directions; in an unequal-arm dipole the arms have different lengths. Claim 7 is obvious for the reasons given for claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, insofar as definite, Kim discloses ground pads on either side of the antenna feed ([0053]). The Examiner takes Official Notice that slots etched in the ground conductors alongside and parallel to a coplanar feed line were well known for tuning impedance and reducing coupling between neighboring antennas. It would have been obvious to include such slots for those reasons.
Should Applicant traverse any Official Notice taken above, the traverse must specifically point out the supposed errors and state why the noticed fact is not considered common knowledge or well known in the art. 37 CFR 1.111(b); MPEP 2144.03(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's argument that Kim's display panel does not include a flexible substrate with a protruded area is persuasive. The rejection of claims 1–16 and 21 over Kim in view of Zhen is withdrawn. A new ground of rejection is made over Yoon, which discloses a display panel whose own flexible substrate has a protruding sub-area, an antenna circuit board, and transmitting and receiving antennas.
Applicant's argument that Zhen shows no corner antenna is correct; Zhen is not relied on for that. The prior action's "routine spatial design choice" reasoning is withdrawn and replaced by the reasoning given for claim 1.
Applicant's argument that the corner antenna yields technical advantages (FIGS. 9A–11B) is not persuasive. Claims 1, 9 and 21 do not recite radar sensing or radar images, so the argued advantages are not commensurate with the claims (In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982); MPEP 716.02(d)); and the assertion is attorney argument without supporting evidence such as a 37 CFR 1.132 declaration (MPEP 716.01(c)).
Because the new grounds of rejection of claims 1–16 and 21 were not necessitated by amendment, this action is non-final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/MONICA C KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
9/29/2026
