DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s arguments (see pgs. 7-9 of Remarks filed 12/18/2025) directed to the prior art rejection of the claims 1, 16 and 22-23 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of the Ko reference have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the grounds of rejection in light of a change of statutory basis are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 12/18/2025), as detailed below.
2. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 10-12), regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103 over Vertegaal in view of Rissa have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “Rissa does not teach selecting a display mode (a stereoscopic mode or a non-stereoscopic mode) based on the degree of bending, but rather repositioning of barriers so that, during operation in a stereoscopic mode, the display of a stereoscopic image will not be disrupted” (pgs. 10-11 of Remarks). However, the Examiner notes that Rissa was not relied upon for teachings directed to the limitation regarding the ‘control circuitry operative to select a display mode based on the degree of bending’ but rather for combining the teachings of Vertegaal with the teachings of Rissa specifically directed to the claimed conditions of control circuitry operative to control the display device to render an image content according to the selected display mode. In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145 Section IV, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, Applicant appears to have selected a narrow portion of Rissa’s disclosure to argue a lack of obviousness (see pgs. 10-11 of Remarks). Applicant is respectfully reminded that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). See MPEP § 2123 Section I. Nonetheless, in the present case, Rissa does indeed teach the claimed limitation directed to “a control circuitry operative to select a display mode based on the degree of bending” (¶0050: the processor 12 [control circuitry] may be configured to control the user output device 11 to cause an output to be provided to the viewer 50, following bending of the flexible display 20, which is associated with a switch from the display 20 displaying a stereoscopic image to the display 20 displaying a non-stereoscopic image [selection of display mode based on degree of bending]; ¶0051 of Rissa: processor 12 responds to detecting bending of the flexible display 20 by changing how auto-stereoscopic content is displayed by the display panel 23, for example, change which pixels are viewable by one or both eyes 51, 52 of the viewer 50). Thus, Applicant has not persuasively disputed the Examiner’s findings regarding Vertegaal’s teachings and Vertegaal in view of Rissa’s teachings, both findings rendering the obviousness of the limitations as recited in the newly amended claims, as detailed further below. Applicant further asserts “none of these embodiments (of Rissa) teach or suggest controlling a display device to render an image content according to a selected display mode” as recited in newly amended claims 1 & 16 (pgs. 10-11 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. The primary reference of Vertegaal discloses: A display device (¶0002; FIGS. 2A-B & 4) comprising: a bendable light-emitting layer comprising an addressable array of light-emitting elements (¶0014, 0025, 0038-39, 0046: light emanating from the flexible OLED pixels; see FIG. 2B showing addressable array of light-emitting elements 23); and a deformable optical layer having a plurality of lens regions, the deformable optical layer overlaying the light-emitting layer and being bendable along with the light-emitting layer (FIG. 2B: 22; ¶0025: a flexible microlens array layer 26 disposed on a flexible display layer 22; ¶0049: bending the display into a concave shape; see FIGS. 2A-B showing deformable optical layer 22 overlaying the light-emitting layer 23); a sensor operative to determine a degree of bending of the display device (¶0008-09, 0035-36, 0038, 0043, 0050: A bidirectional 2″ bend sensor (Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc.) placed horizontally behind the center of the display); and control circuitry operative to select a display mode based on the degree of bending (¶0031-32, 0052-53: user can bend the device, creating an immersive 3D experience with a corresponding z-input element…which presents multiple local users with different viewpoints around the 3D video in stereoscopy and with motion parallax; see FIG. 3 showing a display mode when flat and FIG. 4 showing a display mode when bending) and render multiple views of the image content when a 3D display mode is selected, wherein, for a three-dimensional pixel overlayed by a lens region, lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in different directions (¶0027: The microlenses may be sized such that each microlens overlies a selected number of pixels (i.e., a “pixel block”, shown at 23 in FIG. 2B, although pixels are not shown) on the display, to provide a sufficiently small angular pitch per pixel block that allows a fused 3D image to be seen; ¶0046: each microlens 28 in the array 26 redistributes light emanating from the FOLED pixels into multiple directions, indicated by the arrows; ¶0028: renders a 3D scene in correct perspective to a multitude of viewing angles; see FIG. 2B). The secondary Rissa is related to Vertegaal with respect to a display device comprising a bendable light emitting array layer, display modes, and a sensor operative to determine a degree of bending of the display device (FIG. 4; ¶0027, 0031-32, 0035, 0039, 0051), and Rissa teaches: control circuitry operative to control the display device to render an image content according to the selected display mode, including controlling the light emitting layer to render one view of the image content when a 2D display mode is selected (¶0031 of Rissa: The processor 12 [control circuitry] is configured to control the display panel 23 [light emitting layer] to display non-stereoscopic images (that is, two dimensional images)), wherein lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in one direction (¶0035: When the display 20 is in a non-stereoscopic (two dimensional) mode, the processor 12 controls the parallax barrier arrangement 22 such that it does not separate out light emanating from the display panel 23 for the viewer's left and right eyes [propagation of lights emitted in one direction]; ¶0032: the display panel 23 may be an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel [light emitting elements]), and render multiple views of the image content when a 3D display mode is selected, (¶0031 of Rissa: The processor 12 [control circuitry] is configured to control the display panel 23 [light emitting layer] to display stereoscopic images (that is, three dimensional images), wherein, for a three-dimensional pixel overlayed by a lens region (FIG. 4 & ¶0040-41: Each pixel 230-239 is positioned in a different column in the display panel 23. The pixels 230, 232, 234, 236 and 238 are displaying image content for viewer's right eye 52 and the pixels 231, 233, 235, 237 and 239 are displaying image content for the viewer's left eye 51 [3D pixel] in order to provide stereoscopic effect), lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in different directions (¶0034: When the display 20 is in a stereoscopic (three-dimensional) mode, the parallax barrier arrangement 22 separates light emanating from the display panel 23 [lights emitted in different directions] such that the viewer's left eye sees a different image to the viewer's right eye. Image content for viewer's left eye and image content for the viewer's right eye is displayed concurrently on the display panel 23). Rissa further teaches that such a control circuitry is known and would be selected such that there is no need for the viewer to change his viewing position in order to continue viewing the stereoscopic image, thereby advantageously enabling a clear image to continue to be conveyed to the viewer while simultaneously allowing switch between the display of three dimensional images and non-stereoscopic images (that is, two dimensional images), as taught in ¶0031, 0048 of Rissa. Therefore, the Examiner has clearly articulated multiple reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious, the rationales being: (1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, (2) known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations of it for use in the same field since the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and (3) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, the Applicant has not persuasively disputed the Examiner’s evidentiary findings regarding the Vertegaal and Rissa references which support a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 by utilization of valid rationales, as detailed previously and below.
Applicant’s arguments directed to Rissa’s parallax barrier (pgs. 10-11 of Remarks) do not preclude Rissa’s display device from nonetheless satisfying the claimed conditions as recited, especially in light of the fact that the present claim language utilizes the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”, thereby allowing additional, unrecited elements in the display device as within the scope of the claims.
In conclusion, as explained above, none of Applicant’s arguments against the prior art of Vertegaal and Rissa are persuasive, and thus the newly amended claims remain rejected based upon previously-cited references, as detailed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
1. “a three-dimensional pixel overlayed by a lens region” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1 and 16.
2. “when a 3D display mode is selected…lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in different directions” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1 and 16.
3. “when a 2D display mode is selected…lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in one direction” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1 and 16.
No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. A typo (underlined) in Claims 18 & 24: …”providing multiples views of the image content…”
2. A typo (underlined) in Claim 25: “…providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device that are nearer the optical axis of each cylindrical lens, formed in the deformable optical layer when curved…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The replacement claims submitted 12/18/2025 were not filed with the original disclosure filed on 02/25/2022 and are therefore examined for new matter, see MPEP 608.04(b) and 714.01(e). Claims 1 and 16 limitation “wherein lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in one direction…wherein, for a three-dimensional pixel overlayed by a lens region, lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in different directions” amounts to prohibited new matter. Specifically, the limitation lacks support in the original specification and claims submitted 02/25/2022 because all embodiments corresponding to FIGS. 1-22 and the as-filed specification fail to disclose and/or depict any details directed to the propagation of light emission by the light emitting elements in either one direction or different directions for a 3D pixel overlaid by a lens region. Furthermore, the as-filed disclosure appears to be silent with regard to the said light emission propagation as it pertains to rendering one view (when 2D display mode is selected) or multiple views (when 3D display mode is selected) as claimed. Applicant’s statement in the Remarks that “Support for the amendments can be found, for example, in the description referring to FIGS. 8, 12, 15, 19-22” (pg. 7 of Remarks) appears to be insufficient and not germane to the issue at hand: the cited portions of the Drawings fail to depict the aforementioned limitations as recited in the independent claims, i.e., FIGS. 8, 12, 15, 19-22 fail to show lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagating in one direction when a 2D display mode is selected and/or lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagating in different directions for a three-dimensional pixel overlayed by a lens region when a 3D display mode is selected (see also corresponding Drawings objection supra).
Claims 2-6, 9 and 17-25 inherit the deficiencies of the rejected base claim, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claims be amended to recite limitations that are supported by the originally-filed 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.
Claims 19 and 25 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.
Claims 19 and 25 recite the limitation: “wherein controlling of the light-emitting layer comprises providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device that are nearer to the optical axis of each cylindrical lens, formed in the deformable optical layer when curved”. It is unclear what is meant by the limitation “nearer to the optical axis of each cylindrical lens”, i.e., nearer than what? There appears to be no reference frame and/or objective standard by which one may ascertain the scope of such a ‘term of degree’ limitation. When subjective terminology is used in a claim, some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) Sections I & IV, citing Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970) and Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45. The instant specification fails to elucidate (and/or provide a standard for) the limitation beyond an ipsis verbis appearance of the generic claim language, thereby rendering the positional relationships between the claimed structures as not sufficiently defined. See MPEP § 2173.05(b), Section II, citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). Furthermore, it is unclear what structure/material/acts is formed in the deformable optical layer when curved. This also appears to be a contingent limitation (‘when curved’) which further renders the limitation unclear. It is also generally unclear what structure is curved, i.e., is the deformable layer curved or is some portion of the cylindrical lens curved? It appears that this limitation also has grammatical issues that render the metes and bounds of the claim unclear by virtue of a run-on clause lacking proper punctuation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein controlling of the light light-emitting layer comprises rendering providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vertegaal et al. (US 2016/0306390 A1) in view of Rissa et al. (US 2013/0093753 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Vertegaal discloses: A display device (¶0002; FIGS. 2A-B & 4) comprising: a bendable light-emitting layer comprising an addressable array of light-emitting elements (¶0014, 0025, 0038-39, 0046: light emanating from the flexible OLED pixels; see FIG. 2B showing addressable array of light-emitting elements 23); and a deformable optical layer having a plurality of lens regions, the deformable optical layer overlaying the light-emitting layer and being bendable along with the light-emitting layer (FIG. 2B: 22; ¶0025: a flexible microlens array layer 26 disposed on a flexible display layer 22; ¶0049: bending the display into a concave shape; see FIGS. 2A-B showing deformable optical layer 22 overlaying the light-emitting layer 23); a sensor operative to determine a degree of bending of the display device (¶0008-09, 0035-36, 0038, 0043, 0050: A bidirectional 2″ bend sensor (Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc.) placed horizontally behind the center of the display); and control circuitry operative to select a display mode based on the degree of bending (¶0031-32, 0052-53: user can bend the device, creating an immersive 3D experience with a corresponding z-input element…which presents multiple local users with different viewpoints around the 3D video in stereoscopy and with motion parallax; see FIG. 3 showing a display mode when flat and FIG. 4 showing a display mode when bending) and render multiple views of the image content when a 3D display mode is selected, wherein, for a three-dimensional pixel overlayed by a lens region, lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in different directions (¶0027: The microlenses may be sized such that each microlens overlies a selected number of pixels (i.e., a “pixel block”, shown at 23 in FIG. 2B, although pixels are not shown) on the display, to provide a sufficiently small angular pitch per pixel block that allows a fused 3D image to be seen; ¶0046: each microlens 28 in the array 26 redistributes light emanating from the FOLED pixels into multiple directions, indicated by the arrows; ¶0028: renders a 3D scene in correct perspective to a multitude of viewing angles; see FIG. 2B showing 3D pixel overlayed by a lens region and lights emitting in different directions).
Vertegaal does not appear to explicitly disclose: control circuitry operative to control the display device to render an image content according to the selected display mode, including controlling the light emitting layer to render one view of the image content when a 2D display mode is selected, wherein lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in one direction.
Rissa is related to Vertegaal with respect to a display device comprising a bendable light emitting array layer, display modes, and a sensor operative to determine a degree of bending of the display device (FIG. 4; ¶0027, 0031-32, 0035, 0039, 0051) and Rissa teaches: control circuitry operative to control the display device to render an image content according to the selected display mode, including controlling the light emitting layer to render one view of the image content when a 2D display mode is selected (¶0031 of Rissa: The processor 12 [control circuitry] is configured to control the display panel 23 [light emitting layer] to display non-stereoscopic images (that is, two dimensional images)), wherein lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in one direction (¶0035: When the display 20 is in a non-stereoscopic (two dimensional) mode, the processor 12 controls the parallax barrier arrangement 22 such that it does not separate out light emanating from the display panel 23 for the viewer's left and right eyes [propagation of lights emitted in one direction]; ¶0032: the display panel 23 may be an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel [light emitting elements]), and render multiple views of the image content when a 3D display mode is selected, (¶0031 of Rissa: The processor 12 [control circuitry] is configured to control the display panel 23 [light emitting layer] to display stereoscopic images (that is, three dimensional images), wherein, for a three-dimensional pixel overlayed by a lens region (FIG. 4 & ¶0040-41: Each pixel 230-239 is positioned in a different column in the display panel 23. The pixels 230, 232, 234, 236 and 238 are displaying image content for viewer's right eye 52 and the pixels 231, 233, 235, 237 and 239 are displaying image content for the viewer's left eye 51 [3D pixel] in order to provide stereoscopic effect), lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in different directions (¶0034: When the display 20 is in a stereoscopic (three-dimensional) mode, the parallax barrier arrangement 22 separates light emanating from the display panel 23 [lights emitted in different directions] such that the viewer's left eye sees a different image to the viewer's right eye. Image content for viewer's left eye and image content for the viewer's right eye is displayed concurrently on the display panel 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Rissa to satisfy the claimed condition because such a control circuitry is known and would be selected such that there is no need for the viewer to change his viewing position in order to continue viewing the stereoscopic image, thereby advantageously enabling a clear image to continue to be conveyed to the viewer while simultaneously allowing switch between the display of three dimensional images and non-stereoscopic images (that is, two dimensional images), as taught in ¶0031, 0048 of Rissa.
Regarding Claim 3, Vertegaal discloses the display device according to Claim 1, as above. Vertegaal further discloses: wherein the deformable optical layer is configured such that, while the deformable optical layer is substantially flat, a field of view of light emitted from a light-emitting element of the light emitting layer is wide enough to be seen by both eyes of a viewer (¶0012, 0028, 0040: “microlens in the array receives light from a selected number of underlying pixels and projects the received light over a range of viewing angles so as to collectively produce a flexible 3D light field display”; FIG. 3 (& ¶0019) showing substantially flat configuration of display device when displaying field of view wide enough for both eyes).
Regarding Claim 16, Vertegaal-Rissa discloses: A method of operating a display device comprising: operating a sensor to determine a degree of bending of the display device, wherein the display device includes a bendable light-emitting layer comprising an addressable array of light- emitting elements, and a deformable optical layer having a plurality of lens regions, the deformable optical layer overlaying the light-emitting layer and being bendable along with the light-emitting layer; selecting, using a control circuitry, the display device to render an image content according to the selected display mode, including controlling the light emitting layer to render one view of the image content when a 2D display mode is selected, wherein lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in one direction, or to and render multiple views of the image content when a 3D display mode is selected, wherein, for a three-dimensional pixel overlayed by a lens region, lights emitted from respective light-emitting elements propagate in different directions (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Regarding Claim 17, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 16, as above. Rissa teaches: wherein selecting a display mode comprises selecting a 2D display mode, wherein controlling of the light emitting layer comprises rendering one view of the image content by modulating the light-emitting elements based on respective pixels of the one view (¶0031, 0035-36, 0051-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Rissa to satisfy the claimed condition because such a control of display mode feature is known and would be selected such that there is no need for the viewer to change his viewing position in order to continue viewing the stereoscopic image, thereby advantageously enabling a clear image to continue to be conveyed to the viewer while simultaneously allowing switch between the display of three dimensional images and non-stereoscopic images (that is, two dimensional images), as taught in ¶0031, 0048 of Rissa.
Regarding Claim 18, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 16, as above. Rissa teaches: wherein selecting a display mode comprises selecting a 3D display mode, wherein controlling of the light emitting layer comprises rendering multiples views of the image content by, for a lens region of the optical layer, modulating overlaying light-emitting elements based on respective pixels from the multiple views (¶0031, 0040-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Rissa to satisfy the claimed condition because such a control of display mode feature is known and would be selected such that there is no need for the viewer to change his viewing position in order to continue viewing the stereoscopic image, thereby advantageously enabling a clear image to continue to be conveyed to the viewer while simultaneously allowing switch between the display of three dimensional images and non-stereoscopic images (that is, two dimensional images), as taught in ¶0031, 0048 of Rissa.
Regarding Claim 21, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 16, as above. Vertegaal further discloses: wherein selecting a display mode comprises selecting a 3D display mode when the degree of bending is at or above a second threshold level of curvature (FIG. 1, 3-4; ¶0003, 0040, 0049: 2D display mode with x-y input element when planar; ¶0031-32, 0052-53: user can bend the device, creating an immersive 3D experience with a corresponding z-input element…which presents multiple local users with different viewpoints around the 3D video in stereoscopy and with motion parallax; see FIG. 3 showing 2D display mode when flat and FIG. 4 showing 3D display mode when bending).
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Vertegaal discloses the display device (and method) according to Claims 1 and 16, respectively, as above. Vertegaal further discloses: wherein the deformable optical layer is configured such that optical powers of the lens regions change in response to bending of the optical layer (FIGS. 2A-2B & ¶0011-12, 0017-18, 0026, 0032, 0053: flexible plastic microlens array includes an array of convex lenses 28, each convex microlens 28 resembles a droplet, analogous to part of a sphere protruding above the substrate…the user can bend the device in a convex or concave shape, allowing another viewer to see a frontal view while the user sees the image from the side; ¶0046: each microlens 28 in the array 26 redistributes light emanating from the FOLED pixels into multiple directions which allows modulation of the light output not only at each microlens position but also with respect to the viewing angle of that position; the Examiner notes that it is commonly known in the art of optics that bending a lenticular array which possesses refractive power (such as Vertegaal’s convex lens regions) results in a corresponding change in the optical powers/focal lengths).
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vertegaal et al. (US 2016/0306390 A1) in view of Rissa et al. (US 2013/0093753 A1), and further in view of Yamana (US 5,748,375 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Vertegaal discloses the display device according to Claim 1, as above.
Vertegaal does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the deformable optical layer is configured such that, while the deformable optical layer is in at least a first curved configuration, the lens regions form a lenticular array of cylindrical lenses.
Yamana is related to Vertegaal with respect to a display device comprising a bendable light emitting array layer and lens regions of an optical layer (FIGS. 1-2, 20, 23; c. 27: LED array layer with compound lens array layer; c. 28: curving a planar image display element 56 in a cylindrical form) and Yamana teaches: wherein the deformable optical layer is configured such that, while the deformable optical layer is in at least a first curved configuration, the lens regions form a lenticular array of cylindrical lenses (see FIGS. 10, 16, 20 showing optical layer in first curved configuration possessing cylindrical lens array; c. 6, 10, 27-28: a plurality of the linear compound lens arrays are provided on a cylindrical surface so as to form a magnifying lens; c. 4, 14-15: focal distances of the compound lenses (composite focal distances of the negative and positive lenses) can be changed in the periphery of the lens array…thus, it is possible to correct the images by changing various characteristics of each compound lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Yamana to satisfy the claimed condition because such cylindrical lens arrays are known and would be selected such that “the display apparatus can have a greater visual angle in the horizontal direction of the picture… Therefore, it is preferable to use this magnifying lens so as to observe pictures for a wide rectangular screen, such as the cinema screen”, as taught in Col. 6 of Yamana.
Regarding Claim 4, Vertegaal discloses the display device according to Claim 1, as above.
Vertegaal does not appear to explicitly disclose: further comprising a plurality of baffles provided between adjacent lens regions, wherein the baffles are more rigid than the deformable optical layer, wherein, during bending of the display device, the baffles induce ordered buckling of the optical layer.
Yamana is related to Vertegaal with respect to a display device comprising a bendable light emitting array layer and lens regions of an optical layer (FIGS. 1-2, 20, 23; c. 27: LED array layer with compound lens array layer; c. 28: curving a planar image display element 56 in a cylindrical form) and Yamana teaches: further comprising a plurality of baffles provided between adjacent lens regions (see FIGS. 1-2 showing baffles 4a provided between adjacent lens regions 9-10), wherein the baffles are more rigid than the deformable optical layer (c. 4, 10-12: a plurality of apertures 4a are part of a light intercepting member [baffle] provided between the compound lenses…The light intercepting frame 4 is to be made of a resin…Furthermore, it is preferable that the resin used for realizing the light intercepting frame 4 is solid, not having elasticity), wherein, during bending of the display device, the baffles induce ordered buckling of the optical layer (c. 11, 24: a light intercepting frame sandwiched therebetween spherical-curving substrates is necessitated to keep constant the distance between the negative lenses 9 and the positive lenses 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Yamana to satisfy the claimed condition because such baffles are known and would be selected to keep constant the distance between each individual compound lens of the lens region array, as taught in Cols. 11-12 of Yamana.
Regarding Claim 5, Vertegaal discloses the display device according to Claim 4, as above. Rissa further discloses: wherein the baffles are transparent (¶0035: the parallax barrier arrangement 22 may be transparent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Rissa to satisfy the claimed condition because such baffles are known and would be selected to achieve 2D display mode wherein the light emanating from the display is not separated, as taught in ¶0035 of Rissa.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vertegaal et al. (US 2016/0306390 A1) in view of Rissa et al. (US 2013/0093753 A1), and further in view of Bae et al. (US 2012/0249537 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Vertegaal discloses the display device according to Claim 1, as above.
While Vertegaal teaches the limitation of “wherein the deformable optical layer is configured such that, while the deformable optical layer is substantially flat, a field of view of light emitted from a light-emitting element of the light emitting layer is wide enough to be seen by both eyes of a viewer”, (see rejection supra) in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that Vertegaal does not explicitly disclose a different interpretation of the display modes as recited, and thus further submits Bae.
Bae is related to Vertegaal with respect to a display device comprising a light emitting layer and lens regions of an optical layer (FIGS. 1-3, 8; ¶0048-50, 0053, 0055) and Bae teaches: wherein the deformable optical layer is configured such that, while the deformable optical layer is substantially flat, a field of view of light emitted from a light-emitting element of the light emitting layer is wide enough to be seen by both eyes of a viewer (see FIG. 8 showing while the deformable optical layer 150 is substantially flat; ¶0028, 0033, 0081: controller may control the first and second electrowetting lenses to be substantially flat to display two dimensional images; ¶0029, 0060: controller may actively adjust the curvature of the lenses [deformable] according to a sensed movement of a viewer; ¶0081-82: render images for a single viewpoint with the entire amount of pixels in the image display 130…electrowetting lens unit 150 does not perform separation of viewing zones during the display of 2D images… displaying 2D images (e.g., wide viewing angle) can be readily achieved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Bae to satisfy the claimed condition because such deformable layer with field of view are known and would be selected to implement the option of a two dimensional (2D) image display mode in a 3D display system such that beams may be exiting from the image panel without separation of viewing zones…the controller may control the lens unit in the 2D image display mode, such that switching between the two display modes is easily accomplished while maintaining wide viewing angle and high resolution, as taught in ¶0013, 0066, 0081-82 of Bae.
Claims 6, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vertegaal et al. (US 2016/0306390 A1) in view of Rissa et al. (US 2013/0093753 A1), and further in view of Yanagisawa (US 2016/0154435 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Vertegaal discloses the display device according to Claim 1, as above. While Vertegaal teaches the limitation of “wherein the display device is operable as a 2D display when the selected display mode is a 2D display mode, selected based on the display device being in a substantially flat configuration wherein the degree of bending is up to a threshold, and as a 3D display when the selected display mode is a 3D display mode, selected based on the display device being in at least a first curved configuration wherein the degree of bending is above the threshold”, (see rejection supra) in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that Vertegaal does not explicitly disclose a different interpretation of the display modes as recited, and thus further submits Yanagisawa.
Yanagisawa is related to Vertegaal with respect to an analogous deformable display device comprising a bendable light emitting array layer, a bending sensor with control circuitry, and lens regions of an optical layer (FIGS. 1-3 & 6-8; ¶0136, 0205: flexible display portion may include a display element such as LED; ¶0169: flexible substrate through which light is extracted may have, as a light extraction structure, a micro lens array, or the like; ¶0026, 0097-110, 0122-25: The detection portion is configured to detect the condition of a viewer's eye to obtain detection information and to supply the detection information to the control portion. The control portion is configured to extract information from the detection information and to change curvature of the display portion on the basis of the information) and Yanagisawa teaches: wherein the display device is operable as a 2D display when the selected display mode is a 2D display mode, selected based on the display device being in a substantially flat configuration wherein the degree of bending is up to a threshold, and as a 3D display when the selected display mode is a 3D display mode, selected based on the display device being in at least a first curved configuration wherein the degree of bending is above the threshold (¶0066: an image may be displayed in the state where the display portion is not bent (in the state where the display portion is flat). For example, the display device of one embodiment of the present invention can be used in the following manner: the display portion is bent so as to have a curved surface when a stereoscopic image is wanted to be seen, and the display portion is put in a flat state when a stereoscopic image does not need to be seen; ¶0098: the display system 15 can be used also in the state where the display portion 151 is flat; ¶0078, 0372: when the central angle of a curved surface is too small, a viewer is less likely to feel a stereoscopic effect in a two-dimensional image…central angle range 42°≤ θ≤140° for pop out stereoscopic effect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Yanagisawa to satisfy the claimed condition because such display modes are known and would be selected to allow two-dimensional viewing mode in a 3D display system when a stereoscopic image does not need to be seen (as taught in ¶0066 of Yanagisawa), wherein such degree of bending thresholds provide improved stereoscopic effect, the pop-out effect, and the sense of depth, thereby resulting in the subjects tended to be less tired, feel less uncomfortable feeling (¶0371, 0374).
Regarding Claim 17, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 16, as above. Vertegaal does not explicitly disclose: wherein selecting a display mode comprises selecting a 2D display mode, wherein controlling of the light emitting layer comprises providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device.
Yanagisawa is related to Vertegaal with respect to an analogous deformable display device comprising a bendable light emitting array layer, a bending sensor with control circuitry, and lens regions of an optical layer (FIGS. 1-3 & 6-8; ¶0136, 0205: flexible display portion may include a display element such as LED; ¶0169: flexible substrate through which light is extracted may have, as a light extraction structure, a micro lens array, or the like; ¶0026, 0097-110, 0122-25: The detection portion is configured to detect the condition of a viewer's eye to obtain detection information and to supply the detection information to the control portion. The control portion is configured to extract information from the detection information and to change curvature of the display portion on the basis of the information) and Yanagisawa teaches: wherein selecting a display mode comprises selecting a 2D display mode, wherein controlling of the light emitting layer comprises providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device (¶0066: an image may be displayed in the state where the display portion is not bent (in the state where the display portion is flat). For example, the display device of one embodiment of the present invention can be used in the following manner: the display portion is bent so as to have a curved surface when a stereoscopic image is wanted to be seen, and the display portion is put in a flat state when a stereoscopic image does not need to be seen; ¶0098: the display system 15 can be used also in the state where the display portion 151 is flat; ¶0014-15, 0237: The pixel 302 includes a plurality of subpixels. Each subpixel includes a light-emitting element and a pixel circuit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Yanagisawa to satisfy the claimed condition because such display modes are known and would be selected to allow two-dimensional viewing mode in a 3D display system when a stereoscopic image does not need to be seen, as taught in ¶0066 of Yanagisawa.
Regarding Claim 18, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 16, as above. Yanagisawa further discloses: wherein selecting a display mode comprises selecting a 3D display mode, wherein controlling of the light emitting layer comprises providing multiples views of the image content to pixels of the display device (FIGS. 1-3 & 6-8; ¶0066: the display portion is bent so as to have a curved surface when a stereoscopic image is wanted to be seen; ¶0107: The control portion 153 has a function of extracting information from the detection information and a function of changing the degree of curvature of the display portion 151 according to the information…The degree of curvature of the display portion 151 can be determined on the basis of the size of the display portion 151 and the curvature, the radius of curvature, or the central angle of a curved surface; ¶0098: the display portion 151 can have a curved surface whose central angle is greater than or equal to 20° and less than or equal to 145°).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Yanagisawa to satisfy the claimed condition because such a 3D display mode at a particular curved configuration is known and would be selected for optimization of viewing for user, with the beneficial result of “the degree of curvature of the display portion is made variable. Accordingly, the degree of curvature of the display portion can be adjusted such that a viewer can feel a natural stereoscopic effect or sense of depth and can be less likely to be fatigued”, as taught in ¶0078, 0090-91 of Yanagisawa.
Regarding Claim 20, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 16, as above. Yanagisawa further discloses: wherein selecting a display mode comprises selecting a 2D display mode when the degree of bending is below a first threshold level of curvature (FIGS. 1-3 & 6-8; ¶0066: an image may be displayed in the state where the display portion is not bent (in the state where the display portion is flat). For example, the display device of one embodiment of the present invention can be used in the following manner: the display portion is bent so as to have a curved surface when a stereoscopic image is wanted to be seen, and the display portion is put in a flat state when a stereoscopic image does not need to be seen; ¶0098: the display system 15 can be used also in the state where the display portion 151 is flat).
Regarding Claim 21, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 16, as above. Yanagisawa further discloses: wherein selecting a display mode comprises selecting a 3D display mode when the degree of bending is at or above a second threshold level of curvature (FIGS. 1-3 & 6-8; ¶0066: the display portion is bent so as to have a curved surface when a stereoscopic image is wanted to be seen; ¶0107: The control portion 153 has a function of extracting information from the detection information and a function of changing the degree of curvature of the display portion 151 according to the information; ¶0098: the display portion 151 can have a curved surface whose central angle is greater than or equal to 20° and less than or equal to 145°; ¶0078: the central angle is preferably as close to 45° as possible [threshold]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Yanagisawa to satisfy the claimed condition because such a 3D display mode above a particular threshold of curvature is known and would be selected for optimization of viewing for user (¶0078: When the central angle of a curved surface is too large, a viewer is likely to be fatigued in some cases. On the other hand, when the central angle of a curved surface is too small, a viewer is less likely to feel a stereoscopic effect in a two-dimensional image in some cases), with the result that “the degree of curvature of the display portion is made variable. Accordingly, the degree of curvature of the display portion can be adjusted such that a viewer can feel a natural stereoscopic effect or sense of depth and can be less likely to be fatigued”, as taught in 0090-91 of Yanagisawa.
Regarding Claim 24, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Vertegaal does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the controlling of the light emitting layer comprises: when the selected mode is a 2D mode, providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device; and when the selected mode is a 3D mode, providing multiples views of the image content to pixels of the display device.
Yanagisawa is related to Vertegaal with respect to an analogous deformable display device comprising a bendable light emitting array layer, a bending sensor with control circuitry, and lens regions of an optical layer (FIGS. 1-3 & 6-8; ¶0136, 0205: flexible display portion may include a display element such as LED; ¶0169: flexible substrate through which light is extracted may have, as a light extraction structure, a micro lens array, or the like; ¶0026, 0097-110, 0122-25: The detection portion is configured to detect the condition of a viewer's eye to obtain detection information and to supply the detection information to the control portion. The control portion is configured to extract information from the detection information and to change curvature of the display portion on the basis of the information) and Yanagisawa teaches: wherein the controlling of the light emitting layer comprises: when the selected mode is a 2D mode, providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device (¶0066: an image may be displayed in the state where the display portion is not bent (in the state where the display portion is flat). For example, the display device of one embodiment of the present invention can be used in the following manner: the display portion is bent so as to have a curved surface when a stereoscopic image is wanted to be seen, and the display portion is put in a flat state when a stereoscopic image does not need to be seen; ¶0098: the display system 15 can be used also in the state where the display portion 151 is flat; ¶0014-15, 0237: The pixel 302 includes a plurality of subpixels. Each subpixel includes a light-emitting element and a pixel circuit); and when the selected mode is a 3D mode, providing multiples views of the image content to pixels of the display device (FIGS. 1-3 & 6-8; ¶0066: the display portion is bent so as to have a curved surface when a stereoscopic image is wanted to be seen; ¶0107: The control portion 153 has a function of extracting information from the detection information and a function of changing the degree of curvature of the display portion 151 according to the information…The degree of curvature of the display portion 151 can be determined on the basis of the size of the display portion 151 and the curvature, the radius of curvature, or the central angle of a curved surface; ¶0098: the display portion 151 can have a curved surface whose central angle is greater than or equal to 20° and less than or equal to 145°).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Yanagisawa to satisfy the claimed condition because such a 2D display mode is known and would be selected to allow two-dimensional viewing mode in a 3D display system when a stereoscopic image does not need to be seen (as taught in ¶0066 of Yanagisawa). Furthermore, such a 3D display mode at a particular curved configuration is known and would be selected for optimization of viewing for user, with the beneficial result of “the degree of curvature of the display portion is made variable. Accordingly, the degree of curvature of the display portion can be adjusted such that a viewer can feel a natural stereoscopic effect or sense of depth and can be less likely to be fatigued”, as taught in ¶0078, 0090-91 of Yanagisawa.
Claims 9, 19 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vertegaal et al. (US 2016/0306390 A1) in view of Rissa et al. (US 2013/0093753 A1), and further in view of Kroon (US 2015/0138457 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Vertegaal discloses the display device according to Claim 1, as above.
Although Vertegaal teaches various viewing angles display mode while the display device is in at least a second curved configuration, wherein the degree of bending is above a first threshold and below a second threshold (¶0006, 0028, 0046, 0051-52: multiple viewing angles are provided in flexible 3D display…each microlens allows modulation of the light output with respect to the viewing angle of that position; ¶0053, 0059: bending degrees in convex and concave shapes to experience the lightfield with full motion parallax and stereoscopy), Vertegaal does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the display device is operative to display an image in a privacy mode having a limited field of view, when the selected display mode is a privacy mode.
Kroon is related to Vertegaal with respect to a stereoscopic display device comprising a light emitting layer, multiple display modes, and lens regions of an optical layer (¶0004, 0012, 0031, 0034, 0046, 0058, 0079-81, 0097) and Kroon teaches: wherein the display device is operative to display an image in a privacy mode having a limited field of view, when the selected display mode is a privacy mode, selected while the display device is in at least a second curved configuration, wherein the degree of bending is above a first threshold and below a second threshold (see FIGS. 2-4, 6, 10 showing single narrow viewing cone in privacy mode along with multiple cone public viewing mode; ¶0017, 0046, 0066, 0073, 0077: use of an optical arrangement including elements between the lenses…light from a pixel that would leave the display from a neighbouring lens can be blocked while the primary viewing cone is unaltered…a public (multiple cone) viewing mode can be chosen or a private (single narrow viewing cone) viewing mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Kroon to satisfy the claimed condition because such a privacy display mode is known and would be selected to “allow for content, task or application privacy modes such that sensitive information on the display (for example mail) is only visible in a small viewing cone, while insensitive information is not”, as taught in ¶0073 of Kroon.
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 16, as above. Vertegaal does not appear to explicitly disclose: selecting a display mode comprises selecting a privacy mode and wherein controlling of the light-emitting layer comprises providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device that are nearer to the optical axis of each cylindrical lens, formed in the deformable optical layer when curved.
Kroon is related to Vertegaal with respect to a stereoscopic display device comprising a light emitting layer, multiple display modes, and lens regions of an optical layer (¶0004, 0012, 0031, 0034, 0046, 0058, 0079-81, 0097) and Kroon teaches: selecting a display mode comprises selecting a privacy mode and wherein controlling of the light-emitting layer comprises providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device that are nearer to the optical axis of each cylindrical lens, formed in the deformable optical layer when curved (see FIGS. 2-4, 6, 10 showing single narrow viewing cone in privacy mode along with multiple cone public viewing mode; ¶0017, 0046, 0066, 0073, 0077: use of an optical arrangement including elements between the lenses…light from a pixel that would leave the display from a neighbouring lens can be blocked while the primary viewing cone is unaltered…a public (multiple cone) viewing mode can be chosen or a private (single narrow viewing cone) viewing mode; ¶0066: disabling lenses in optical layer; ¶0060-61: modulation of light-emitting element 27 based on a respective pixel; ¶0082, 0097: Even when in the public mode, the particle reservoirs can be designed to block the passage of light between lenses to reduce cross talk, but still allow the generation of multiple viewing cones…the lens of a multiview display switchable, it becomes possible to have a high 2D resolution mode in combination with a 3D mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Vertegaal in view of Kroon to satisfy the claimed condition because such a privacy display mode is known and would be selected to “allow for content, task or application privacy modes such that sensitive information on the display (for example mail) is only visible in a small viewing cone, while insensitive information is not”, as taught in ¶0073 of Kroon.
Regarding Claim 25, as best understood, Vertegaal discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Vertegaal does not appear to explicitly disclose: selecting a display mode comprises selecting a privacy mode and wherein controlling of the light-emitting layer comprises providing one view of the image content to pixels of the display device that are nearer to the optical axis of each cylindrical lens, formed in the deformable optical layer when curved (see rejection of claim 19 supra).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872