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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 08/25/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 11,443,499 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
1. Amendment filed on 08/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (US 2019/0012555) in view of Shi et al (US 2014/0218327).
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); and
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).
While Bae teaches a light altering member (a micro lens layer 210), Bae does not teach a light altering member disposed between the substrate and the touch sensing layer as claimed.
However, Shi teaches a light altering member disposed between the substrate and the touch sensing layer (Figure 5 depicts that micro-lens 1920 disposed between the touch panel 3000 and the substrate).
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 include, a light altering member disposed between the substrate and the touch sensing layer, as suggested by Shi. The motivation would have been in order to reduce noise from entering into the sensor.
As to claim 2, Bae in view of Shi teaches the electronic device, further comprising a supporting element disposed between the substrate and the biometric sensing module (Bae: the light-shielding layer 220, fig. 2).
As to claim 3, Bae in view of Shi teaches the electronic device, wherein the supporting element comprises a hole (Bae: plurality of holes 221, fig. 2), and the biometric sensing module is disposed corresponding to the hole (Bae: [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 in view of Shi teaches the electronic device, wherein the light altering member is at least partially disposed in the first region (Bae: a micro lens layer 210 with its plurality of lenses 211, fig. 2).
As to claim 5, Bae in view of Shi teaches the electronic device, wherein the light altering member (Bae: a micro lens layer 210) is disposed between the substrate (Bae: a protection layer 118, fig. 1) and the biometric sensing module (Bae: optical sensor layer 230 (fig. 2), fig. 1).
As to claim 6, Bae in view of Shi teaches the electronic device, wherein the light altering member (Bae: micro lens layer 210, fig. 2) comprises a first insulating layer and a micro-structure layer (Bae: plurality of lenses 211, fig. 2) disposed on the first insulating layer (Bae: part of micro lens layer 210 other than the plurality of lenses 211, fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Bae in view of Shi teaches the electronic device, further comprising a color filter layer disposed on the substrate (Bae: [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 in view of Shi teaches the electronic device, further comprising a display layer disposed on the substrate (Bae: display panel 117, fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Bae in view of Shi teaches the electronic device, wherein the display layer comprises a plurality of conductive lines (Bae: [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 in view of Shi teaches the electronic device wherein the display medium layer comprises light-emitting diodes (Bae: [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).
4. 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 Shi et al (US 2014/0218327) and further in view of Chou (US 2014/0168121).
As to claim 11, Bae in view of Shi 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 in view of Shi to teach a facial sensor as suggested by Chou. The motivation would have been in order to provide “robust authentication method” ([0005]).
5. 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 Shi et al (US 2014/0218327) and further in view of Lee et al (US 2018/0173923).
As to claim 12, Bae in view of Shi 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 in view of Shi 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
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 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