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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-17, 19 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12477889. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims correspond as follows:
U.S. Application No. 19390877
U.S. Patent No. 12477889
Claim 1
Claims 1, 11 and 17
Claim 2
Claim 18
Claim 3
Claim 2 and 24
Claim 4
Claim 19
Claim 5
Claims 8 and 15
Claim 6
Claims 9 and 16
Claim 7
Claims 10 and 16
Claim 8
Claim 7 and 14
Claim 10
Claims 1, 11 and 17
Claim 11
Claims 4 and 12
Claim 12
Claims 5 and 13
Claim 13
Claims 6 and 13
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 6, 7, 12 and 13 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.
The term “about” in claims 6, 7, 12 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higano et al. (US 2022/0057664) in view of Higano et al. (US 2022/0039697, hereafter referred to as the ‘697 publication).
In regard to claim 1, Higano et al. teach a display device (fig. 3) comprising: a base layer including a first area and a second area (fig. 3 SUB1 contains multiple areas); a display element layer disposed on the base layer and including a plurality of pixels disposed in the first area and the second area (element 2 and PX), a first light sensor disposed in the first area, and a second light sensor disposed in the second area (fig. 22 and paragraphs 161-162. Higano et al. teach using separate light detectors for fingerprint and blood vessel detection); and a light-blocking layer disposed on the display element layer, wherein the light-blocking layer includes: a first opening disposed above the first light sensor; and a second opening disposed above the second light sensor (elements 51) but does not teach wherein a width of the first opening is less than a width of the second opening.
The ‘697 publication teaches wherein a width of the first opening is less than a width of the second opening (figs. 21, 22 and paragraphs 131-132. The ‘697 publication teaches using a larger area for detection of blood vessels).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of biometric detection in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Higano et al. with the separate sized light blocking areas for blood vessel and fingerprint detection as shown in the ’697 publication. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Higano et al. with the separate sized light blocking areas for blood vessel and fingerprint detection as shown in the ’697 publication because the separate detection frequencies of blood vessel and fingerprint detection have different advantages. By using different sized light-blocking areas the device can reduce crosstalk in fingerprint detection and improve resolution in blood vessel detection.
In regard to claim 8, the ‘697 publication teaches wherein an amount of light received by the second light sensor is greater than an amount of light received by the first light sensor (see fig. 22, more IR light passes through to the sensor since it has a larger aperture).
In regard to claim 10, Higano et al. teach wherein the light-blocking layer overlaps at least one of the first light sensor or the second light sensor (see fig. 22, layer 52 is above the sensor layer).
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higano et al. in view of the ‘697 publication further considered with Wang et al. (US 2021/0150178).
In regard to claim 2, Higano et al. and the ‘697 publication teach all the elements of claim 2 except wherein: the first light sensor is operated at a first operation frequency, and the second light sensor is operated at a second operation frequency higher than the first operation frequency.
Wang et al. teach wherein: the first light sensor is operated at a first operation frequency, and the second light sensor is operated at a second operation frequency higher than the first operation frequency (paragraph 86).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of biometric detection in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Higano et al. and the ’697 publication with the different operating frequencies of Wang et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Higano et al. and the ’697 publication with the different operating frequencies of Wang et al. because the separate sampling rates would allow for detection optimization based on the dynamic or static nature of the target function.
In regard to claim 3, Wang et al. teach wherein: the first light sensor is configured to sense fingerprint information, and the second light sensor is configured to sense pulse information (paragraph 86).
In regard to claim 4, Wang et al. teach wherein the first frequency corresponds to a still image, and the second frequency corresponds to a moving image (paragraph 86, Wang et al. teach detecting a fingerprint, which is still, and a pulse, which is moving.)
In regard to claim 5, the ‘697 publication teaches wherein a first resolution of a first image acquired by the first light sensor is higher than a second resolution of a second image acquired by the second light sensor (paragraph 132, the ‘697 publication teaches the fingerprint detection using a higher resolution than the vein detection).
In regard to claim 6, Wang et al. teach wherein the first operation frequency is in a range of about 1 Hz to about 10 Hz (paragraph 86, Wang et al. teach the fingerprint detection operation frequency is less than the heart rate frequency. The heart rate frequency is greater than or equal to 4 Hz. Less than 4 Hz is about 1-10 Hz).
In regard to claim 7, Wang et al. teach wherein the second operation frequency is in a range of about 30 Hz to about 500 Hz (paragraph 24, Wang et al. teach 20 Hz which is about 30 Hz).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higano et al. in view of the ‘697 publication further considered with Kubota et al. (US 2023/0309346).
In regard to claim 9, Higano et al. and the ‘697 publication teach all the elements of claim 9 except wherein: the first light sensor is provided as a plurality of first light sensors, the second light sensor is provided as a plurality of second light sensors, the plurality of pixels and the plurality of first light sensors alternately arranged in each of a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction in the first area, the plurality of pixels and the plurality of first light sensors alternately arranged in each of the first direction and the second direction in the second area.
Kubota et al. teach wherein: the first light sensor is provided as a plurality of first light sensors, the second light sensor is provided as a plurality of second light sensors, the plurality of pixels and the plurality of first light sensors alternately arranged in each of a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction in the first area, the plurality of pixels and the plurality of first light sensors alternately arranged in each of the first direction and the second direction in the second area (fig. 1A, 2A and paragraph 117. Kubota et al. teach elements 111d between 111a in the vertical direction and between 111c in the horizontal direction).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of biometric detection in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Higano et al. and the ’697 publication with the pixel and sensor arrangement of Kubota et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Higano et al. and the ’697 publication with the pixel and sensor arrangement of Kubota et al. because the arrangement of Kubota et al. would allow for integration of the fingerprint sensor into the display and would provide accurate detection over the entirety of the display.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higano et al. in view of the ‘697 publication further considered with Kanda et al. (US 2010/0245556).
In regard to claim 11, Higano et al. and the ‘697 publication teaches all the elements of claim 11 except a first color filter overlapping with the first light sensor in a plan view, the first color filter is configured to transmit light of a first wavelength band therethrough; and a second color filter overlapping with the second light sensor in the plan view, wherein the second color filter is configured to transmit light of a second wavelength band therethrough, wherein the first wavelength band is shorter than the second wavelength band.
Kanda et al. teach a first color filter overlapping with the first light sensor in a plan view, the first color filter is configured to transmit light of a first wavelength band therethrough (element 60a and paragraph 38); and a second color filter overlapping with the second light sensor in the plan view, wherein the second color filter is configured to transmit light of a second wavelength band therethrough (element 60b and paragraph 38), wherein the first wavelength band is shorter than the second wavelength band (element 60a eliminates infrared rays and 60b eliminates visible light).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of biometric detection in displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Higano et al. and the ’697 publication with the two filters of Kanda et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Higano et al. and the ’697 publication with the two filters of Kanda et al. because the two filters would reduce stray light and improve detection efficiency.
In regard to claim 12, Kanda et al. teach wherein the first wavelength band is in a range of about 380 nm to about 570 nm (paragraph 38, Kanda et al. teach eliminating light above 800nm which would transmit light between 380-570nm).
In regard to claim 13, Kanda et al. teach wherein the second wavelength band is in a range of about 600 nm to about 1000 nm (paragraph 38, Kanda et al. teach passing infrared light).
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
