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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
1. Amendment filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended and claim 12 has been added.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 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.
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.
3. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,443,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claims 1 of 19/001,143
Claims 1 and 4 of 11,443, 499
An electronic device, comprising:
An electronic device, comprising:
a substrate comprising a first region and a second region;
a display layer disposed on the first substrate, wherein the display layer comprises a first display region and a second display region,
a biometric sensing module disposed corresponding to the first region
the second display region corresponds to the biometric sensing region,
a display medium layer disposed on the substrate;
a display layer disposed on the first substrate,
a touch sensing layer disposed on the display medium layer, wherein the touch sensing layer comprises a first touch sensing region and a second touch sensing region, the first touch sensing region corresponds to the second region, and the second touch sensing region corresponds to the first region;
a touch sensing layer disposed on the first substrate, wherein the touch sensing layer comprises a first touch sensing region and a second touch sensing region, the first touch sensing region corresponds to the non-sensing region, the second touch sensing region corresponds to the biometric sensing region,
wherein a reflectivity of the second touch sensing region is greater than a reflectivity of the first touch sensing region
wherein a reflectivity of the biometric sensing region is greater than a reflectivity of the non-sensing region,
Claims 3 of 19/001,143
Claim 1 of 11,443, 499
The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the supporting element comprises a hole, and the biometric sensing module is disposed corresponding to the hole.
the supporting film comprises a hole, and the biometric sensing module disposed corresponding to the hole.
Claims 4 of 19/001,143
Claim 1 of 11,443, 499
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a light altering member at least partially disposed in the first region.
a light altering member at least partially formed in the biometric sensing region,
Claims 6 of 19/001,143
Claim 8 of 11,443, 499
The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the light altering member comprises a first insulating layer and a micro-structure layer disposed on the first insulating layer.
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the light altering member comprises a first insulating layer and a micro-structure layer disposed on the first insulating layer.
Claims 7 of 19/001,143
Claim 6 of 11,443, 499
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a color filter layer disposed on the substrate
a color filter layer disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate
Claims 8 of 19/001,143
Claim 1 of 11,443, 499
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a display layer disposed on the substrate
A display layer disposed on the first substrate
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bae et al (US 2019/0012555).
As to claim 1, Bae teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a substrate (a protection layer 118, fig. 1) comprising a first region (optical sensor layer 230 (fig. 2) corresponding to fingerprint sensor 140, fig. 1) and a second region (area of the display 110 other than the fingerprint recognition area 130, fig. 1);
a biometric sensing module disposed corresponding to the first region (optical sensor layer 230 (fig. 2), fig. 1);
a display medium layer disposed on the substrate (display panel 117, fig. 1);
a touch sensing layer disposed on the display medium layer ([0033] the display 10 may include a touch screen and may receive, for example, a touch, gesture, proximity, or hovering input using an electronic pen or part of user’s body),
wherein the touch sensing layer comprises a first touch sensing region and a second touch sensing region, the first touch sensing region corresponds to the second region (area of the display 110 other than the fingerprint recognition area 130, fig. 1), and the second touch sensing region corresponds to the first region (optical sensor layer 230 (fig. 2) corresponding to fingerprint sensor 140, fig. 1);
wherein a reflectivity of the second touch sensing region is greater than a reflectivity of the first touch sensing region ([0035] The fingerprint recognition area 130 may be an area for collecting fingerprint information based on which user authentication is performed, using light reflected by a fingerprint 150 of the user when the user locates the finger on the fingerprint recognition area 130. [0081] Areas occupied by the light-emitting pixels (e.g., the RGB pixels) 510 may be non-light-transmitting areas that prevent and/or reduce light reflected by an external object from being transmitted to an optical sensor layer. [0082] Examiner’s note: The fingerprint recognition area 130 reflect more light back to the finger sensing area 136 than the other area).
As to claim 2, Bae teaches the electronic device, further comprising a supporting element disposed between the substrate and the biometric sensing module (the light-shielding layer 220, fig. 2).
As to claim 3, Bae teaches the electronic device, wherein the supporting element comprises a hole (plurality of holes 221, fig. 2), and the biometric sensing module is disposed corresponding to the hole ([0057] The plurality of optical sensors 231 may, for example, and without limitation, be disposed in areas corresponding to the plurality of holes 221, fig. 2).
As to claim 4, Bae teaches the electronic device, further comprising a light altering member at least partially disposed in the first region (a micro lens layer 210 with its plurality of lenses 211, fig. 2).
As to claim 5, Bae teaches the electronic device, wherein the light altering member (a micro lens layer 210) is disposed between the substrate (a protection layer 118, fig. 1) and the biometric sensing module (optical sensor layer 230 (fig. 2), fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Bae teaches the electronic device, wherein the light altering member (micro lens layer 210, fig. 2) comprises a first insulating layer and a micro-structure layer (plurality of lenses 211, fig. 2) disposed on the first insulating layer (part of micro lens layer 210 other than the plurality of lenses 211, fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Bae teaches the electronic device, further comprising a color filter layer disposed on the substrate ([0098] An optical filter layer 880 may be disposed above the fingerprint sensor … The optical filter layer 880 may pass reflected light in green and blue wavelength bands and may block reflected light in a red wavelength band).
As to claim 8, Bae teaches the electronic device, further comprising a display layer disposed on the substrate (display panel 117, fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Bae teaches the electronic device, wherein the display layer comprises a plurality of conductive lines ([0045] The display panel 117 may be a layer that emits light in response to an electrical signal. The display panel 117 may have a form in which light-emitting elements (e.g., organic electro luminescence (EL)) are deposited on a thin film transistor (TFT) substrate. The TFT substrate may include TFT devices for driving respective pixels in an active area, metal interconnection wiring, an insulation film, and the like).
As to claim 10, Bae teaches the electronic device wherein the display medium layer comprises light-emitting diodes ([0045] The display panel 117 may be a layer that emits light in response to an electrical signal. The display panel 117 may have a form in which light-emitting elements are deposited on a thin film transistor (TFT) substrate, [0033] The display 110 may include, for example, and without limitation, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a light-emitting diode (LED) display).
5. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2019/0012555) in view of Chou (US 2014/0168121).
As to claim 11, Bae does not teach a facial sensor as claimed.
However, Chou teaches the electronic device, wherein the biometric sensing module comprising a facial sensor ([0023] the biometrics sensor 30 may also be…a face recognition sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bae to teach a facial sensor as suggested by Chou. The motivation would have been in order to provide “robust authentication method” ([0005]).
6. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2019/0012555) in view of Lee et al (US 2018/0173923).
As to claim 12, Bae does not teach the electronic device as claimed.
However, Lee teaches the electronic device, wherein a touch sensing region comprises at least one sensing unit configured to perform both a biometric sensing function and a touch sensing function ([0098] the touch-sensing circuit and the fingerprint-sensing circuit may be the same circuit, [0099] Alternatively, the fingerprint-sensing circuit may be part of the touch-sensing circuit, [0100] Alternatively, the touch-sensing circuit may be part of the fingerprint-sensing circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bae to teach “at least one sensing unit configured to perform both a biometric sensing function and a touch sensing function ”as suggested by Lee. The motivation would have been in order to reduce the required space and enable a more compact device ([0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMEN W BOGALE whose telephone number is (571)270-1579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:AM-6: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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571)272-7677. 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.
/AMEN W BOGALE/Examiner, Art Unit 2628
/NITIN PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights