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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 3-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “adjacent first to second pixel-rows” in claims 1 and 21 is a relative term which renders each claim indefinite. The term “adjacent first to second pixel-rows” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The commonly accepted definition of “adjacent” is “lying near, close” (e.g., see Random House dictionary, Dictionary.com).
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art precisely how “near” or “close” the corresponding elements must be before they would be considered “adjacent,” as instantly claimed.
The term “adjacent first to second pixel-columns” in claims 1 and 21 is a relative term which renders each claim indefinite. The term “adjacent first to second pixel-columns” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The commonly accepted definition of “adjacent” is “lying near, close” (e.g., see Random House dictionary, Dictionary.com).
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art precisely how “near” or “close” the corresponding elements must be before they would be considered “adjacent,” as instantly claimed.
The term “adjacent sensing lines” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent sensing lines” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The commonly accepted definition of “adjacent” is “lying near, close” (e.g., see Random House dictionary, Dictionary.com).
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art precisely how “near” or “close” the corresponding elements must be before they would be considered “adjacent,” as instantly claimed.
The term “adjacent first to second sensing lines” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent first to second sensing lines” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The commonly accepted definition of “adjacent” is “lying near, close” (e.g., see Random House dictionary, Dictionary.com).
It would be unclear to one having ordinary skill in the art precisely how “near” or “close” the corresponding elements must be before they would be considered “adjacent,” as instantly claimed.
Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gruhlke et al (US 2017/0079591 A1); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gruhlke et al (US 2017/0079591 A1) in view of Won et al (US 2019/0065717 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gruhlke discloses a display apparatus, comprising:
a display panel [e.g., Fig. 1: 130; Fig. 4: 250] that includes a plurality of pixels [e.g., Paragraph 66: pixels]; and
a panel driver [e.g., Fig. 1: 110] that drives the display panel [e.g., Paragraph 59: The touchscreen display 250, in response to an instruction from the processor, may generate light in the form of a colored image displayed by a particular group of pixels within the touchscreen display],
wherein the pixels include
a first adjacent horizontal pixel group [e.g., Fig. 6: all (or a portion) of the pixel rows of display 250] that includes adjacent first to second pixel-rows [e.g., Fig. 6a, 6c: horizontal pixel rows along vertical column; see Paragraph 66: (a) shows the colored image 430 as a round shape rendered by a cluster of pixels… (c) shows the colored image 430 as a vertical line rendered by a single column of pixels] and
a first adjacent vertical pixel group [e.g., Fig. 6: all (or a portion) of the pixel columns of display 250, including left/right 430 image region] that includes adjacent first to second pixel-columns [e.g., Fig. 6a, 6b: vertical pixel columns along horizontal row; see Paragraph 66: (a) shows the colored image 430 as a round shape rendered by a cluster of pixels… (b) shows the colored image 430 as a horizontal line rendered by a single row of pixels],
wherein the pixels include an emitting pixel that includes
a light emitting element [e.g., Fig. 1: 186; Paragraph 42: LED] and
a light sensing pixel that includes a photodiode [e.g., Figs. 1, 6: 182; Paragraph 41: photodiode(s)],
wherein the panel driver drives the display panel such that the display panel displays a first guidance image [e.g., Fig. 3: red/green image spots under the left/right thumbs; Fig. 6: left/right 430 image] that guides a user to place fingers [e.g., Fig. 3: 230 finger, 240 finger] on a first sensing region [e.g., Fig. 3: red/green image spots under the left thumb; Fig. 6: left 430 image region] and a second sensing region [e.g., Fig. 3: red/green image spot under the right thumbs; Fig. 6: right 430 image region] of the display panel,
wherein the light sensing pixel outputs a sensing current [e.g., Paragraphs 67-68: photocurrent] that generates photoplethysmography (PPG) signals [e.g., Paragraphs 61, 70-71: PPG signals] by sensing the user's fingers, and
wherein the first sensing region and the second sensing region are displayed on the first adjacent vertical pixel group [e.g., see Fig. 3: wherein the red/green image spots under the left/right thumbs are illustrated as being aligned (i.e. multiple columns along a single line) with each other; Fig. 6: wherein the left/right 430 images are illustrated as being aligned (i.e. multiple columns along a single line) with each other] (e.g., see Figs. 3, 6; Paragraphs 29-91).
Should it be shown that Gruhlke discloses the first sensing region and the second sensing region are displayed on the first adjacent vertical pixel group, as instantly claimed, with insufficient specificity:
Won discloses a display apparatus, comprising:
a display panel [e.g., Fig. 1: 101] that includes a plurality of pixels [e.g., Fig. 3A: 310]; and
a panel driver [e.g., Fig. 3A: 320, 330] that drives the display panel [e.g., see Paragraphs 61, 67],
wherein the pixels include
a first adjacent horizontal pixel group [e.g., Fig. 3A: all (or a portion) of the pixel rows along the gate lines from 330] that includes adjacent first to second pixel-rows [e.g., Fig. 3A, two pixel rows/gate lines along X-direction] and
a first adjacent vertical pixel group [e.g., Fig. 3A: all (or a portion) of the pixel columns along the data lines from 320] that includes adjacent first to second pixel-columns [e.g., Fig. 3A, two pixel columns/data lines along Y-direction],
wherein the pixels include an emitting pixel that includes
a light emitting element [e.g., Fig. 3A: 312, 314, 316] and
a light sensing pixel that includes a photodiode [e.g., Fig. 3A: 318; see Paragraph 62],
wherein the panel driver drives the display panel such that the display panel displays a first guidance image [e.g., Paragraphs 41, 53: displayed image] that guides a user to place a finger [e.g., Fig. 3E: finger] on a first sensing region [e.g., Figs. 3A, 9: image at first pixel column/data line region along Y/horizontal-direction] and a second sensing region [e.g., Figs. 3A, 9: image at second pixel column/data line region along Y/horizontal-direction] of the display panel,
wherein the light sensing pixel outputs a sensing current that generates photoplethysmography (PPG) signals by sensing the user's finger [e.g., see Paragraphs 41, 62, 72-74, 106, 117, 122, 132-134, 137, 142], and
wherein the first sensing region [e.g., Figs. 3A, 9: image at first pixel column/data line region along Y/horizontal-direction] and the second sensing region [e.g., Figs. 3A, 9: image at second pixel column/data line region along Y/horizontal-direction] are displayed on the first adjacent vertical pixel group [e.g., Fig. 3A: all (or a portion) of the pixel columns along the data lines from 320] (e.g., see Paragraphs 31-180).
Gruhlke and Won are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of photoplethysmography sensing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Won’s pixels with Gruhlke’s sensing regions, so as to display various contents to a user.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Won’s pixels with Gruhlke’s sensing regions as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected by the reasoning applied in rejecting claim 1; furthermore, Gruhlke discloses an electronic apparatus [e.g., Fig. 1: 100; see Paragraphs 43, 48] (e.g., see Figs. 3, 6; Paragraphs 29-91).
Won discloses an electronic apparatus [e.g., Fig. 1: 100; see Paragraph 32].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruhlke et al (US 2017/0079591 A1) in view of Won et al (US 2019/0065717 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Gruhlke doesn’t appear to expressly disclose a gate driver.
However, Won discloses the panel driver includes:
a gate driver [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: 330; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: 430] that applies a gate signal [e.g., Paragraph 61: light emitting timing power] to the display panel [e.g., Fig. 1: 101] through a plurality of gate lines [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: horizontal lines extending from 330; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: horizontal lines extending from 430]; and
a light sensing driver [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: 440] that receives the sensing current [e.g., Paragraphs 41, 72, 74: photodiode output value] from the pixels through a plurality of adjacent sensing lines [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: vertical lines extending to 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: vertical lines extending to 440],
wherein the gate lines include an adjacent gate line group that includes first to second gate lines [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: two adjacent horizontal lines extending from 330; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: two adjacent horizontal lines extending from 430],
wherein the sensing lines include a first adjacent sensing line group [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: all (or a portion) of the photodiode (318) columns along the sensing lines from 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: all (or a portion) of the photodiode (415) columns along the sensing lines from 440] that includes adjacent first to second sensing lines [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: two adjacent lines extending to 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: two adjacent lines extending to 440], and
wherein the first adjacent vertical pixel group [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: all (or a portion) of the pixel (312, 314, 316) columns along the data lines from 320; 4A-C, 4E-F: all (or a portion) of the pixel (411, 412, 413) columns along the data lines from 420] is connected to the first adjacent sensing line group, and
the first sensing region [e.g., Figs. 3A-E, Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F, 9: image at first pixel column/data line region along Y/horizontal-direction] and the second sensing region [e.g., Figs. 3A-E, Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F, 9: image at second pixel column/data line region along Y/horizontal-direction] are displayed on the first adjacent sensing line group [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: all (or a portion) of the photodiode (318) columns along the sensing lines from 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: all (or a portion) of the photodiode (415) columns along the sensing lines from 440] (e.g., see Paragraphs 31-180).
Gruhlke and Won are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of photoplethysmography sensing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Won’s panel driver circuitry and first adjacent sensing line group with Gruhlke’s sensing regions, so as to improve an accuracy of sensed biometric information.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Won’s panel driver circuitry and first adjacent sensing line group with Gruhlke’s sensing regions as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 4, Won discloses the light sensing driver receives the sensing current from the adjacent sensing line group connected to the adjacent vertical pixel group (e.g., see Paragraphs 31-180).
Regarding claim 5, Won discloses the sensing lines include first to P-th sensing lines [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: two adjacent vertical lines extending to 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: two adjacent vertical lines extending to 440],
where P is a positive integer [e.g., two],
wherein the first to P-th sensing lines are sequentially disposed on the display panel, and
wherein the adjacent sensing line group includes at least two adjacent sensing lines [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: two adjacent vertical lines extending to 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: two adjacent vertical lines extending to 440] of the first to P-th sensing lines (e.g., see Paragraphs 31-180).
Regarding claim 6, Won discloses the gate lines extend in a first direction lines [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: horizontal lines extending from 330; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: horizontal lines extending from 430] and
the sensing lines extend in a second direction [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: vertical lines extending to 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: vertical lines extending to 440] different from the first direction (e.g., see Paragraphs 31-180).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends, “Gruhlke does not disclose that the left and right colored images 430 in Fig. 6 are displayed on the same adjacent vertical pixel group” (see Page 10 of the Response filed on 24 February 2026). However, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Gruhlke discloses the first sensing region [e.g., Fig. 6: left 430 image region] and the second sensing region [e.g., Fig. 6: right 430 image region] are displayed on the first adjacent vertical pixel group [e.g., Fig. 6: all (or a portion) of the pixel columns of display 250, including left/right 430 image region]
(e.g., see Fig. 6: wherein the left/right 430 images are illustrated as being aligned [i.e. multiple pixel columns along a single row line] with each other).
The Applicant contends, “Won does not disclose displaying the first sensing region and the second sensing region, much less on the same vertical sensing line group” (see Page 13 of the Response filed on 24 February 2026). However, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “vertical sensing line group”) 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).
Secondly, Won discloses the first sensing region [e.g., Figs. 3A-E, Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F, 9: image at first pixel column/data line region along Y/horizontal-direction] and the second sensing region [e.g., Figs. 3A-E, Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F, 9: image at second pixel column/data line region along Y/horizontal-direction] are displayed on the first adjacent sensing line group [e.g., Figs. 3A-E: all (or a portion) of the photodiode (318) columns along the sensing lines from 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: all (or a portion) of the photodiode (415) columns along the sensing lines from 440].
Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Gruhlke discloses the first sensing region [e.g., Fig. 3: red/green image spot under the left thumb; Fig. 6: left 430 image region] and the second sensing region [e.g., Fig. 3: red/green image spot under the right thumb; Fig. 6: right 430 image region] are displayed on the first adjacent vertical pixel group [e.g., Fig. 6: all (or a portion) of the pixel columns of display 250, including left/right 430 image region] (e.g., see Fig. 6: wherein the left/right 430 images are illustrated as being aligned (i.e. multiple pixel columns along a single row line) with each other).
Gruhlke’s Figure 6 is substantively identical to the instant application’s Fig. 5. It shows two fingerprint sense region images [e.g., Gruhlke: Fig. 6: left/right 430 image] vertically aligned with each other. Just like how the instant application’s Fig. 5 shows two fingerprint sense region images [e.g., Instant Application: Fig. 5: PT1A, PT2A] vertically aligned with each other.
Gruhlke doesn’t go into great detail about the arrangement/correspondence of pixel gate/scan lines, pixel data lines, and photodiode sensor lines with those displayed images.
However, the instant application hasn’t disclosed anything particularly novel in having a gate driver [e.g., Instant Application: Fig. 6: 300] driving horizontal gate lines [e.g., Instant Application: Fig. 6: GL] and a light sensing driver [e.g., Instant Application: Fig. 6: 700] connected to vertical sensing lines [e.g., Instant Application: Fig. 6: SL].
Won discloses this exact arrangement with a gate driver [e.g., Fig. 3A: 330] driving horizontal gate lines and a light sensing driver [e.g., Fig. 3A: 340] connected to vertical sensing lines. Moreover, Won discloses every pixel [e.g., Fig. 3A: 310] includes both a light emitting element [e.g., Fig. 3A: 312, 314, 316] and a photodiode [e.g., Fig. 3A: 318] for displaying images and sensing any fingers touching those images.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Won’s panel driver circuitry and first adjacent sensing line group with Gruhlke’s sensing regions, so as to improve an accuracy of sensed biometric information.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Won’s panel driver circuitry and first adjacent sensing line group with Gruhlke’s sensing regions as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
In short, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Won’s matrix arrangement of light emitting elements [e.g., Won: Fig. 3A: 312, 314, 316] and photodiodes [e.g., Won: Fig. 3A: 318] to display Gruhlke’s two (vertically aligned) finger press images [e.g., Gruhlke: Fig. 3: red/green image spots under the left/right thumbs; Fig. 6: left/right 430 images] and to sense two different fingerprints from two different hands [e.g., Gruhlke: Fig. 3: 230, 240] while touching those two (vertically aligned) finger press images [e.g., Gruhlke: Fig. 3: red/green image spots under the left/right thumbs; Fig. 6: left/right 430 images].
This combination arrangement (Gruhlke’s finger press images displayed on Won’s touch display panel) would fully and completely read on all of the instant claims.
For example: The first sensing region [e.g., Gruhlke: Fig. 3: red/green image spot under the left thumb; Fig. 6: left 430 image region] and the second sensing region [e.g., Gruhlke: Fig. 3: red/green image spot under the right thumb; Fig. 6: right 430 image region] would be:
displayed on the first adjacent vertical pixel group [e.g., Gruhlke: Fig. 3: all (or a portion) of the pixel columns of display 250, including the red/green image spots under the left/right thumbs; Fig. 6: all (or a portion) of the pixel columns of display 250, including left/right 430 image region; or Won: Figs. 3A-E: all (or a portion) of the pixel columns along the data lines from 320; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: all (or a portion) of the pixel columns along the data lines from 420]; and
also displayed on the first adjacent sensing line group [e.g., Won: Figs. 3A-E: all (or a portion) of the photodiode (318) columns along the sensing lines from 340; Figs. 4A-C, 4E-F: all (or a portion) of the photodiode (415) columns along the sensing lines from 440].
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-6 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of any new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM). 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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
29 May 2026
Prosecution Insights