DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 have been entered.
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 9-13 of Remarks), filed 05/15/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive by virtue of Applicant’s arguments combined with the amendment to claims 1 and 16 (see claims filed 05/15/2026). Therefore, these grounds of rejection (and the corresponding Drawings objections) have been withdrawn.
2. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 6-8 of Remarks), filed 05/15/2026, with respect to the Drawings objections have been fully considered and are persuasive by virtue of Applicant’s arguments and explanations combined with the amendments to claims 1 and 16. Therefore, these grounds of objections have been withdrawn.
3. Applicant’s bona fide attempt to advance the application has addressed, only in part, some of the rejections of the Final Office Action (FOA) on 02/25/2026. However, the rejection of claims 9 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness have not been traversed and/or addressed (see pgs. 11-12 of FOA), and Applicant’s Remarks appear to be completely silent with respect to said grounds of rejection (see pgs. 6-21 of Remarks filed 05/15/2026). Thus, the Examiner maintains that Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the indefiniteness rejection of claims 9 and 25, as detailed previously and further below.
4. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 14-21 of Remarks) with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1-6, 9 and 16-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive by virtue of Applicant’s arguments combined with the amendment to claims 1 and 16. Therefore, these grounds of rejection have been withdrawn and claims 1-6 and 16-24 are deemed allowable.
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”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9 and 16-25 would be allowable if the rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 1 and 16, the best prior art of Vertegaal et al. (US 2016/0306390 A1) alone and/or in combination with Rissa et al. (US 2013/0093753 A1) teaches a display device (and accompanying method), comprising:
a bendable light-emitting layer comprising an addressable array of light-emitting elements (¶0014, 0025, 0038-39, 0046 of Vertegaal: 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); 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 exit the optical layer with fields of view that propagate in one direction normal to the optical layer (¶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 overlaid 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 exit the optical layer with fields of view that 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).
However, the best prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
control circuitry operative to select a display mode based on the degree of bending and 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, and render multiple views of the image content when a 3D display mode is selected.
Given the embodiments of Vertegaal and/or Rissa, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the construction of the display device to arrive at the cumulatively claimed configuration satisfying the conditions recited directly above. Thus, the best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative conditions of claims 1 and 16 in addition to details of claims 2-6, 9, and 17-25 further satisfying the claimed features of the apparatus and/or method.
Conclusion
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 930-1800 (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 at 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
Prosecution Insights