DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. Amendment of the patent application submitted on February 05, 2026, has been received and recorded. In response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2025, independent claims 1 and 21 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled and its subject matter has been incorporated into independent claims 1 and 21. Applicant maintained claims 2, 4-20 and 22-30. No claim has been added as new claim after the Non-Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-2, and 4-30 are pending for consideration.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments in "Remarks" submitted on February 05, 2026, with respect to independent claims 1, and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendment. Since objected claim 3 depends on 2 and claim 2 depends on independent claim 1, combination of claims 1, 2 and 3 would not be the same as the combination of claims 1 and 3. Without incorporating the subject matter of intervening claim 2 into independent claim 1, amendment changes the scope of the independent claim 1. Similarly, claim 3 was not dependent on independent claim 21. Therefore, amendment incorporating the subject matter of claim 3 into independent claim 21 changes the scope of the claim 21. Therefore, it is a new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s argued that Lee does not appear to cure the deficiencies of Sim in rejecting claim 1. However, Lee teaches antenna elements of different regions made of material of different permeabilities in each respective zone. Claim limitations define two regions of different permeabilities in each zone. Therefore, it is obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Lee into Sim’s teaching to get the claim limitations using known method and known technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-16, 18-19, 21-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al.(US 2018/0341290 A1)(herein after Sim) in view of LEE et al.(US 2018/00 40950 A1) (herein after LEE) and further in view of HE et al.(US 2021/0323330 A1) (herein after HE).
Regarding claim 1, Sim teaches an electronic device (electronic device 201, fig.2, Para-63) comprising:
a display panel(touch screen display 210, fig.2, Para-63; display device 320, fig.3, Para-69; display panel 1330, fig.13A, Para-154);
a cover panel(fig.13A-13B) under the display panel(1330) (Para 153-156); and
an electronic module(finger print sensor 1390, figs.13A-13B, Para-155) under the display panel(panel 1330),
wherein the cover panel(figs.13A-13B) comprises:
a cushion layer(C-panel 1350, figs.13A-13B, Para-97: sponge layer for alleviating pressure) under the display panel(1330);
a magnetic layer(digitizer 1360, figs.13A-13B) under the cushion layer(1350); and
a conductive layer(shielding sheet 1365, Cu & Gr, figs.13A-13B) under the magnetic layer(1360),
wherein a first opening(opening between 1362a, fig.13A) is defined in the cushion layer(1350, fig.13B) and magnetic layer (1360, fig.13A),
wherein a second opening(opening between 1365, fig.13A) is defined in the conductive layer(Cu&Gr), and
wherein the electronic module(finger print sensor 1390, figs. 13A-13B, Para-155) is located in the first opening and the second opening(figs.13A-13B).
Nevertheless, Sim is not found to teach expressly the electronic device, wherein a first area adjacent to the electronic module and having a first magnetic permeability and a second area around the first area and having a second magnetic permeability different from the first magnetic permeability are defined in the cover panel.
However, LEE teaches an electronic device, wherein shielding structure of an electronic device is made from materials having different magnetic permeability(fig.9A, Para-213; also Para-128). One of ordinary skill in the art uses the concept of LEE of materials having different magnetic permeability around the first area and the second area and the result would be predictable.
The prior art, as embodied in the teachings of Sim and LEE, included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and known technology and in that combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The combination is desirable as it provides an electronic device including a structure that has an improved credit-card payment function.
Neither Sim nor LEE teaches expressly the electronic device, wherein the second area is 1.5 to 1.6 times the first area.
PNG
media_image1.png
123
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
164
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig.11b(Prior art) Fig.17(current application)
However, HE teaches a touch sensing display device, wherein the second area is 1.5 to 1.6 times the first area(figs.11b-12b, Para 81-97).
PNG
media_image3.png
112
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig.12a
HE discloses the algorithm for calculating step dimension of the holes and sub-hole. So two parameters X1, X2 are known, step dimension(third parameter) is calculated using formula
∆
x
=
(
X
1
-
X
2
)
2
(
n
-
1
)
(fig.11b, Para-94)
wherein, n represents for the total number of the sub-via holes in the same via hole, X1 represents diameter of first sub-hole of the same via hole, and X2 represents diameter of second sub-hole of the same via hole. First area AR1 depends on the step dimension Δx. Therefore, it is easy to calculate area AR2 is 1.5 to 1.6 times the first area AR1 based on the design parameter.
Therefore, it wis obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art could calculate the second area 1.5 to 106 times the first area using formula taught by HE and implemented into Sim’s disclosure. The motivation for the combination is desirable as it improves printing accuracy so as to realize ink printing gathering process to a display region during manufacturing of a touch panel to cover metal wiring parts through a printed anti-corrosion layer, thus preventing the metal wiring parts from erosion.
Regarding claim 2, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a first area of the first opening is smaller than a second area of the second opening(figs.13A-13B, Sim).
Regarding claim 4, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein, in a plan view, the magnetic layer(digitizer 1360, fig.13A, Para-154, Sim) covers the conductive layer(Cu and Gr layer 1360, fig.13A, Sim)(Cu is a conductive material).
Regarding claim 5, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the magnetic layer comprises ferrite(Para-105, LEE), and the conductive layer comprises copper(copper sheet, Para-100, Sim).
Regarding claim 6, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein a magnetic permeability of the magnetic layer is higher than a magnetic permeability of the conductive layer(it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and well-known that magnetic permeability is more in magnetic material than the ordinary metal).
Regarding claim 7, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein, in a plan view, at least a portion of the second opening overlaps the first area (figs.13A-13B, Sim).
Regarding claim 8, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein, in a plan view, the electronic module does not overlap the magnetic layer and the conductive layer(fig.13A, Sim)(as the electronic module, finger print sensor 1390, is in the hole/opening it will not overlap magnetic layer, digitizer and conductive layer, Cu sheet).
Regarding claim 9, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic module comprises a fingerprint sensor(finger print sensor 1390, figs.13A-13B, Sim).
Regarding claim 10, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic module comprises a speaker or a photo sensor(finger print sensor 1390, figs.13A-13B, Sim).
Regarding claim 11, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein each of the first opening and the second opening has a circular shape(Para-84, 113-118, Sim) (it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the size, shape and position of the opening depend on the designer choice, could be circular, polygonal, hexagonal or octagonal and it is well known in the art).
Regarding claim 12, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein each of the first opening and the second opening has a quadrangular shape(Para-84, 113-118, Sim).
Regarding claim 14, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the magnetic layer comprises a first portion in the first area and a second portion in the second area(figs.9A-9B, 13A-13B, Sim; fig.9A, Para-128, 213, LEE), and
wherein a magnetic permeability of the first portion is higher than a magnetic permeability of the second portion(as the magnetic permeability of the shielding structure 904 is different for different area, one of ordinary skill in the art could made the magnetic permeability of the first portion higher value and second portion lower value).
Regarding claim 15, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 14, wherein areas of the first opening and the second opening are the same(one of ordinary skill in the art could make the both holes same size using known method and known technology in order to make manufacturing process simpler)(see US 2021/0103353 A1 for example).
Regarding claim 16, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 14, wherein a first area of the first opening is smaller than a second area of the second opening(fig.13A, Sim).
Regarding claim 18, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein, in a plan view, the conductive layer(Cu sheet, fig.13B, Sim) overlaps only the second area(area below 1362b), and the magnetic layer(fig.5A; digitizer 560, fig.7, Sim) overlaps the first area and the second area(fig.5A, Sim).
Regarding claim 19, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 18, wherein the cover panel further comprises an insulating layer(C-Panel 1350, fig.13A, Para-155) at a same layer(protective film PF 1340, fig.13A, Para-155, Sim) as the conductive layer(1365) and overlapping the first area (corner of the area A) in a plan view (fig.13A, Sim).
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since both claims 1 and 21 recite identical claim limitations with broader limitations in claim 1.
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2, since both claims 2 and 22 recite identical claim limitations.
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 4, since both claims 4 and 23 recite identical claim limitations.
Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 5, since both claims 5 and 24 recite identical claim limitations.
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 14, since both claims 14 and 25 recite identical claim limitations.
Claim 26 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 18, since both claims 18 and 26 recite identical claim limitations.
Regarding claim 28, Sim as modified by LEE and HE teaches the electronic device of claim 21, wherein, in a plan view, the conductive layer(Cu sheet, fig.13A, Sim) does not overlap the first area(figs.13A-13B, Sim).
Claim 29 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 19, since both claims 19 and 29 recite identical claim limitations.
8. Claims 13, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al.(US 2018/0341290 A1), LEE et al.(US 2018/0040950 A1), HE et al.(US 2021/0323330 A1) and further in view of LEE et al.(US 2019/0004638 A1)(herein after LEE’638)
Regarding claim 13, Sim as modified by LEE and HE is not found to teach expressly the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the display panel comprises a display layer and a sensor layer on the display layer, and wherein the sensor layer comprises: a plurality of first electrodes arranged along a first direction and extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction; a plurality of second electrodes arranged along the second direction and extending in the first direction; a plurality of first auxiliary electrodes arranged along the first direction, extending in the second direction, and overlapping the plurality of first electrodes; and a plurality of second auxiliary electrodes arranged along the second direction, extending in the first direction, and overlapping the plurality of second electrodes.
However, LEE’638 teaches expressly a touch sensing display device, wherein the display panel(120, 130, 150, fig.1, Para-41) comprises a display layer(120, 130) and a sensor layer(150) on the display layer(120, 130), and
wherein the sensor layer comprises:
a plurality of first electrodes(TE1 or TE2, fig.2) arranged along a first direction(X-axis or Y-axis direction) and extending in a second direction(Y-axis or X-axis direction) intersecting the first direction;
a plurality of second electrodes(TE2 or TE1) arranged along the second direction(Y-axis or X-axis direction) and extending in the first direction(X-axis or Y-axis direction;
a plurality of first auxiliary electrodes(dummy patterns DP, fig.5) arranged along the first direction, extending in the second direction, and overlapping the plurality of first electrodes(Para-124); and
a plurality of second auxiliary electrodes(DP) arranged along the second direction, extending in the first direction, and overlapping the plurality of second electrodes(Para-124).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Sim further with the teaching of LEE’638 to include the feature in order to improve productivity of a touch screen panel.
Claim 27 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 13, since both claims 13 and 27 recite identical claim limitations.
9. Claims 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al.(US 2018/0341290 A1), LEE et al.(US 2018/0040950 A1), HE et al.(US 2021/0323330 A1) and further in view of KIM et al.(US 2022/0368786 A1)(herein after KIM).
Regarding claim 20, Sim as modified by LEE and HE is not found to teach expressly the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the cover panel further comprises a sub-conductive layer under the conductive layer and having a third opening having an area larger than that of the second opening is defined.
However, KIM teaches an electronic device comprising a flexible display, wherein the cover panel further comprises a sub-[conductive] layer under the conductive layer(display panel) and having a third opening(opening made by 421-3 and 422-3, fig.5B) having an area larger than that of the second opening(opening made by 421-2 and 422-2, fig.5B) is defined.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Sim further with the teaching of KIM to include the feature in order to prevent a camera module from being shaken or damaged by an external impact.
Claim 30 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 20, since both claims 20 and 30 recite identical claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 17: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, “the electronic device of claim 14, wherein an area of the first portion is 0.2 to 0.3 times an area of each of the first opening and the second opening”.
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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.
Examiner Note
13. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626