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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bok (US 2020/0364434) in view of Hiemstra et al. (US 2021/0353226).
In regard to claim 1, Bok teaches an electronic device comprising: a display device (fig. 1 DA and paragraphs 238 smart watch); and a sensor portion (A1 and FPS), wherein the display device comprises: a substrate (fig. 1B SUB); a first transistor over the substrate (fig. 4B TFT); a first insulating layer over the first transistor (fig. 4B PSV); a first display element comprising a first pixel electrode (EL1) which is electrically connected to the first transistor (fig. 4B), the first pixel electrode being provided over and in contact with the first insulating layer (fig. 4B EL1 connected to PSV); a second transistor over the substrate; a second display element comprising a second pixel electrode which is electrically connected to the second transistor, the second pixel electrode being provided over and in contact with the first insulating layer (fig. 4A, there are 3 pixels and each pixel has the same structure as the pixel SP1); and a first light-receiving element (FPS and paragraph 101) but does not teach wherein the sensor portion comprises: a third display element below the substrate; and a second light-receiving element below the substrate.
Hiemstra et al. teach a third display element below the substrate; and a second light-receiving element below the substrate (fig. 3A elements 118 and 120. The sensor and LED are below the display 114 which includes a substrate).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of wearable displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Bok with the sensor of Hiemstra et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Bok with the sensor of Hiemstra et al. because the sensor of Hiemstra et al. would allow for the sensing of more biological information and would provide the user with useful health information.
In regard to claim 6, Bok teaches an electronic device comprising: a housing (fig. 1A and paragraph 238); a display device (fig. 1 DA and paragraphs 238 smart watch); and a sensor portion (A1 and FPS), wherein the display device comprises: a substrate (fig. 1B SUB); a first transistor over the substrate (fig. 4B TFT); a first insulating layer over the first transistor (fig. 4B PSV); a first display element comprising a first pixel electrode (EL1) which is electrically connected to the first transistor (fig. 4B), the first pixel electrode being provided over and in contact with the first insulating layer (fig. 4B EL1 connected to PSV); a second transistor over the substrate; a second display element comprising a second pixel electrode which is electrically connected to the second transistor, the second pixel electrode being provided over and in contact with the first insulating layer (fig. 4A, there are 3 pixels and each pixel has the same structure as the pixel SP1); and a first light-receiving element (FPS and paragraph 101), wherein the housing comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (paragraph 238, Bok teaches a smartwatch which has first and second surfaces on the housing) but does not teach wherein the sensor portion comprises: a third display element below the substrate; and a second light-receiving element below the substrate wherein the display device is positioned on the first surface, and wherein the sensor portion is positioned on the second surface.
Hiemstra et al. teach a third display element below the substrate; and a second light-receiving element below the substrate (fig. 3A elements 118 and 120. The sensor and LED are below the display 114 which includes a substrate) wherein the display device is positioned on the first surface (fig. 3A element 114 positioned on top of the device), and wherein the sensor portion is positioned on the second surface (elements 118 and 120 are on the bottom).
In regard to claims 9 and 10, Bok teaches wherein the first transistor comprises a metal oxide in a channel formation region (paragraph 122 oxide semiconductor).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bok in view of Hiemstra et al. further considered with Park et al. (US 2020/0083302).
In regard to claim 5, Bok teach wherein the first display element is configured to emit one of blue light, green light, and red light (paragraph 16) but neither Bok nor Hiemstra et al. teach wherein the second display element is configured to emit infrared light, and wherein the third display element is configured to emit infrared light.
Park et al. teach wherein the second display element is configured to emit infrared light, and wherein the third display element is configured to emit infrared light (fig. 3A).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of wearable displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Bok and Hiemstra et al. with the IR sensors of Park et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Bok and Hiemstra et al. with the IR sensors of Park et al. the IR OLEDs are invisible to a user and would not interfere with display operations.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bok in view of Hiemstra et al. further considered with Osawa et al. (US 2015/0055051).
In regard to claims 12 and 13, Bok and Hiemstra et al. teach all the elements of these claims except wherein the first transistor comprises a metal oxide in a channel formation region, and wherein the second transistor comprises silicon in a channel formation region.
Osawa et al. teach wherein the first transistor comprises a metal oxide in a channel formation region, and wherein the second transistor comprises silicon in a channel formation region (fig. 5 and paragraph 50. Osawa et al. teach each pixel containing multiple transistors and each pixel contains both oxide and silicon transistors).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of wearable displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Bok and Hiemstra et al. with the different transistors of Osawa et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Bok and Hiemstra et al. with the different transistors of Osawa et al. because each transistor has different characteristics which provide different advantages. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of the two type of transistors in a pixel would allow for low leakage current and fast switching times.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bok in view of Hiemstra et al. further considered with Song et al. (US 2021/0150176).
In regard to claim 15, Bok teaches wherein the display device comprises a touch sensor, wherein the touch sensor is configured to sense a position of the second target object touching the display device (fig. 7 element S1 and paragraph 161) but neither Bok nor Hiemstra et al. teach wherein the display device is configured to turn on the second display element at and in the vicinity of the position.
Song et al. teach wherein the display device is configured to turn on the second display element at and in the vicinity of the position (fig. 6 element S1100 and paragraph 12).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Bok and Hiemstra et al. with the touch activated biometric detection of Song et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Bok and Hiemstra et al. with the touch activated biometric detection of Song et al. because only activating the biometric sensor when a device is touched would reduce power consumption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are 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.
Claims 7, 8, 11 and 14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach or make obvious obtaining first authentication information with the third display element and obtaining second authentication information using the second display element.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights