DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the election filed January 9, 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on January 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the M x N pixels, the pixel, the pixels, stretchable wrinkles, high stretchable region and low stretchable region as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to because there are no reference characters for the M x N pixels, the pixel, the pixels, stretchable wrinkles, high stretchable region and low stretchable region. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “comprises” should have been includes in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: STRETCHABLE OPTICAL DEVICE INCLUDING HIGH AND LOW STRETCHABLE REGIONS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pixel" in page 47, lines 7, 9, 14 and 18; and
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pixels" in page 48, line 2;
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 is 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.
In regard to claim 1, it is not understood what actually constitutes the high stretchable region, low stretchable region and stretchable wrinkles.
In regard to claims 2-3, it is not understood what is meant by a product of a modulus. What is the product? What is the modulus?
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2016/0028043 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0097902 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Kwon et al. teach a stretchable optical device (Figure 12) comprising: a flexible substrate 10 divided into M (a positive integer of 1 or more) x N (a positive integer of 1 or more) pixels (thickest portion of Figure 12); a first thin film encapsulation layer 5 formed on the flexible substrate 10, located in the pixel (thickest portion of Figure 12), and formed of a first inorganic material; an actuation device layer Q located in the pixel (thickest portion of Figure 12) and formed on the first thin film encapsulation layer 5; an emission layer 70 located in the pixel (thickest portion of Figure 12), formed on the first thin film encapsulation layer 5, and connected to the actuation device layer Q; a second thin film encapsulation layer 310 located in the pixel, formed on the emission layer 70, coming into contact with the first thin film encapsulation layer 5, and formed of a second inorganic material; a third thin film encapsulation layer 320/330 located in the pixel (thickest portion of Figure 12), formed on the second thin film encapsulation layer 310, and formed of a composite material of organic and inorganic materials (Figure 12, pages 2-7, paragraphs [0049]-[0150]).
In regard to claims 2-3 concerning the modulus and thickness, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, burden is on Applicant to show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regard to claim 4 concerning the overlapping length, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, burden is on Applicant to show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regard to claim 5, Kwon et al. teach the first inorganic material (of 5) and the second inorganic material (of 310) are formed of a same material (See pages 2-3 and 5, paragraphs [0057] and [0104]) (Figure 12, pages 2-7, paragraphs [0049]-[0150]).
In regard to claim 6, Kwon et al. teach the first inorganic material (of 5) and the second inorganic material (of 310) formed of any one material selected from a group of candidate materials based on inorganic materials including at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide and aluminum oxide (See pages 2-3 and 5, paragraphs [0057] and [0104]) (Figure 12, pages 2-7, paragraphs [0049]-[0150]).
In regard to claim 7, Kwon et al. teach the composite material (of 320/330) including a silicon-based organic-inorganic composite hybrid material (See pages 2-3 and 5, paragraphs [0057] and [0104]) (Figure 12, pages 2-7, paragraphs [0049]-[0150]).
In regard to claim 1 however, Kwon et al. fail to teach a stretchable film attached to the flexible substrate to cover the M x N pixels, wherein the stretchable optical device is divided into a high stretchable region having stretchable dependent on a shape of the stretchable film, and a low stretchable region for minimizing deformation of the stretchable film, in which the low stretchable region includes a region of the pixels.
In regard to claim 1, Hong et al. teach a stretchable film 200 attached to the flexible substrate 230 to cover the M x N pixels, wherein the stretchable optical device (Figures 13A-13B) is divided into a high stretchable region (highest point) having stretchable (wrinkles See Figures 13A-13B) dependent on a shape of the stretchable film 200, and a low stretchable region (lowest point) for minimizing deformation of the stretchable film 200, in which the low stretchable region (lowest point) includes a region of the pixels (thickest portion of Figures 13A-13B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stretchable optical device structure as taught by Kwon et al. with the stretchable optical device having a stretchable film attached to the flexible substrate to cover the M x N pixels, wherein the stretchable optical device is divided into a high stretchable region having stretchable dependent on a shape of the stretchable film, and a low stretchable region for minimizing deformation of the stretchable film, in which the low stretchable region includes a region of the pixels as taught by Hong et al. to provide excellent compatibility with a mass production processes (page 1, paragraph [0001]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to stretchable optical devices:
Bae (US 2015/0356926 A1) Ghosh (US 6,888,172 B2)
Jung et al. (US 10,886,483 B2) Jung et al. (US 11,049,926 B2)
Lin (US 2021/0336202 A1) Park et al. (US 10,135,001 B2)
Zhao et al. (CN 109273506 B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
IMS
January 27, 2026
/IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898