US 10302484

I'll run targeted searches for this patent number and any litigation/docket activity.

Let me check for litigation activity and any CAFC docket references specifically tied to this patent number.

US 10,302,484 B2 — Verification Summary

Search note: My tool calls returned patent-database records (Google Patents, PubChem patent record, USPTO.report) but no results in any CAFC 2026 docket, no district-court complaint, and no other litigation/PTAB document naming patent 10,302,484 or application 15/628,648. I cannot confirm absence of litigation with certainty — my search coverage of PACER/CAFC dockets is not authoritative — but nothing surfaced. The only "10302484" hits were the patent itself plus one passive citation of it in another patent's family listing.

Bibliographic data (confirmed consistently across sources)

Prior art cited on the face of the patent: US 2005/0189624 A1 (Sun), US 2013/0194199 A1 (Apple), US 2014/0036168 A1 (Ludwig), and US 2018/0228414 A1 (Apple).

Minor data caveat: one aggregator page (patentleaderboard.com) renders a page header reading "Cheng-Kuang Sun — 14 Patents at United Microelectronics," while the row for 10302484 itself lists Novatek Microelectronics. I read this as a site-scraping artifact (the inventor's broader portfolio), not an assignee change — Google Patents, PubChem, and the recorded assignment all say Novatek.

Abstract (as issued)

An optical sensor includes a substrate and a plurality of pixel units disposed on the substrate. Each pixel unit includes a light source element that emits light, a light sensor element that senses an optical image, a circuit unit configured to drive both the light source element to emit light and the light sensor element to sense the optical image, and an isolation element that isolates the light sensor element from the light source element. The light source element is disposed between the isolation element of the respective pixel unit and an isolation element of a neighboring pixel unit.

Plain-language overview of the independent claim

Claim 1 (the only independent claim):

A two-part structure:

1. Base structure — an optical sensor comprising a substrate and a plurality of pixel units formed on that substrate.

2. Per-pixel components — every pixel unit must contain all four of:

   • a light source element that emits light;
   • a light sensor element that senses an optical image;
   • a circuit unit that both drives the light source to emit and drives the light sensor to sense (i.e., a combined drive + readout function, not necessarily a specific circuit topology); and
   • an isolation element that isolates the light sensor element from the light source element (an optical block preventing the sensor from directly picking up the source's light without reflection off the touching object).

3. The spatial limitation that does the real claiming work — the light source element must be positioned between the isolation element of its own pixel unit and the isolation element of the adjacent (neighboring) pixel unit. In other words, each emitter is flanked on both sides by isolation structures, one belonging to its own pixel and one shared/belonging to the neighbor.

Nothing in claim 1 recites OLED specifically, layer ordering, or the photoconductive-film sensor — those are all pushed into dependent claims.

Dependent claim map (brief)

• 2–5: Light sensor sits under a space defined by the isolation element; source + isolation in a first layer; sensor + circuit in a second layer below the first; normal projections of the light source and circuit unit on the substrate overlap.
• 6: Sensor is a PIN (p-i-n) photodiode, horizontally or vertically integrated.
• 7–12: Sensor is inside a space defined by the isolation element; source, sensor and isolation all in the first layer with the circuit in the lower second layer; normal projections of source and sensor both overlap the circuit's projection; sensor implemented as two horizontal electrodes plus a photoconductive film, or as positive/negative electrodes horizontal or vertical plus a photoconductive film.
• 13: A covering element (cover lens) over the pixel units.
• 14: Circuit unit is split into a readout circuit tied to a readout line and a driving circuit tied to the light source.
• 15: The driving circuit includes a row select transistor whose first end couples to the light source, second end to a system voltage, control end receives a row select signal.
• 16: Optionally a feedback transistor whose first end couples to the second end of the row select transistor, second end to the system voltage, and control end to the readout line (feedback to boost drive current when sensed light is weak).

Points of uncertainty

• No confirmed litigation. I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry, PTAB proceeding, or district-court case naming this patent. Treat the litigation status as unverified rather than as an affirmative "no litigation" finding.
• Real party in interest / ownership changes after 2017: the record shows only the original Novatek assignment; I did not find evidence of later reassignment, but I did not search the full USPTO Assignment database directly for post-2019 conveyances.
• Claim scope statements above are my reading of the issued text; the authoritative source is the granted claims themselves at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10302484B2](/patent/US10302484B2)/en.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10302484.

Let me search more specifically for litigation databases and case filings.

Let me check the Unified Patents portal page for this patent and any court dockets.

AIA Trial Proceedings on US 10,302,484 — Analysis

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,302,484: 0. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) "PTAB proceedings on file" block is empty — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, no derivations — and my independent web checks (PTAB petitions portal, PTAB E2E, docket aggregators) surfaced nothing naming this patent as the subject of an AIA trial. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore not "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened," but the opposite: this is an untested patent. Claim 1 and every one of claims 2–16 are alive, never construed by the Board, and never subjected to an institution-stage or merits-stage validity challenge. For a defendant, that cuts both ways — there is no favorable FWD to point at, but there is also zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel on any ground and no Board precedent locking in an adverse claim construction. The full prior-art universe is still available.

(Note: the "Previously generated sections" for Litigation summary and PTAB proceedings were both essentially null returns. This analysis is consistent with, and extends, those: no assertion activity, no AIA activity.)

⚠️ Identity caution before you read anything else

Almost every web hit for the string "the '484 patent" in the PTAB context refers to U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484 (Omni MedSci, Inc., "Semiconductor Diodes-based Physiological Measurement Device") — a wearable physiological-measurement patent litigated against Apple, Samsung, WHOOP, and others, subject to IPR2021-00453 and a Fed. Cir. appeal (Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., Nos. 23-1034, 25-1646). That is a different patent owned by a different entity, with a different specification and different claim set.

US 10,302,484 is Novatek Microelectronics Corp.'s "Optical sensor module" — an OLED-integrated fingerprint/optical sensing array (inventors Cheng-Kuang Sun and Ying-Neng Huang; priority 2017-01-24 via provisional 62/450,049; filed 2017-06-21; granted 2019-05-28; adjusted expiration 2037-11-11). Do not let the "'484" shorthand in unrelated PTAB papers bleed into this file. I found no proceeding that names US 10,302,484.

Proceedings detail

No proceedings exist, so there is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to populate. I am not going to invent a proceeding number, a panel, or a disposition to fill this section.

For completeness, here are the negative findings on the canonical structures:

• USPTO ODP structured data (canonical): no AIA trial proceedings listed.
• PTAB petitions portal / PTAB E2E: no petition or trial document referencing US 10,302,484 surfaced.
• Federal Circuit: no appeal identified from any PTAB decision on this patent (necessarily — there is no FWD to appeal).
• Unified Patents / defensive aggregator activity: none found. The patent does not appear on Unified's patent portal pages surfaced by search.

Strategic summary

Claim status — all claims UNTESTED. Claims 1–16 issue intact from the grant and have never been canceled, amended, or held unpatentable. Nothing has been narrowed by the Board, so there is no "surviving claim" carve-out to work with. Claim 1 is the broadest asserted target: a substrate plus a plurality of pixel units, each with a light source element, light sensor element, circuit unit, and isolation element, "wherein the light source element is disposed between the isolation element of the respective pixel unit and an isolation element of a neighboring pixel unit." Dependent claims 2–5 add the "light sensor element under a space defined by the isolation element" arrangement and the first-layer/second-layer stacking with overlapping normal projections (claim 5). Claims 7–12 cover the second-embodiment variants where the sensor sits inside the isolation-defined space, including the OPF/photoconductive-film electrode configurations. Claims 14–16 are the circuit claims — readout circuit plus driving circuit, row-select transistor, and the optional feedback transistor whose control end couples to the readout line.

Estoppel landscape — clean slate. Because there has never been an IPR that reached a final written decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to nobody. No defendant is barred from asserting any § 102 or § 103 ground, and no patent owner has had the benefit of a Board claim construction to carry into district court. Practically, that means the first defendant to file gets the maximum strategic option value: full freedom on art selection, full freedom on claim-construction positions, and the ability to shape the institution record. It also means there is no co-pending IPR to leverage for a § 315(a) or Fintiv-style discretionary-denial argument — if you want the stay, you have to file.

Pattern signals — absence of activity is itself the signal. Well-asserted patents in the OLED-fingerprint space (this CPC cluster — H10K59/60, H10K59/65, G06V40/13xx, H10F39/198 — is exactly where Samsung, Apple, Egis, and the sensor houses litigate) attract IPRs quickly. This one has been granted since 2019-05-28 and has picked up forward citations including Apple's US 10,768,751 B2 (filed 2017-06-13) and an Egis Technology publication (US 2023/0261013 A1), yet no petitioner has touched it. Combined with the empty litigation summary, the most likely explanation is that Novatek — a display-driver IC house, not a litigating NPE — has not been asserting it. There is no serial-petitioner pattern, no patent-owner PTAB-appeal history, and no NPE/aggregator in the chain.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and Novatek (or an assignee) has put this patent in a demand letter or complaint:

1. Calendar the § 315(b) one-year bar immediately. The date you are served with a complaint alleging infringement starts a hard 12-month clock to file an IPR. Because no prior petitioner exists, there is no joinder or co-pending-trial argument to extend it (see § 315(c) joinder, which still requires a timely first petition by someone). Get art searching started now, not after the answer.

2. PGR is off the table; IPR is your only vehicle. The patent issued 2019-05-28 and the § 321(c) nine-month PGR window closed on/about 2020-02-28. CBM is unavailable (the transitional program sunset for new petitions on 2018-09-16, and in any event this is a sensor patent, not a "financial product or service" patent). File under § 102/§ 103, and consider § 112 written-description arguments in the district court rather than at the Board.

3. Attack the claim 1 lynchpin — the "between two isolation elements" limitation. That geometry (light source element sandwiched between the isolation element of its own pixel unit and that of a neighbor) is the feature the examiner relied on for allowance and the feature most likely to be the non-infringement/design-around pressure point too. It is also the limitation most vulnerable to a § 103 combination of an OLED-display-with-integrated-photodiode reference (e.g., the Apple '199 publication cited in the file history, US 2013/0194199 A1) plus a light-blocking/bank-structure reference. Build the petition around this limitation, not around the generic "light source + light sensor + circuit" recitation, which is old.

4. Mind the claim 5 / claim 10 "overlapping normal projection" limitations. These are the structural heart of the "high fill factor / high aperture ratio" story. If your product stacks the driver circuit under the emitter, you may be squarely inside claim 5; if your circuit is laterally offset, you may have a strong non-infringement story that also doubles as a claim-construction argument ("normal projection ... overlap").

5. Since there is no FWD to cite, don't imply one. Any invalidity contention you serve must be independently supported. There is no Board finding, no canceled claim, and no estoppel to borrow.

If you are the patent owner: the complete absence of PTAB activity is a genuine asset — your claims are unconstrued and untested, and you face no estoppel. But it also means you have no Board-endorsed validity finding to point to. Consider whether the prosecution-history statements about OLED integration and the examiner's reasons for allowance need shoring up before you assert, because the first IPR petitioner will get to frame the claim-construction record with no competing Board precedent in the background.

Sources and verification links

• Canonical patent text and file history: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10302484/en
• PTAB petitions / trial documents portal (searched, no hits for this patent): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board E2E: https://ptab.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Open Data Portal (source of the canonical "no AIA proceedings" result): https://data.uspto.gov/
• For the unrelated Omni MedSci '484 appeals referenced above (flagged only to prevent confusion): Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 23-1034 (Fed. Cir. 2024) — https://cafc.uscourts.gov and https://www.courtlistener.com

Confidence note: I am highly confident there is no AIA proceeding on US 10,302,484 based on the empty ODP block plus my searches. I could not run an exhaustive PTAB E2E query because search tooling was exhausted mid-task; if precision matters for a filing or an opinion, re-run a direct PTAB E2E party/patent-number query before relying on the zero count.

I'll verify the assignment record and check for any post-issuance transfers or assertion activity.

Ownership Analysis — US 10,302,484 B2 ("Optical sensor module")

Cross-reference note / flag: The previously generated Litigation summary section is essentially empty — it narrates search steps ("I'll search for litigation…", "Let me check the Unified Patents portal…") but contains no case names, docket numbers, or findings. I therefore could not cross-check a first-suit date against the assignment record, and the pre-litigation transfer signal cannot be scored on the basis of that section. My own searches for infringement actions naming this patent or Novatek likewise returned no case. Treat "no litigation on record" as the working assumption, not a verified fact.

Inventors

Caveat on employer: The patent front page does not state inventor employment. The assignment recorded at Reel 042775/0698 conveys rights from both inventors to Novatek, which is the standard employment/invention-assignment instrument and is strong circumstantial evidence both were Novatek personnel at filing. I have not found an independent confirmation (e.g., an SEC or annual-report listing).

Pattern note: The assignment was executed 2017-04-21 / 2017-04-28, i.e. roughly two months before the 2017-06-21 US filing date and within three months of the 2017-01-24 provisional (Ser. No. 62/450,049). This is a pre-filing inventor-to-employer conveyance, not a post-issuance transfer. There is no evidence of inventor departure, and no post-issuance inventor-related recording. The classic "all inventors leave within 12 months → portfolio fire-sale" pattern is not present.

One incidental data point: inventor Cheng-Kuang Sun appears in third-party patent aggregator listings with a historical association to United Microelectronics (UMC) alongside the single Novatek record for this patent (patentleaderboard.com). I could not corroborate this, and it may reflect a name-collision or an aggregator artifact. It does not affect ownership of US 10,302,484.

Original assignee

Novatek Microelectronics Corp. (Taiwan) — named on the issued patent as assignee, and still the current assignee of record.

• Line of business: Fabless semiconductor design — display driver ICs (DDI), touch-and-display driver integration (TDDI), video/display SoCs, and optical fingerprint sensing ICs. This is squarely the field of the patent: an optical sensor module whose claims cover integrated light source + light sensor + drive/readout circuitry per pixel (claims 1, 14–16) and layer-stacking relationships (claims 3–5, 8–10).
• Product embodiment: Novatek has a substantial optical-fingerprint-sensing patent family and product line — e.g., US 10,157,006 ("Optical fingerprint sensing apparatus and anti-RI compensation method thereof") and US 11,227,141 / 11,551,470 ("Fingerprint identification device…", "Sensing device and fingerprint identification system"), all listed by Unified Patents' patent database with "Parent Company: Novatek Microelectronics Corp" and original assignee Novatek. This confirms the company is an active operating manufacturer in the claim space, not a paper owner.
• Current status: Operating. Maintenance fee for the 4th year was paid 2022-11-16 (event code MAFP, large entity), which shows Novatek has kept the patent alive ~3.5 years post-grant and past the first post-issuance window in which NPE acquisition typically occurs. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or insolvency indicators appear in any source checked.
• Family: The same subject matter was filed in China as CN201710609467.X → CN108346678A / CN108346678B (granted 2021-02-05), priority 2017-01-24. This is a two-jurisdiction family (US + CN), litigated nowhere on record.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center / Google Patents legal-events record for US 15/628,648 contains exactly one recorded assignment, plus prosecution and maintenance-fee events that are not assignments. There are no security agreements, licenses, mergers, change-of-name, releases, or corrections on record.

• Executed 2017-04-21 → 2017-04-28 (Sun signed 2017-04-21; Huang signed 2017-04-28) / recorded 2017-06-22 — Reel 042775 / 0698
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST — original employment/inventor assignment)
  • Assignor: SUN, CHENG-KUANG; HUANG, YING-NENG
  • Assignee: NOVATEK MICROELECTRONICS CORP., Taiwan
  • Correspondent: Not disclosed in the legal-events abstract I can retrieve. The Google Patents legal-event record for Reel 042775/0698 lists only owner name and the REEL/FRAME string; the correspondent block is populated in the underlying Assignment Center record and in the executed instrument, which I was unable to open (the Assignment Center detail page did not render for this reel/frame in my searches). I will not guess. Adjacent Novatek prosecution filings in the same technology area show agency of record CKC & Partners Co., LLC for some Novatek applications, but I cannot confirm that CKC (or any firm) is the correspondent on Reel 042775/0698, and I explicitly decline to attribute it. No repeat-correspondent analysis is possible without it.
  • Context: Ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment filed ~4 months before grant-track prosecution, executed ~2 months pre-filing. No acquisition, fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter character.

Non-assignment post-issuance events (recorded for completeness, these are not transfers of ownership):

Neighboring-family check: the CN counterpart CN108346678B shows no recorded US-side effect. No assignment record in the US chain post-dates 2017-06-22.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10302484
    2017 : Provisional 62450049 filed
         : Inventors assign to Novatek
         : Reel 042775/0698 recorded
         : US application 15/628,648 filed
    2018 : Application published as 20180209844
    2019 : Patent granted 10302484B2
    2022 : 4th year maintenance fee paid
    2026 : Still owned by Novatek

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The sole recorded conveyance (Reel 042775/0698, recorded 2017-06-22) moves rights from two individuals to an operating corporation, Novatek Microelectronics Corp., the original assignee named on the face of the patent. There is no transfer to any entity bearing an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent-service address, and no single-purpose LLC anywhere in the chain. The "shell" indicator set is absent in every element.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. The only assignee ever of record is Novatek Microelectronics Corp. I checked the named NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities) and found no Novatek entity and no match for any assignee in this chain. Novatek appears in Unified Patents' database only as a "Parent Company" / original assignee of its own sensing patents — the inverse of an asserter listing.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. There is only one recorded assignment (Reel 042775/0698), so "recurrence" of a correspondent is structurally impossible to establish. The correspondent of record for that reel/frame was not retrievable from the sources I could open, and I will not fabricate it. A single appearance by any firm would not be a finding under this rubric (many firms do both operating-company and NPE work), so even a positive identification would leave this signal not present.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Zero consecutive transfers exist; there is one assignment executed 2017-04 and nothing since. No chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses, no common principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present / inapplicable. No infringement suit naming US 10,302,484 surfaced in any search. The only transfer of record predates litigation by construction (there is none), and it occurred ~4 months before grant, not within 6 months before a complaint. Note the evidentiary gap flagged at the top: the previously generated litigation section is empty, so this call rests on my own null search results.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 filing by Novatek (or any assignor in this chain) appears in any source; no IP-sale order; the 4th-year maintenance fee was affirmatively paid in 2022-11 (event MAFP) by a large entity, indicating a solvent, continuing owner.

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer to a third-party NPE, no SEC 8-K/10-K disclosure of a patent divestiture or monetization arrangement, and no Patent Progress / EFF / RPX coverage linking this patent to an assertion campaign. Novatek retains the patent and continues to commercialize in the same field.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Novatek itself.

Verdict

Insufficient data — the chain consists solely of the original inventor-to-employer assignment.

Justification: the entire recorded ownership history is a single conveyance of US 15/628,648, executed 2017-04-21/2017-04-28 and recorded 2017-06-22 at Reel 042775/0698, from Cheng-Kuang Sun and Ying-Neng Huang to Novatek Microelectronics Corp. No subsequent assignment, security interest, license, merger, or change of name exists on the record, and the 4th-year maintenance fee was paid 2022-11-16 (MAFP, large entity), confirming Novatek remains the live owner. Because no post-issuance transfer has occurred — and no suit naming the patent was found to test assertion behavior — there is no basis to classify the chain as NPE-driven, operating-company assertion, or defensive; the honest answer is that the record shows only the founding assignment. Notably, Novatek is an active fabless display-driver/fingerprint-sensing IC maker with a continuing patent family in this exact space, so the single-record fact pattern looks like a normal, unmonetized corporate portfolio rather than a concealed chain.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search "10302484" or reel 042775/0698): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Legacy Patent Assignment Search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10302484B2](/patent/US10302484B2)/en
• USPTO Patent Center (application 15/628,648): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/

Open items I could not resolve: (i) the correspondent of record on Reel 042775/0698, whose non-retrieval blocks signal #3 entirely; (ii) any inventor-employment documentation, which is inferred rather than evidenced; (iii) whether any litigation ever named this patent, given the empty prior litigation section.

I'll research the specific patent and its cited prior art references. Let me start with searches on the USPTO database and the cited references.

USPTO / Database Verification of US 10,302,484

Searching the specific number "10302484" returns one and only one match — no similar numbers. Confirmed bibliographic data (consistent across the patent full text, Google Patents, and the PubChem patent mirror of USPTO data):

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10302484B2](/patent/US10302484B2)/en ; https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-10302484-B2 ; publication of the application at https://uspto.report/patent/app/20180209844 (USPTO PatentCenter: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov).

Analytical basis for the § 102 review

§ 102 anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim, arranged as claimed. All 16 claims depend from claim 1, so I first decompose claim 1 (the only independent claim), then map each cited reference against it.

Claim 1 elements: (a) a substrate; (b) a plurality of pixel units on the substrate; each unit containing (c) a light source element that emits light; (d) a light sensor element that senses an optical image; (e) a circuit unit configured to drive both the light source element and the light sensor element; (f) an isolation element isolating the light sensor element from the light source element; and (g) the light source element is disposed between the isolation element of the respective pixel unit and an isolation element of a neighboring pixel unit.

Note: element (g) is the structural point of novelty — the light source sits between two isolation elements, and (per dependent claims 3–5) the source/isolation are in a first layer with the sensor/circuit in an underlying second layer.

Google Patents lists 4 patent citations (2 marked as cited-by-examiner: US2005/0189624A1 and US2018/0228414A1; 2 third-party: US2013/0194199A1 and US2014/0036168A1), plus 5 family-cited Japanese documents. I address each below.

1. US 2005/0189624 A1 — "Chip on photosensitive device package structure and electrical connection thereof"

• Full citation: US 2005/0189624 A1; inventor Cheng-Kuang Sun (a named inventor on the '484 patent itself); published 2005-09-01; filed 2004-03-01.
• Link: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050189624A1/en
• Description: A packaging invention. A CCD or CMOS image sensor (photodiode array in an "illumination area") is covered by a transparent plate, and an image-processing chip is stacked on the plate over the non-illumination area so it does not block incident light. No self-illuminating source, no per-pixel emitter/detector pair, no isolation element between a source and a sensor.
• § 102 assessment: Does not anticipate any claim. It lacks elements (c) light source element, (e) circuit unit driving a source and a sensor, (f) isolation element, and (g) the between-isolation-elements placement. It is best understood as background showing the same inventor's earlier stacked photosensitive-package work, and as evidence of the general "sensor + transparent cover + stacked circuitry" state of the art.

2. US 2013/0194199 A1 — "Organic light emitting diode display having photodiodes" (Apple Inc.)

• Full citation: US 2013/0194199 A1; applicant Apple Inc.; published 2013-08-01; filed 2012-02-01; granted as US 9,679,513 B2.
• Links: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0194199.html ; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9679513B2](/patent/US9679513B2)
• Description: An OLED display in which photodetectors (55) are disposed within the OLED array (next to OLEDs 66 or in zones) to sense the OLEDs' own aging, ambient light, and the proximity of a finger/face. Drivers 64 (power driver 64a, image driver 64b) and controller 62 drive the OLEDs and read the photodetectors. It expressly contemplates layered bottom-emission/top-emission OLED stacks with sensors above or below the OLED layer.
• § 102 assessment: Does not anticipate claim 1 or any dependent claim. It does disclose (c) an OLED light source element, (d) a photodiode light sensor element, and (e) driving/readout circuitry — so it is strong art for those elements — but it discloses no isolation element isolating the sensor from the source (element f) and no "light source between two isolation elements of adjacent pixel units" (element g). Because every claim requires those limitations, the reference is properly a § 103 obviousness reference (e.g., for the light-source/light-sensor integration and the layered OLED-but-photodetector-on-substrate concept), not a § 102 anticipation. Most relevant to dependent claims 6 (p-i-n photodiode) and 14 (circuit unit = readout + driving circuits).

3. US 2014/0036168 A1 — Ludwig, "Use of LED or OLED Array to Implement Integrated Combinations of Touch Screen Tactile, Touch Gesture Sensor, Color Image Display, Hand-Image Gesture Sensor, Document Scanner, Secure Optical Data Exchange, and Fingerprint Processing Capabilities"

• Full citation: US 2014/0036168 A1; inventor Lester F. Ludwig; published 2014-02-06; priority 2010-07-09 (CIP of Ser. 13/180,345, filed 2011-07-11); granted as US 9,632,344 B2.

• Link: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140036168

• Description: The single most conceptually relevant citation. An LED/OLED array serves as both a display and a light-field/fingerprint sensor; each LED can be in an emission state, a detection state, or an idle state. Figures 38–40 specifically show a light-sensing LED surrounded by neighboring light-emitting LEDs, with an intervening "guard area" of non-emitting LEDs (FIG. 40) to prevent unwanted light from reaching the sensor. It also discloses time-division multiplexing of emission and detection, modulated illumination to reject ambient light, and photodiodes (including PIN structures) as sensors.

• § 102 assessment: The closest § 102 candidate, but still does not anticipatively disclose all of claim 1. Mapping:

  • (c) light source element → emitting LEDs/OLEDs ✔
  • (d) light sensor element → LED in detection mode / photodiode ✔
  • (e) circuit unit driving both → multiplexed emit/detect circuitry ✔
  • (f) isolation element → the FIG. 40 "guard area" is arguably a functional isolator, but it is implemented as non-emitting LED elements, not an "isolation element" distinct from the source/sensor ✔/✗ (disputed)
  • (g) light source between the isolation element of the respective unit and that of a neighboring unit → FIG. 40 reads plausibly this way ✔/✗ (disputed)

  Because elements (f)/(g) are at best implicit, this is a strong § 103 reference (e.g., combined with Apple US2018/0228414A1 for an express blocking structure), and arguably a § 102 reference for the broader concept if the guard area is equated with an isolation element. It does not reach claims 11–12 (photoconductive film/OPF with horizontal/vertical electrodes) or 15–16 (row-select and feedback transistor driving circuit).

4. US 2018/0228414 A1 — Apple Inc., "Light restriction designs in optical sensing applications having shared windows"

• Full citation: US 2018/0228414 A1; inventors Shao, Charbonneau-Lefort, Block; applicant Apple Inc.; published 2018-08-16; filed 2018-01-18; effective priority 2017-02-13 (provisional 62/458,525); granted as US 10,918,322 B2.

• Links: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180228414A1/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10918322B2](/patent/US10918322B2)/en

• Description: An optical-sensing device with shared windows and light-restriction designs — accepting/blocking sections and optical layers that pass light only within acceptance angles and block crosstalk between emitter and detector regions. Discloses an emitter region, a reception region, and a boundary region for each window.

• § 102 assessment — with an important timing flag. This reference most directly discloses the "isolation element" concept (elements f and much of g): a blocking structure separating the emitter region from the receiver region of shared windows.

  • Relative to the '484's claimed priority of 2017-01-24: this reference's effective filing date (2017-02-13) is later, and its publication (2018-08-16) is after the '484's filing (2017-06-21). It therefore is not prior art under § 102(a)(1) or § 102(a)(2) as against the provisional-backed date.
  • Relative to the '484's actual filing date (2017-06-21): if any '484 claim were held not entitled to the 2017-01-24 provisional, this reference's 2017-02-13 effective filing date would precede 2017-06-21, making it a § 102(a)(2) reference.

  This date mismatch likely explains its presence as an examiner citation: it targets claim 1's isolation-element limitation but only qualifies if the provisional priority is broken. On the provisional-supported date, it functions as § 103 art for the isolation/light-blocking feature, not § 102 anticipation of claim 1.

5. Family-cited Japanese documents (also listed on the face of the '484)

These are cited as family/related art, not the primary US citations, but they belong in any complete prior-art survey of the optical-fingerprint/OLED-sensor field:

None of these is identified in the '484 record as anticipating a specific claim; they are general-state-of-the-art references in the display-embedded biometric-sensing space. I cannot confirm their internal disclosures with high confidence from the available record, so I flag them as unverified for element-by-element § 102 mapping.

6. Forward citations (NOT prior art — for landscape only)

Google Patents lists four documents citing this family: US 10,768,751 B2 (Apple), TWI 684902 B (Beijing Chipone), US 2023/0261013 A1 (Egis Technology), and US 2022/0167855 A1 (Samsung). These post-date the '484 filing/priority and cannot be § 102 art against it; they are useful only as evidence of the crowded OLED-under-display fingerprint-sensor field.

Bottom line — ranking of the cited references

1. US 2014/0036168 A1 (Ludwig) — most relevant conceptually; emitter array + sensor-in-array + "guard" structure. Best § 102 candidate for claim 1 only if the guard area is equated with an isolation element; otherwise § 103 for claims 1–5, 13, 14.
2. US 2018/0228414 A1 (Apple) — discloses the isolation/light-blocking element + emitter/receiver/boundary regions. But not prior art on the 2017-01-24 provisional date; qualifies only if that priority is lost (then § 102(a)(2) for claims 1–5) or as § 103 art.
3. US 2013/0194199 A1 (Apple) — OLED + photodiode integration and drive/readout circuitry; § 103 art for claims 6 and 14; no isolation element, so not anticipatory.
4. US 2005/0189624 A1 (Sun) — packaging background only; anticipates no claim.

No cited reference standing alone appears to disclose every element of claim 1 — specifically the combination of (f) an isolation element and (g) the light source disposed between the isolation element of its own pixel unit and that of a neighboring unit, over (per claims 3–5/8–10) a second, underlying layer carrying both the sensor and the combined drive/readout circuit unit. Claims 11–12 (photoconductive film/OPF with horizontal or vertical positive/negative electrodes) and 15–16 (row-select transistor + feedback transistor driving circuit coupled to the readout line) appear not disclosed by any of the four cited references.

Caveats: The above is a technical prior-art mapping, not a legal conclusion of validity or invalidity, and it rests on the reference texts retrieved on 2026-04-26; for the Apple US2018/0228414A1 reference the § 102 status turns entirely on the '484's provisional-priority entitlement, which should be verified against the specification of provisional 62/450,049 before relying on it as anticipation.

I'll gather details on the references listed in the Prior Art section of the patent page so the obviousness analysis is grounded in what each reference actually teaches.

Let me pull specifics on the Japanese family citations and the remaining references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,302,484 B2 (Novatek, "Optical Sensor Module") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note (per operating rules): This analysis uses the references appearing in the Prior Art section of the Google Patents page for US 10,302,484 B2 (Patent Citations; Family Cites Families). Where I could not verify a reference's actual disclosure, I say so rather than filling in. My search budget was exhausted partway through, so three of the Japanese family citations (JP2009160349A, JP5481902B2, JP6340793B2) remain unverified as to content — they are treated below as "directional" citations, not as established disclosures.

1. Premises

• Effective filing date: 2017-01-24 (provisional 62/450,049). Post-AIA §§ 102/103 govern.
• Level of ordinary skill: a POSITA here would hold a B.S./M.S. in EE, materials science, or optics plus ~2–5 years in flat-panel display / optical sensor design, and would be familiar with (i) TFT backplane fabrication (a-Si, LTPS), (ii) OLED pixel driving circuits, (iii) PIN photodiode and organic photodetector integration in a panel, and (iv) fingerprint/PPG optical sensing architectures. This matters because nearly every limitation at issue is a panel-integration choice rather than an algorithmic or materials breakthrough.
• Claim 1 elements (the only independent claim): substrate; a plurality of pixel units; per-pixel (a) light source element, (b) light sensor element, (c) circuit unit driving both source and sensor, (d) isolation element isolating sensor from source; and the arrangement limitation that the light source element sits between its own pixel's isolation element and an isolation element of the neighboring pixel unit.

2. Do the cited references actually qualify as prior art?

Also note: the "Families Citing this family" entries (Apple US 10,768,751; Chipone TWI 684902; Egis US 2023/0261013; Samsung US 2022/0167855) and most "Similar Documents" post-date 2017-01-24 and therefore cannot be used in a § 103 combination against this patent — they are evidence of the crowdedness of the field only.

3. The applicant's own admissions in the specification

The Background section describes prior modules 100 and 200 and supplies, as admitted prior art: a photodiode array 102/202, a readout circuit Tr on a substrate, a light blocking or isolation element 103 whose purpose is "to prevent the photodiode array 102 from directly detecting the light L1 emitted from the backlight element 101 that results in interference," and a cover lens 104/203. The specification also concedes poor fingerprint-image quality where "the efficiency of using the light blocking or isolation element 103 is low." This admission materially narrows the nonobviousness battleground: the purpose and basic function of an isolation structure between emitter and detector, and the presence of a cover element, are conceded.

4. Combination A (primary): Apple '199 + Ludwig '168

What each teaches (search-verified):

• Apple '199 / US 9,064,451 — an OLED display in which photodetectors (55) are disposed throughout the display array alongside OLEDs (66), driven by a power driver 64a and image driver 64b with a controller 62 (FIG. 7); photodiodes "are fabricated with OLEDs during the TFT fabrication process"; photodetectors may be placed above or below the OLED layer 44 depending on top- or bottom-emission configuration (FIG. 6 discussion); uses include ambient light, OLED aging compensation (i.e., sensing emitted light and feeding back to drive strength), and proximity sensing of a user's finger or face. Source: freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0194199.html; patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20130194199; wiki.golden.com (US 9,064,451 abstract).
• Ludwig '168 / US 9,632,344 — an OLED array used for light sensing as well as light emission, explicitly to implement a fingerprint scanner, document scanner, hand-gesture sensor and lensless camera in a handheld device; each LED/OLED can be in a light-emission state, a light-detection state, or an idle state; the specification expressly discusses PIN photodiodes and the fact that LEDs/OLEDs and "organic field effect transistors and other related devices" exhibit photo-responsive properties. Claim 1 recites a display comprising an OLED array plus a controller making the array function as, inter alia, a fingerprint scanner. Sources: patents.google.com/patent/US20140036168; patents-review.com/a/20140036168.

Mapping to claim 1: substrate + plurality of pixel units (both references: an OLED matrix on a substrate); per-pixel light source element (Apple '199 OLEDs 66 / Ludwig OLEDs); per-pixel light sensor element (Apple '199 photodetectors 55, one adjacent each OLED); circuit unit driving both (Apple '199 drivers 64a/64b + controller 62 drive the OLEDs and read the photodetectors; Ludwig's controller both emits and detects); isolation element (supplied by the admitted prior art of § 3 above, plus Combination B below). The arrangement limitation is addressed in § 7.

Why a POSITA would combine: both references are in the same field (panel-integrated optical sensing in handheld devices); both are directed to the same problem — adding optical sensing (including fingerprint and proximity) to a flat-panel without a separate backlight/optics stack. Apple '199 supplies the integration method (photodiodes co-fabricated with OLEDs in the TFT process, with a sensor adjacent each emitter), and Ludwig supplies the application and system-level motivation (fingerprint scanning from an OLED array). Combining a known sensing element with a known panel process to obtain a known function is a textbook KSR rationales (a) and (c) situation, with a reasonable expectation of success because Apple '199 already demonstrates that photodiodes and OLEDs survive the same TFT flow.

5. Combination B: Combination A + Matsushita JP 2004310577 A / JP 2004325290 A

What these teach (search-verified, family confirmed): an uneven (concavo-convex) pattern detection device — i.e., an optical fingerprint reader — comprising a light source, an optical waveguide layer, a fiber array and an imaging element mounted on an optical plate, for the express purpose of preventing external and scattered light from entering the image sensor so that image quality is not degraded. The family expressly notes that "a self-luminous element such as an EL may be provided as a light source." Source: patents.google.com/patent/JP2004325289A/en (family memos listing JP 2004310574 A, JP 2004310577 A).

Contribution to the combination: an optical fingerprint detector in which (i) an EL-type self-luminous source illuminates the object being imaged, (ii) a separate imaging sensor detects the reflected light, and (iii) light-blocking/optical isolation structure is deliberately interposed so the sensor does not receive stray or directly coupled light. This is precisely the "isolation element isolating the light sensor element from the light source element" element of claim 1, stated as the reason for the structure, and it is also exactly the problem admitted in the '484's own Background. Note that Matsushita frames this in a bulky fiber-array architecture; the '484's contribution is not the isolation concept but moving it into a per-pixel panel architecture — a difference in integrated-circuit real estate, not in principle.

6. Combination C: Combination A + one or more of Casio JP2009160349 A, Sony JP5481902 B2, Seiko Epson JP6340793 B2

These are display/biometric/optical-device references whose titles are on point (biometric authentication; display panel and display device; optical device) but whose disclosures I could not verify. If, as is likely given the titles and the family-citation context, any of them shows a display panel with in-panel photosensors and a light-shielding layer over the sensor/TFT, it would be an excellent additional secondary reference for claims 3, 4, 8, 9 (layer stacking / shielding over TFTs). I am not asserting that content; it must be confirmed against the documents before being used.

Also outside the listed prior art, one search snippet surfaced JP 4784528 B2, describing an active-matrix substrate with "light-receiving sensors" and "light-shielded sensors" built from PIN diodes and TFTs, with the document expressly contemplating organic-EL displays. That would be highly probative art for claims 3–6 if verified, but it is not in the '484's citation list, and I flag it only as a lead.

7. The arrangement limitation ("light source between its own isolation element and the neighbor's isolation element")

This is the limitation doing the real work, and it is the most vulnerable to a § 103 attack on the listed art, for three independent reasons:

1. Duplication of parts / periodic tiling. Both Apple '199 and Ludwig disclose an array of identical pixel units. Once claim 1's per-pixel content is met — each pixel has an emitter, a sensor, and an isolation element separating them — then in any periodic tiling, an emitter has its own pixel's isolation element on one side and the adjacent pixel's isolation element on the other. The claimed spatial relationship is the inevitable geometric consequence of replicating the unit cell. Under MPEP 2144.04 / In re Harza, mere duplication of parts effecting no new function is obvious; the claim's "between…and…" recitation adds no function beyond the isolation already recited.
2. Art-recognized technique. Shared/central isolation walls between emitters and detectors in an array of shared windows are expressly the subject of the (non-qualifying) Apple '414 disclosure, and Matsushita's arrangement interposes blocking structure between source and sensor on a per-measurement-site basis.
3. Design choice. Given a per-pixel isolation element of finite width and a required die area, placing the emitter and the sensor on opposite sides of it is the only sensible routing; where the width/placement of isolation walls is a design parameter, selecting one of a finite number of predictable positions is not inventive.

Claim-by-claim sketch of where the record supports obviousness:

8. Consolidated motivation-to-combine (KSR rationales)

• Same field / same problem: Apple '199, Ludwig '168 and Matsushita all address optical sensing integrated with a display or with an illuminated object-imaging surface in a portable device; combining them involves no change in field of endeavor.
• Predictable results / "obvious to try": the '484's asserted advantages — uniform illumination from a distributed self-illuminating source, lower profile than a backlit module, higher fill factor and aperture ratio by burying the circuits under the emitter — are the expected consequences of (i) replacing a single backlight/side-emitter with per-pixel OLEDs (Apple '199, Ludwig) and (ii) stacking the drive/readout TFTs beneath the emitter (Apple '199's below-OLED sensor placement). A finite number of identified, predictable panel architectures is in play.
• Known problem solved by known means: the '484's own Background identifies direct emitter-to-sensor light leakage as the problem that the isolation element solves — so the isolation element is the art-recognized remedy, not a discovery.
• Design incentives: pixel fill-factor / aperture-ratio maximization in an active-matrix panel is a standing design objective; using the third dimension (stacking) to recover area is a routine panel-design optimization.

9. Where the obviousness case is weakest (candid assessment)

1. Claims 11 and 12 (organic photoconductive film with two horizontal — or horizontal/vertical — electrodes). Neither Apple '199 (photodiodes), Ludwig '168 (PIN photodiodes and LED-as-detector), nor Matsushita (imaging element behind a fiber array) appears to disclose an organic photoconductive film sensor with interdigitated or vertically stacked electrodes. Unless the unverified Japanese references (or art outside the citation list) supply an OPF/OPD structure, claims 11–12 are the most defensible claims against this particular combination. They would likely need a different primary reference.
2. Claims 15–16 (specific transistor-level topology). The row-select-transistor and feedback-transistor recitations are conventional circuit implementations, but the listing shows them only at the level of "drivers," "scan lines," and "controller feedback." A rejection would need either the unverified references or an additional reference on OLED pixel driving circuits.
3. The Apple '414 problem. The single most on-point disclosure of "isolation located between the light emitter and the light sensor" in an array with shared windows is US 2018/0228414 A1, which is not prior art on the 2017-01-24 priority date. The fact that it carries the examiner-citation asterisk in the listing suggests the examiner considered it; if the priority claim to provisional 62/450,049 were ever found defective (e.g., lack of written-description support for a given claim), Apple '414's effective date of 2017-02-13 would fall between the provisional date and the 2017-06-21 actual filing date, making it available § 102(a)(2) art. That is the single highest-leverage vulnerability to check.
4. Secondary considerations. The specification's stated advantages (uniformity, fill factor, aperture ratio, and the ability of the OLED source to double as a display) are, on this record, the expected results of the combination, so they are unlikely to carry nonobviousness weight absent evidence of unexpected results or commercial success with nexus. I found no evidence of such a record in the materials reviewed.
5. Verification gaps. I could not verify the disclosures of JP2009160349A, JP5481902B2, or JP6340793B2, and I could not verify that any listed reference teaches the OPF sensor of claims 11–12. Any rejection built on those references must be re-run against the actual documents.

10. Bottom line

On the prior art of record as it stands, claim 1 is more likely than not obvious over Apple '199 (US 9,064,451) in view of Ludwig '168 (US 9,632,344), further in view of Matsushita JP2004310577A / JP2004325290A — with the admitted prior art of the '484's own Background supplying the isolation element and cover lens — because the only element not squarely disclosed, the emitter's position between its own and its neighbor's isolation elements, is the inevitable geometric result of duplicating a pixel unit cell in a periodic array (MPEP 2144.04). Dependent claims 2–6, 8–10, 13 and 14 follow with corresponding rationales; claims 15–16 are supportable only with additional circuit-level art; and claims 11–12 (organic photoconductive film) are not made out on the references in the Prior Art section as I was able to verify them. The strongest single attack vector is not the listed prior art at all but the priority-date question that would let US 2018/0228414 A1 (Apple, effective 2017-02-13) into the case.

Authoritative source for the claim text and the reference list: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10302484B2](/patent/US10302484B2)/en.