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 a response to an amendment filed 03/17/2026.
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 16-22 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, and 12 are amended.
Claims 9, 10, and 13-15 are cancelled.
Claims 16-22 are added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 04/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/17/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on a newly cited reference(s) follow.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 16-17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 2020/0193899 to Li et al., (hereinafter Li), in view of US Patent Publication No. 2022/0116546 to Gummadi et al., (hereinafter Gummadi), and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2021/0376012 to Li et al., (hereinafter Li ‘012), and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2014/0073291 to Hildner et al., (hereinafter Hildner).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an electronic device comprising:
a stretchable display (Stretch display screen, see p31, abs., Li);
a tensile information detection sensor configured to detect tensile information of the stretchable display (Detecting unit acquiring a tensile strength of a stretch state of the stretch display, see P31, p36, abs., Li);
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the stretchable display, and the tensile information detection sensor (A control unit that is coupled to receive tensile information and control display, see p31, abs., 36, Li), and the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device configured to:
identify the tensile information of the stretchable display through the tensile information detection sensor (Tensile information is identified, such as relating to a display being stretched or not stretched, see p52, p31, abs., 36, Li), based on the tensile information identified through the tensile information detection sensor, identify or adjust a value of a parameter (A display’s pixel value parameters, such as color/function, are identified for adjustment based on tensile information , see p52, p31, abs., 36, Li), and control to operate a function based on the identified or adjusted value of the parameter (A display’s pixel are controlled based on tensile information , see p52, p31, abs., 36, Li).
Li does not explicitly teach an optical sensor disposed under or in a display; memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to an optical sensor and a memory; based on a tensile information identified through a tensile information detection sensor, identify or adjust a numerical value of a light receiving parameter of an optical sensor for sensing light, and control the optical sensor to operate based on the identified or adjusted numerical value of the light receiving operation parameter.
However, Gummadi, from the same or similar field of devices with displays, teaches an optical sensor disposed under or in a display (An optical sensor, such as a camera, and other sensors can be under the display, see p3, p48, 43, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2C, Fig. 2D, 84, Gummadi); memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to an optical sensor and a memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor one or more processors individually or collectively cause performance of method (Processor, coupled memory with instructions, can receive and process camera images and control display to display images, thus there is a coupling between, processor, optical camera sensor, and display, see p4, p7, Fig. 2A, Gummadi);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by Li and incorporating an optical sensor under or in a display, and a processor operatively coupled to an optical sensor, as taught by Gummadi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide increased screen display area by not needing to use non-displaying bezels or notches to accommodate sensors that sit on the plane of a display, and to better be able for a processing unit to receive sensor information so that it can process or analyze said sensed information as desired (see p2, p3, p7, p48, 43, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2C, Fig. 2D, 84, Gummadi).
Li does not explicitly teach based on a tensile information identified through a tensile information detection sensor, identify or adjust a numerical value of a light receiving parameter of an optical sensor for sensing light, and control the optical sensor to operate based on the identified or adjusted numerical value of the light receiving operation parameter.
However, Li ‘012 from the same or similar field of devices with displays, teaches based on a tensile information identified through a tensile information detection sensor, identify or adjust a value of a light receiving parameter of an optical sensor for sensing light, and control the optical sensor to operate based on the identified or adjusted value of the light receiving operation parameter. (An optical sensor, such as a camera, can be controlled based on tensile information, such as from a sensor that can detect bending of a display, and operate the sensor, such as to enabling or not enabling the camera by change of a state parameter value that will capture light for video or pictures or not capture light for said purposes, see p57, p54-57, 96, Li ‘012).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by the combination that includes Li and incorporating adjustment operation of an optical sensor based on tensile information, as taught by Li ‘012.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better increased convenience of operation of a device that can detect a desired change in operation related to tension, such as bending, and perform a desired operation (see p57, p54-57, 96, Li ‘012).
Li does not explicitly teach a numerical value a parameter.
However, Hildner from the same or similar field of devices with displays, teaches a numerical value of a parameter (The activation/deactivation. On/off state of a camera can be specified as a numerical value, see Table 94, p322, p304-305, Hildner).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by the combination that includes Li and incorporating a numerical value of a parameter, as taught by Hildner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently represent a parameter in a manner that is more usable for use in program based devices and program control based on binary numerical operation (see Table 94, p322, p304-305, Hildner).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li, Gummadi, Li ‘012, and Hildner teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Gummadi further teaches wherein an optical sensor includes a camera, a fingerprint sensor, an illuminance sensor, a proximity sensor, a three-dimensional (3D) sensor, an iris sensor, or a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor (A sensor can be a camera, fingerprint sensor, etc., p3, p88, 84, p48, 43, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2C, Fig. 2D, Gummadi).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by the combination that includes Li and incorporating an optical sensor of desired intended use, as taught by Gummadi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a desired intended use functionality, such as capture of an optically based object capture, such as image capture, fingerprint capture, etc., (see p7, p88, p2, p3, p7, p48, 43, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2C, Fig. 2D, 84, Gummadi).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li, Gummadi, Li ‘012, and Hildner teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Li further teaches wherein a value of a parameter is determined to correspond to a value related to a stretching degree of a stretchable display, a value related to a change in a transmittance of the stretchable display, or a value related to a change in a light reception amount detected by the optical sensor (Operation of a parameter such as an amount of pixels compensating with light, corresponds to a value of a degree of stretching as indicated by tensile strength, see 37, Li).
Li ‘012 further teaches light receiving parameter is determined to correspond to a value related to a stretching degree of a stretchable display (An optical sensor, such as a camera, can be controlled based on tensile information, such as from a sensor that can detect bending of a display, and operate the sensor, such as to enabling or not enabling the camera by change of a state parameter value that will capture light for video or pictures or not capture light for said purposes, see p57, p54-57, 96, Li ‘012).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by the combination that includes Li and incorporating adjustment operation of an optical sensor based on tensile information, as taught by Li ‘012.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better increased convenience of operation of a device that can detect a desired change in operation related to tension, such as bending, and perform a desired operation (see p57, p54-57, 96, Li ‘012).
Hildner further teaches a numerical value of a parameter (The activation/deactivation. On/off state of a camera can be specified as a numerical value, see Table 94, p322, p304-305, Hildner).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by the combination that includes Li and incorporating a numerical value of a parameter, as taught by Hildner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently represent a parameter in a manner that is more usable for use in program based devices and program control based on binary numerical operation (see Table 94, p322, p304-305, Hildner).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li, Gummadi, Li ‘012, and Hildner teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Gummadi further teaches wherein a numerical value of a light receiving parameter is determined to be proportional to or inversely proportional to a value related to a change in a transmittance of a stretchable display, a value related to a change in a light reception amount detected by an optical sensor, a square of a value related to the change in the transmittance of the stretchable display, or a square of the value related to the change in the light reception amount detected by the optical sensor (Operation parameters of operating a display for displaying an image on a screen, are related to corresponding values of light detected by a camera sensor where light reception changes by at least an amount of modification or as a camera is positioned for capture. An operating parameter for display is proportional to the light reception value, as the captured image has a correspondence, or a gain proportion, see P7, p130, 132, p54, 115, Gummadi)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by the combination that includes Li and incorporating consideration of an operation parameter proportionate to a desired obtained value, as taught by Gummadi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a desired functionality, such as an operation value to control a display that corresponds to provide a proportionate received image with desired change adjustments or detected input (see P7, p130, 132, p54, 115, Gummadi).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Li, Gummadi, Li ‘012, and Hildner teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Li further teaches wherein at least one of a light emission intensity, a light emission pulse frequency, a light emission pulse duty cycle, or a light emission time of a stretchable display is determined based on a value related to a stretching degree of the stretchable display (An operation can include control of light emission intensity, such as to emit light from pixels an intensity, based on determined tensile strength that is indicative of a degree of stretching, such as distortion, see P31, p37, 21, Li)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li, Gummadi, Li ‘012, and Hildner teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Li 0’012 further teaches identify a value of an light receiving parameter corresponding to a value representing a stretching degree included in a tensile information based on a table including at least one of values representing stretching degrees, values related to transmittance changes or values related to changes in a light reception amount, or numerical values of a light receiving parameter (An operation that identifies an operation parameter of lighting reception, is based on determined tensile strength that is indicative of a bending that correlates to a degree of stretching, and a reception value parameter such as state to receive some amount of light when enabled, see p57, p54-57, 96, Li ‘012)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by the combination that includes Li and incorporating adjustment operation of an optical sensor based on tensile information, as taught by Li ‘012.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better increased convenience of operation of a device that can detect a desired change in operation related to tension, such as bending, and perform a desired operation (see p57, p54-57, 96, Li ‘012).
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Li, Gummadi, Li ‘012, and Hildner teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Gummadi further teaches wherein a numerical value of a light receiving parameter includes a signal processing-related variable value (A light receiving parameter can beimage capturing parameters related to image signal processing, such as gamma correction, a gain, a color correction, a color saturation, a noise filter, a contrast control, a brightness control, a tone mapping, a sharpness, a blurring, or a red eye correction, see p9, p7, p3, p48, 43, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2C, Fig. 2D, 84, Gummadi).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by Li and incorporating a signal-processing variable, as taught by Gummadi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better account for image processing variables that permit settings that help affect the light captured and processed into a processed digital image (see p9, p7, p2, p3, p7, p48, 43, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2C, Fig. 2D, 84, Gummadi).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Li, Gummadi, Li ‘012, and Hildner teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Gummadi further teaches wherein a signal processing- related variable value includes a filter coefficient (A light receiving parameter can be image capturing parameters related to image signal processing, such a noise filter that is interpreted as a filter coefficient, see p9, p7, p3, p48, 43, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2C, Fig. 2D, 84, Gummadi).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by Li and incorporating a filter coefficient, as taught by Gummadi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better account for image processing variables that permit settings that help affect the light captured and processed into a processed digital image with reduced noise by means of a noise filter (see p9, p7, p2, p3, p7, p48, 43, Fig. 2A, Fig. 2C, Fig. 2D, 84, Gummadi).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Gummadi, in further view of Li ‘012, in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2014/0073291 to Hildner et al., (hereinafter Hildner), and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2016/0085319 to Kim et al., (hereinafter Kim)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li, Gummadi, Li ‘012, and Hildner teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein a light receiving parameter includes at least one of a sensor gain value, a shutter speed, or an exposure time value.
However, Kim, from the same or similar field of devices with displays teaches wherein a light receiving parameter includes at least one of a sensor gain value, a shutter speed, or an exposure time value (A camera shutter speed parameter is changed based on bending of a screen, see P231, 196, p115, Kim).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by the combination that includes Li and incorporating a shutter speed parameter, as taught by Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide a convenient and adjustable manner of controlling the amount of time an optical sensor is opened to receiving light for the purpose of image capture, and by providing the adjustable control through a convenient bending means captured by sensor (see P231, 196, p115, Kim).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Gummadi, in further view of Li ‘012, in further view of Hildner, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2020/0137472 to Won et al., (hereinafter Won).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li, Gummadi, Li ‘012, and Hildner teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Li further teaches wherein a stretchable display includes: pixels (Pixels that form display, see p32, 37, p35, Fig. 1 ref# 22, Li); backplanes to the pixels (Pixels are over substrate that is interpreted as backplanes, see Fig. 1B ref# 211 on 21, p35, Li); and wherein a spacing between the backplanes increases or lengths of the backplanes increase in a stretched state of the stretchable display (Substrate between units of pixels stretch in directions, thus an increase, see p35, Fig. 1B ref# 211 on 21, p35, Li).
Li does not explicitly teach drive pixels; and signal lines disposed between pixels.
However, Won from the same or similar field of displays, including flexible displays, teaches drive pixels (Pixels (P) with backplanes (BP) and drivers, see P83, 82, p89-90, 132, p94, 97, Fig. 3A, Fig. 5, Fig. 7A-B, Won); and signal lines disposed between pixels (Lines between pixels in bridges and connecting pixels, see 94-95, Fig. 5, P83, 82, p89-90, 132, p94, 97, Fig. 3A, Fig. 5, Fig. 7A-B, Won).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display and control as described by the combination that includes Li and incorporating drivers and lines for pixels, as taught by Won.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to properly provide the supply and data signals via lines that drive to operate pixels as needed (see P83, 82, p89-90, 132, p94-95, 97, Fig. 3A, Fig. 5, Fig. 7A-B, Won).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu, US. Patent Publication No. 2016/0301832 teaches an electronic device with camera control and a flexible screen, where cameras can be controlled to be off or on depending on whether they are blocked by the screen.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights