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 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B, drawn to Figs. 4-5, in the reply filed on 02/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the features of claim 3 could be readily included in a proper search and examination of Species B without a serious burden. This is not found fully persuasive because the features of non-elected claim 2, Species C, drawn to Figs. 6-7, for example, remain incompatible with the structures of elected Species B, and could not be searched without undue burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper with respect to claim 2 and is therefore made FINAL.
Although claim 3 is hereby rejoined, claim 2 is hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant’s traversal in the reply filed on 02/08/2026 was incomplete by virtue of failing to address the features of claim 2.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 7 it is unclear why one arrow 450 appears without a cross-out.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 and 3-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “a signal” in line 8. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to “the optical signal” earlier recited in independent claim 1 or to some other signal.
Other rejected claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ting et al (US 20210375199 A1) in view of Lius et al (US20200311369 A1).
As recited in independent claim 1, Ting et al show an electronic device for detecting an optical signal, comprising: an optical sensor (“With the optical sensor 140 disposed in the display region (e.g., the region between the light-emitting element 120a and the light-emitting element 120b) of the display panel 100, the space waste and the affected appearance caused by the external camera lens are improved, or technical problems, such as failing to directly look at the screen and the image capturing device at the same time while the users use the image capturing device, are solved” [0029]); and a light-emitting element (120a, for example) disposed adjacent (see relative positions of 120a and through hole T4 in Fig. 7, for example, wherein “The optical sensor is disposed corresponding to the through hole and receives sensing light through the hole” [ABST]) to the optical sensor 140, wherein the optical sensor 140 is configured to detect the optical signal (“to obtain image data of the object to be photographed by receiving sensing light” [0028]).
As recited in independent claim 1, Ting et al are silent regarding whether the light-emitting element has a first brightness during a non-detection period of the electronic device, the light-emitting element is dimmed and has a second brightness during a detection period of the electronic device, the optical sensor is configured to output a signal when the light-emitting element is dimmed, and the first brightness is greater than the second brightness.
As recited in independent claim 1, Lius et al disclose that a (blue, for example) light-emitting element has a first brightness during a non-detection period of the electronic device (“prior to entering the fingerprint authentication process, the display pixels 232 may be commanded to display a cyan-colored object, hence, only the green pixels and the blue pixels are driven at high luminance” [0041]), the (blue, for example) light-emitting element is dimmed and has a second brightness during a detection period (insofar as “the red pixels and/or the green pixels in the first region 30 may be turned on for the fingerprint authentication process” [0042] whereas “Turning off the plurality of blue pixels” occurs at step 110) of the electronic device, the optical sensor is (inherently, insofar as fingerprint authentication would be impossible without such a configuration) configured to output a signal (to the extent understood) when the (blue, for example) light-emitting element is dimmed (for fingerprint authentication), and the first brightness (when the blue and green pixels are driven at high luminance to display a cyan object) is greater than the second brightness (when the red and green pixels are on for fingerprint authentication while blue pixels are off).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that dimming a light-emitting element during detection was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to dim at least one light-emitting element of Ting et al during detection. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to optimize power use by emitting light only in the color(s) needed for display and/or detection of a user’s fingerprint as taught by Lius et al (“prior to entering the fingerprint authentication process, the display pixels 232 may be commanded to display a cyan-colored object, hence, only the green pixels and the blue pixels are driven at high luminance” [0041]; “the red pixels and/or the green pixels in the first region 30 may be turned on for the fingerprint authentication process” [0042]; “at least one of the blue pixels 232B in the first region 30 are turned off in the step 110” [0037]).
As recited in claim 3, Ting et al’s optical sensor (see position of T4 in Fig. 7) does not overlap (see relative positions in Fig. 7) the light-emitting element (120a, for example).
As recited in claim 4, Ting et al are silent regarding whether during the detection period of the electronic device, a gray level of the light-emitting element is zero.
Regarding claim 4: It is noted by the Examiner that the turned-off blue pixel of Lius et al is fairly construed as having a gray level of zero.
See teachings, findings, and rationale above for claim 1.
As recited in claim 5, Ting et al are silent regarding whether during the detection period of the electronic device, the light-emitting element is turned off.
As recited in claim 5, Lius et al shows that during the detection period of the electronic device (during fingerprint authentication), the (blue) light-emitting element is turned off (“Turning off the plurality of blue pixels” occurs at step 110).
See teachings, findings, and rationale above for claim 1.
As recited in claim 6, Ting et al shows an organic light-emitting diode (“The light-emitting diode may, for example, include organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs)”.
As recited in claim 7, Ting et al show a substrate 110, having a normal direction (perpendicular to a plane of the panel); and an another light-emitting element 120; wherein the another light-emitting element 120, the light-emitting element 120a and the optical sensor 140 are disposed on the substrate 110; wherein when viewing along the normal direction (perpendicular to a plane of the panel), the optical sensor 140 is adjacent to the light-emitting element 120a and the another light-emitting element 120, and a distance between the optical sensor 120a and the light-emitting element (see location of through hole T4 in Fig. 7, for example) is different from a distance between the optical sensor (see location of through hole T4 in Fig. 7, for example) and the another light-emitting element (120 in a different row from 120a, for example, wherein 120 is further from T4 than 120a).
As recited in claim 8, Ting et al show that the distance between the optical sensor 140 and the light-emitting element 120a is less than half (see appearance of Fig. 7) of a distance between the light-emitting element 120a and the another light-emitting element 120.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
04/23/2026
Prosecution Insights