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 application filed 04/19/2023, in which claims 1-15 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 04/19/2023 and 07/09/2025.
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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the value of the operation parameter is determined to be proportional to or inversely proportional to a value related to a change in a transmittance of the stretchable display, a value related to a change in a light reception amount detected by the optical sensor, or a square of the value.” It is not clear what “value” is being referenced in a square of the value. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is being broadly interpreted to include any value.
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, 10-13, and 15 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).
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);
and at least one processor operatively connected 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), wherein the at least one processor is 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), and identify or adjust a value of an operation parameter of at least one of the optical sensor or the stretchable display based on the tensile information (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 wherein the at least one of the optical sensor or the stretchable display is configured to operate based on the identified or adjusted value of the operation parameter (A display’s pixel are operated` based on tensile information , see p52, p31, abs., 36, Li).
Li does not explicitly teach an optical sensor disposed under or in a display; at least one processor operatively connected to an optical sensor; Furthermore, although claimed in the alternative, Li also does not explicitly teach the alternative limitation of identify or adjust a value of an operation parameter of an optical sensor based on tensile information, and wherein the optical sensor is configured to operate based on the identified or adjusted value of the 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); at least one processor operatively connected to an optical sensor (Processor that 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 p7, Fig. 2A, Gummandi).
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 Gummandi.
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, Gummandi).
Although claimed in the alternative, Li does not explicitly teach the alternative limitation of identify or adjust a value of an operation parameter of an optical sensor based on tensile information, and wherein the optical sensor is configured to operate based on the identified or adjusted value of the operation parameter.
However, Li ‘012 from the same or similar field of devices with displays, teaches identify or adjust a value of an operation parameter of an optical sensor based on tensile information, and wherein the optical sensor is configured to operate based on the identified or adjusted value of the 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 turn on or off, 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).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li, Gummandi, and Li ‘012 teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Gummandi 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 Gummandi.
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, Gummandi).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li, Gummandi, and Li ‘012 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 an operation parameter includes at least one of a light emission intensity, a light emission pulse frequency, a light emission pulse duty cycle, a light emission time, a sensor gain value, a shutter speed, an exposure time, or a signal processing-related variable value (An operation can include control of light emission intensity, such as to emit light, see P31, 21, Li).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li, Gummandi, and Li ‘012 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 an operation 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).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li, Gummandi, and Li ‘012 teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Gummandi further teaches wherein a value of an operation 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, or a square of a value (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, Gummandi)
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 Gummandi.
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, Gummandi).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Li, Gummandi, and Li ‘012 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, Gummandi, and Li ‘012 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 processor is further configured to identify a value of an operation 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 values of an operation parameter (An operation that identifies an operation parameter of lighting compensating pixels, is based on determined tensile strength that is indicative of a degree of stretching, and an operational parameter such as a number of compensating pixels to operate, see p33, P31, 21, Li)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Li, Gummandi, and Li ‘012 teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Li ‘012 further teaches an optical sensor and control based on tensile information, such as folding, bending, etc., (An optical sensor, such as a camera, can be controlled based on tensile information, see p57, p54-57, 96, Li ‘012); wherein a at least one processor is further configured to, when a tensile information indicates an open state of a stretchable display, control at least one of an optical sensor or the stretchable display to operate based on an identified or adjusted value of the operation parameter (An optical sensor , such as a camera, or display can be controlled based on tensile information, such as from a sensor that can detect bending of a display that can indicate a transition from a folded state to opened state, and operate a sensor, such as to turn on or off, of providing an application, 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 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
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, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2020/0137472 to Won et al., (hereinafter Won).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li, Gummandi, and Li ‘012 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 or lengths of the backplanes are increased in a stretched state of the stretchable display (Substrate between units of pixels stretch, 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).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Gummadi, in further view of Li ‘012, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2022/0374097 to Astley et al., (hereinafter Astley).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li, Gummandi, and Li ‘012 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 a stretching degree included in a tensile information (Tensile information is identified, such as relating to a display being stretched or not stretched, see p52, p31, abs., 36, Li), and control at least one of an optical sensor or a stretchable display to operate based on a value of an operation parameter (A display is operated based on pixel operation parameters based on tensile information , see p52, p31, abs., 36, Li).
Li does not explicitly teach compare a value representing a stretching degree with a preset threshold value, and when the value representing the stretching degree reaches the preset threshold value, controlling to operate based on the value of the operation parameter.
However, Astley from the same or similar field of displays, including flexible displays, teaches compare a value representing a stretching degree with a preset threshold value (A folding event representative of a degree of unfolding/folding, is detected based on comparison of a signal value meeting a set threshold value, see 138, P150, 154, p1, 146, 143, 145, 157, 169, 21, p22, Fig. 6, 14, 17, Astley), and when the value representing the stretching degree reaches the preset threshold value, controlling to operate based on the value of the operation parameter (A folding event representative of a degree of unfolding/folding, is detected based on comparison of a signal value meeting a set threshold value, and when met, a control operation mode is performed, such as a full power mode, or a mode with display of specific inputs, see 138, P150, 154, p1, 146, 143, 145, 157, 169, 21, p22, Fig. 6, 14, 17, Astley).
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 a degree of stretching meeting a threshold for a desired control, as taught by Astley.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better discern when a desired flexing event is more probably indicative of a desired event so to perform a desired control based on the event, and thus reducing certain potentially false events (see 138, P150, 154, p1, 146, 143, 145, 157, 169, 21, p22, Fig. 6, 14, 17, Astley).
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2021/0311683 teaches a foldable display that displays a specific content on the display when a folding angle reaches a predetermined angle.
Conclusion
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