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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,673. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is almost identical in scope as indicated below.
US Patent 12,273,673
Instant application
Claim 14, a display device comprising:
a substrate;
a plurality of light-emitting elements disposed on the substrate;
at least one inorganic or organic layer disposed on the plurality of light-emitting elements;
a first sound electrode disposed on the at least one inorganic or organic layer; and
a driving electrode, a sensing electrode, and a second sound electrode disposed in a same
first layer as one another and on a second layer including the first sound electrode, the second layer being different from the first layer and the second sound electrode being electrically separated from the driving electrode and the sensing electrode, and wherein a first sound driving voltage is applied to the first sound electrode, and a second sound driving voltage is applied to the second sound electrode, and
wherein a touch is sensed using the driving electrode and the sensing electrode.
Claim 1, A display device comprising:
a substrate;
a plurality of light-emitting elements disposed on the substrate;
at least one inorganic or organic layer disposed on the plurality of light-emitting elements;
a first sound electrode and a second sound electrode disposed on the at least one inorganic or organic layer, the first sound electrode electrically separated from the second sound electrode; and
a driving electrode and a sensing electrode disposed on the first sound electrode and the second sound electrode, the driving electrode electrically separated from the sensing electrode, wherein a first sound driving voltage is applied to the first sound electrode, and a second sound driving voltage is applied to the second sound electrode, and a touch is sensed using the driving electrode and the sensing electrode.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US Pub: 2019/0028669 A1) in view of Kho et al. (US Pub: 2019/0122018 A1).
As to claim 1, Shin discloses a display device (i.e. as seen in figure 1A and 1B embodiment the display panel 100) (see Fig. 1A, 1B and 3, [0061-0062]) comprising:
a substrate (i.e. the substrate 110) (see Fig. 3);
a plurality of light-emitting elements disposed on the substrate (i.e. the emitting device 130 as seen in figure 3 has a plurality of light-emitting OLED elements) (see Fig. 3, [0051]);
at least one inorganic or organic layer disposed on the plurality of light-emitting elements (i.e. the organic emitting diode device is disposed on at least one inorganic or organic layer) (see Fig. 3);
a first sound electrode (i.e. element 233 and 235 on the right element of figure 3) and a second sound electrode (i.e. element 233 and 235 as seen left element in figure 3) disposed on the at least one inorganic or organic layer (i.e. the layer 200 as seen in figure 3) (see Fig. 3, [0099-0102]), the first sound electrode electrically separated from the second sound electrode (i.e. as demonstrated in figures 3 and 4 the two different sound electrodes are seen in the left and right 200 element assembly) (see Fig. 3-4, [0099-0108]); and
a driving electrode (i.e. driving element 500 is connected to the sound electrode as seen in figure 4) (see Fig. 4) and, the driving electrode electrically separated from the sensing electrode (i.e. as seen in figure 3-4 the electrode of the left and right side of the device 300 is separated driven) (see Fig. 3, [0099-0102]) wherein a first sound driving voltage is applied to the first sound electrode, and a second sound driving voltage is applied to the second sound electrode (i.e. as seen in figure 3-4 the different unit of 200 element is seen individually driven in figure 4 embodiment) (see Fig. 3-4, [0099-0108]).
However, Shin is silent with respect to a sensing electrode disposed on the first sound electrode and the second sound electrode a touch is sensed using the driving electrode and the sensing electrode.
In a related art of a piezoelectric panel speaker, the prior art Kho teaches sensor electrodes on the sound electrodes (i.e. touch sensing electrode and/or sensor electrode 335/337 of figure 5 disposed on the vibration layer) (see Fig. 5, [0057-0065]). As seen in figure 5 Kho teaches the plurality of fingerprint sensors 330 may be respectively accommodated into the plurality of holes 311h in the piezo electrode panel 310, and may transmit or receive an ultrasound signal according to the biometric recognition driving signal to sense biometric information, where each of the of finger print sensor 330, therefore the touch sensing system of Kho sense the user’s finger print with the driving and sensing electrodes.
Since both Shin and Kho are analogous arts having the same field of applications, it would have been obvious for an artisan of ordinary skill at the accepted filing date of the current application to have used the sensor electrodes disposed on the vibration layer, and the sensor electrode sensing an input, Since Kho states such a modification would reinforce security (see Kho, [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art Choi et al. (US Pat: 11,265,655 B2) is cited to teach another type dual sound electrode based display system in figure 1-7 embodiments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN C. MA whose telephone number is (571)270-1713. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Benjamin C. Lee can be reached on 571-272-2963. 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.
/CALVIN C MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 January 23, 2026