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 .
Response to Arguments
1 Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office after reviewing the applicant’s arguments respectfully has found that the applicant’s rationale and remarks supporting said arguments were persuasive in part causing the Office to withdraw the final rejection and issue this second non final office action. The Office has added new prior art and strengthened its rejections using some past prior art to address the concerns of the applicant. The Office responds fully to the applicant arguments below:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation {BRI} consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
Response: The Office finds grounds the arguments supporting grounds 2, and 4-7 unpersuasive for the reasons below and maintains its rejections. Further the Office finds the applicant’s arguments persuasive regarding Ground 1 Whether claim 7 is pattenable under 35 USC §102 in view of Wu and has amended its response, and Ground 3 Whether dependent claim 20 is patentable under 35 USC §102 in view of Wu and amended its response. While the Office found parts of the applicant’s arguments regarding the other grounds unpersuasive the Office has amended its responses clarifying where applicable and amending prior art where needed to present a clearer argument and response. As the Examiner has noted that the prior art used was mixed up and improperly identified and should be the basis of a non-final rejection to correct these rejections
Response Regarding independent claims 1, 12 and 15 under Ground Two and Five of the applicant’s argument:
The applicant argues Wu (i.e. Wu et al., US Published Patent Application No. 2021/0349499) does not teach the claimed limitations as presented by the applicants in the claims. The Office believes that Wu for the following reasons does teach the claimed limitations as presently presented under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the plain meaning of the words of the claims.
The Office finds that Wu teaches an deformable device which has three sections two of which include a display and one that does not as the applicant claims. Wu includes a flexible substrate on which its display including sections are bendably coupled to the non-display section. And when folded the displays are oppositely facing each other as such Wu teaches claims 1 and 15. Claim 12 adds the requirement for a sensor that detects how the sections are connected. Vakil detects how the sections are configured to ensure the display is ready to display an output. Further additional prior art is used to claim 12. The Office thru this clarification and new prior art now finds the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive regarding the base claims.
While it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP § 2111.01, subsection II. As explained in MPEP § 2111, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution will reduce the possibility that the claim, when issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See MPEP 2103
Much of the applicant’s arguments involve the applicant citing from its specification discussing how the invention is distinguished from Wu, however the Office finds the applicant is using terms and embodiments of its invention not actually claimed. Further the applicant cannot choose to argue embodiments of the prior art not disclosed by the Office as teaching the applicant’s claimed invention as presently presented in the claims. For instance, Applicant discusses paragraph 0030 of Wu regarding section two of Wu describing a different embodiment than the Office disclosed.
Examiners are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. See MPEP § 2111. Disclosure may be express, implicit, or inherent. Examiners are to give claimed means- (or step-) plus- function limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with all corresponding structures (or materials or acts) described in the specification and their equivalents. See In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2103
Part of the examiner’s review of the application is to determine the broadest reasonable interpretation “BRI” of what the applicant claims not what the applicant draws from its speciation. The language of a claim is what is reviewed and the applicant cannot change the plain meaning of terms such as “section”, “device” or “oppositely facing”.
The applicant states repeatedly that Wu is a single display device which somehow the applicant believes disqualifies Wu even though the Office cited a region of Wu’s invention like a section of the applicant’s invention is devoid of display units. This is not proper and the examiner does not have to defend the applicant’s reasoning regarding an undisclosed teaching of Wu that does not affect the embodiment actually relied upon by the office to teach the applicant’s claims. Further the applicant’s invention and Wu’s invention relies on a flexible housing (i.e. Substrate) with flexible displays to be deformable.
The applicant does not describe how as disclosed in Figure the oppositely facing displays do not teach the claim. The Office notes that nowhere in the claim does it discuss the orientation or location of the displays. The applicant’s annotated drawings are not reflective of the embodiment claimed or the essential parts of the invention.
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). - See MPEP 2125. The applicant has removed items 109 and 110 from the drawings it has annotated and includes subject matter not claimed.
Claim 1 and 15 appear nearly identical in subject matter and claim 12 has some additional limitations however the language in the limitations is clear and readily understood and defined as shown and discussed below.
Claim 1:
“A deformable electronic device, comprising: a first section comprising a first display a second section bendably coupled to the first section and devoid of any display and a third section bendably coupled to the second section and comprising wherein the first display and the second display are oppositely”.
Under any broadest reasonable interpretation “BRI” of the claim language and in reviewing the applicant’s specification, the applicant describes at paragraph 023 - “an electronic device which has a deformable electronic device having at least two sections carrying displays and at least one section that is devoid of a display, wherein the at least two displays are oppositely facing”. [See paragraph 023]. This is the substance of claim 1 and 15.
The term bendably coupled is not a term of art and the applicant discusses either using additional essential parts such as “the device housing 104 could also be a combination of rigid segments connected by hinges, pivots, or flexible materials”. [See para 053] or flexible substrates – “When the first display 105 and/or the second display 205 is constructed on flexible plastic substrates, … For example, some embodiments allow bending radii of … around five millimeters to provide a display that is foldable through active bending” [See paragraph 051].
Initially, The Office disputes that the applicants figure 1 and 2 even as annotated by the applicant, are illustrative of the embodiment of applicant’s invention as described in claims 1, 12, and 15 because the applicant has failed to include either in its claims or its arguments the annotations which are necessary to understand the claim language. Additionally, the applicant’s arguments using said drawings included subject matter not claimed by the applicant as addressed below.
The applicant’s figure 1 and 2 include Items 109 and 110 which are essential as they are “a first deformable portion 109 between the first section 101 and the second section 102, and also defines a second deformable portion 110 ...” [See paragraph 056]. Without those parts included the applicant must have an embodiment which explain how the sections are “bendably coupled” as even the annotated drawings used in its arguments do not discuss such deformable parts or how the sections are coupled at all.
The Applicant does discuss two embodiments in its specification which appear to be the embodiment(s) discussed in said independent claims discussed above.
The applicant at paragraph 023 of its specification discussed an electronic device which has a deformable electronic device having at least two sections carrying displays and at least one section that is devoid of a display, wherein the at least two displays are oppositely facing. [See paragraph 023].
This is the embodiment applicant claims in the independent claims and what Wu teaches. The applicant admits Wu teaches three regions. Wu as cited expressly teaches one region is devoid of Display Units as cited by the Offic e in previous rejections [See Wu para 0032] and Figure two as cited shows a flexible and bendable region which is connected the middle section to each display section. Figure 2 of Wu also illustrates once folded Wu’s two displays are “oppositely facing”. The Office is only responsible to discloses what the applicant actually claims.
The applicant discusses one other embodiment that is a possible embodiment of the independent applicant at paragraphs 051 and 052 which discuss a deformable display whose sections are built on flexible plastic substrates allowing the displays to become flexible and bend including fold. Wu like the applicant includes a flexible substrate which as one in the ordinary skill would know and as the applicant discusses at paragraphs [051 & 052].
Again, though not previously specifically cited Wu discusses having a flexible substrate at paragraphs [0033 and 0034] – “The foldable display device 100 can include a flexible substrate SUB,” [0033]; and “The flexible substrate SUB may be a plastic substrate, for example, a polyimide (PI) substrate, a polycarbonate (PC) substrate or a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate,” [0034]
The applicant admits that Wu has three connected regions and can be folded. The applicant acknowledges in its specification and argument that flexible substrates can allow a device to fold in various manners. The applicant even cites paragraph 0030 of Wu discussing flexible substrates in its arguments.
Wu expressly claims its regions (sections) are connected along boundary lines which are axis along which the device can be folded. “Bendably coupled” as described by the applicant includes using a flexible substrate. Further the applicant does not discuss how Wu does not teach the expressed claims and the plain language used, other than stating as such.
The office further notes that the applicant discusses his annotations of figures 1 and 2 in a manner which does accurately represent the embodiment claimed. The Office notes the claim language does not discuss terms such as “alignment on the short side” or alignment on the long side” or “back side or no display;” The claim simply states one section does not have a display. Nor does the claim discuss how the applicant’s display can be folded, rather simply “bendably coupled”. The examiner is only responsible for the actual words of the claims and what those words mean as used in the claim limitations under BRI.
The Office expressly disagrees with the applicant’s conclusions that the Office was addressing any said above terms which not in the claims when the applicant stated – “The Office Action alleges that Wu teaches these limitations at page seven, citing FIG. 2, which is actually from the Wu reference … FIG. 2 fails to teach the limitations of claims 1 and 15”.
Response to specific Applicant Arguments and Grounds:
Argument 1. In regards to Ground Two of the appellant’s brief; Wu does not teach - a first section with a first display; a second section that is devoid of any display; and a third section with a second display.
Response 1: foldable electronic device ED includes a first flat region FL1, a second flat region FL2, and a foldable region FR [Wu para 0029 and see Fig. 2 below] Wu contains three regions and as cited in the Office action Wu expressly contains an embodiment in the FR region contains no display units as the claim requires - none of the display units 300 may be disposed in the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0032]. The Argument is not found to be persuasive under the BRI of the claims.
Argument 2: Claim 15 recites the same limitations in alternate terms. As set forth in these claims, the second section is bendably coupled to the first section, and the third section is bendably coupled to the second section.
Response 2: Wu teaches - The electronic device ED is bent along a bending axis BX1 to form the curvature portion CR1 and bent along a bending axis BX2 to form the curvature portion CR2. [See Wu figure Two and Eight which identifies couplings B1 and B2]. Accordingly, when the foldable electronic device ED is at the folded state, the third surface part P3 can be defined between the plane PLN1 and the plane PLN2. In detail, a first boundary B1 is defined at a position departing away from the first surface part P1, and a second boundary B2 is defined at a position departing away from the second surface part P2. In other words, the foldable region FR can be defined by a region between the first boundary B1 and the second boundary B2. [See Wu figure Two which identifies couplings B1 and B2 and para 0030]
The Office included Figure two in its office actions and it is clear from figure two and it is clear under BRI that couplings B1 and B2 are connecting the first display section to the FR region and the second display section under BRI. Further the applicant relies on the term “bendably coupled” and as figure two of Wu plus the description of Wu as cited.
The foldable region FR connects the first display region DR1 and the second display region DR2 … [Wu para 0032]. Wu’s FR region which is bendably coupled to both displays contain a flexible display substrate. The applicant cites paragraph 0030 of Wu in its argument which states Wu has a flexible substrate - Referring to FIG. 2, the foldable electronic device ED of the present disclosure can include a flexible substrate SUB,” [See Wu paragraph 0030]. As discussed above the applicant admits I its specification that a flexible substrate is “bendably coupled” as described by the applicant at paragraphs [051 & 052] The Argument is not found to be persuasive under the BRI of the claims.
Argument 3: The Examiner alleges that "first display region DR" is the claimed "first section," while "foldable region FR" is the claimed "second section." Office Action, page seven. The Examiner alleges the claimed "third section" is "second display region DR2." Id
The problem with this analysis is that none of these sections are devoid of a display. In Wu, the display passes across the entire surface of the device housing. Thus, the foldable region is not devoid of a display.
Response 3: the Office Action rejection of claim 1 specifically states - “none of the display units 300 may be disposed in the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0032]”. The applicant cannot choose his own embodiment of Wu’s invention when the Office cited that the embodiment it was disclosing had no display units in the second bendable section which is coupled to the other two sections with displays. The Argument is not found to be persuasive under the BRI of the claims.
Argument 4: The applicant argues that – “Referring to FIG. 2, the foldable electronic device ED of the present disclosure can include a flexible substrate SUB, and an electronic layer 190 disposed on the flexible substrate” shows that Wu does teach a display is in section two;
Response 4: The Office did not cite paragraph 0030 of Wu in its rejections of the base claims however as previously shown and cited “none of the display units 300 may be disposed in the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0032]”. The applicant cannot pick and choose the embodiments of prior art that are not cited in rejecting the base claims and this argument is therefore moot as Wu teaches a section without a display unit.
What the applicant does make clear is it understands Wu has a flexible substrate which is connected to each display section which undermines its argument regarding whether Wu teaches the independent claims 1 and 15. As noted above this is an embodiment the applicant claims and describes as bendably coupled. The Argument is not found to be persuasive under the BRI of the claims.
Argument 5 With reference to claims 12-13 and Ground Five of the appellant’s brief; claim 12 recites inter alia a method of detecting a second section bendably coupled to a first section and a third section that is devoid of any displays.
Neither Wu nor Vakil teaches this limitation, as demonstrated above. Wu teaches a single display that spans the single section of its housing. Vakil teaches four sections, each having a display. New prior art has been added to meet all limitations
Response 5 The actual claim limitation the subject matter of this ground of rejection is – “detecting, using one or more sensors, deformation of a deformable electronic device”
As the Office action rejection discussed and Vakil teaches [at paragraph 0070] if the application processor 203 executes a text communication application, part of the display arrangement 201 should be allocated to provide a keyboard allowing the user to enter text. Accordingly, the display manager 207 detects that this application is initialized, and based on the configuration of the display arrangement 201 it proceeds to identify an image section of the display arrangement 201 that should be used for displaying the display output of the application as well as an input image section that should be used for the keyboard input. This information is fed to the display driver 205 and (e.g., via the display driver 205) to the user-input processor 209.
The device manager is sensing whether the device is deformed into the correct configuration for the output to be displayed (i.e 16x9 resolution). If the device manager determines it is then it knows the proper sections are in the proper configuration and adjacent to each other properly). The Argument is not found to be persuasive under the BRI of the claims.
Argument 6: The applicant suggests that Wu and Vakil does not teach determining, using the one or more sensors, whether the deformation results in the first display and the second display being adjacent or oppositely facing
Response 6: Oppositely facing displays are simply displays facing in opposing direction. See applicants’ specification at [031] - When both the first section and the third section abut the second section such that the first display and the second display face in opposite directions …” Wu as shown in figure two shows displays that are oppositely facing. The device manager of Vakil could be programed to recognize a closed configuration of Wu as it is well understood that one of ordinary skill in the art can combine existing known technologies such as those used by Wu and Vakil. The applicant cannot change the plain meaning of the words of a claim to support his conclusions arguments as to what is the broadest readable interpretation of its claims. Further regarding the term adjacent which simply means next to or adjoining something. Further the plain language of adjacent means next to another and as such even displays facing opposite directions are adjacent to each other. Vakil does senses or detects the proper configuration thus the combined teaching of Wu and Vakil can detect which sections of a display are properly adjacent to each other when it determines the display is in the proper configuration. The Argument is not found to be persuasive under the BRI of the claims.
Argument 7: Regarding Ground Four of the appellant’s brief; Claims 2, 4, and 8-11: - As noted above, claim 1 requires a first section having a display on one side of the device to be joined by a second section with no display to a third section having a display on the opposite side of the device. Neither Wu nor Vakil teaches these limitations. Wu the applicant believes and argues – “teaches a single display coupled to a single device housing, as shown in FIG. 1.”
Response 7: The applicant claims a single device that has three sections and there is nothing in claim one to suggest the sections are not part of a single flexible substrate as the word section means a portion of something or a distinct part but even those parts maybe not be separated. The applicant must actually claim what it is arguing because under BRI, Wu has three sections, one bendable and devoid of a display. The Argument is not found to be persuasive under the BRI of the claims. The applicant as exposed above teaches an embodiment that is mounted on a single flexible substrate. The Argument is not found to be persuasive under the BRI of the claims.
Argument 8: Regarding Ground Seven of the Applicant’s brief – the applicant argues “As demonstrated above, the combination of Wu and Vakil fails to teach the limitations of claim 12, from which claim 14 depends, namely, detection of a section a second section bendably coupled to a first section and a third section that is devoid of any displays.
Response 8: For the reasons shown above the independent claims are taught by the prior art cited and discussed above and as such the Applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive under the BRI of the claims. Nw art has been added to clarify claim 14 response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. Claim 7 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.
The Office is unclear what the applicant means in claim 7 when it states The deformable electronic device of claim 6, wherein deformable housing is also deformable along a major axis of each of the first section, the second section, and the third section “such that when the first section is bent relative to the second section” “such that the first section and second section abut and the third section is bent relative to the second section” “such that the second section and third section abut” “such that the first display and second display are adjacent and define an exterior surface of the deformable electronic device” “the deformable electronic device can be deformed into a loop”. The Office is unclear as to what the applicant is claiming or means in said claims. Claim 7 which is dependent upon claim 5 and 6 begins with an indefinite suggestion “the device can be deformed along a major axis” and ends with an indefinite suggestion “the deformable device can be deformed into a loop”.
Claim 7 is unclear on how the Figure 1 embodiment the applicant argues describes claim 1 (see Figures 1 and 2 as annotated by the applicant) in the applicant’s arguments, can have all three sections bent along a major axis and the device becomes a loop as the three sections are in a step form rather a linear form as the major axis of each section is horizontal. Deforming or folding each section along a horizontal axis would just form a smaller step form. Since the displays and housing are flexible they can be bent at any point as there is nothing in the claim which suggests the deformation is only between two sections arranged vertically as Wu’s Figure eight illustrates.
The claim also contains several “such that” phrases which are also indefinite as said terms appears to suggest an action after a series of conditions and or actions. Some such as terms such as one section “abut” another section which under BRI three sections mounted on a flexible substrate (i.e housing) are already abutting. The Office finds additionally the indefinite phrases beginning with “such that” can have more than one meaning; as being bent relative to another section does not mean to only fold the display section in a manner that causes the first display section to cover another section with or without a display or that a section has a display with the light emitting side on opposite sides of a section. Nothing in the claim prevents the inventions sections from being square shaped sections (as the applicant claims in claim 2) then a major axis of Fig. 1 is indefinite and nothing suggests what side of a section the display is attached which also makes claim 7 indefinite, as claim 7 itself depends on an unclaimed embodiment of the applicant’s Figure 1 as the applicant argues, but not as is actually claimed in writing of claim 7.
Secondly it appears claim 7 suggests an action deforming the device along “a major axis of each section” and then describes a result of said action however the language is unclear for instance “such that when” is only used to describe the first bending of section one but not the bending of section three. It is unclear when section three will be bent to form a loop. The Office is unclear how at the time of bending of a first section causes the bending a “third section” “relative to the second section”?
Further the Office is unclear how, the bending of a first section alone causes “such that the second section and third section abut” when such sections were already abut as described in claim one and claim 5 (deformable items are flexible materials such as Wu’s flexible substrate, (as per the Applicant’s specification: “the first deformable portion 809 and second deformable section comprise a combination of rigid segments connected by … or flexible material” at [093]) the sections of Wu’s Figure Eight are already abutting each other pursuant to BRI.
The Office is further unclear how the first display and the second display can be adjacent and forming an exterior surface unless the device is flexible enough to have three sections form a loop. As an example Wu first and second displays would abut each if a loop was formed by increasing the bending of FL1 region and FL2 region of Wu. Nothing in claim 1 suggests the sections are bendable themselves, as is suggested in claim 5 bendable housing and deformable portions of said housing are between the sections, claim 6 flexible displays are mounted on the sections of the sections nor does claim 7 require a flexible section. The applicant describes the exterior surface defined by the first display 105 and the second display 205 defining a "loop" configuration 600 see paragraph [067]. Where the first display 105 and the second display 205 are flexible, and when the electronic device is folded as described below with reference to FIG. 6, the electronic device 100 can be configured in a loop so as to be worn on a wrist. [061].
In reviewing figure 600 there appears to only be two sections and a portion 109 shown in the figure. 6 which is exactly what the specification of the applicant describes this singular device housing 104 defines a first deformable portion 109 between the
first section 101 and the second section 102 [056]. A “portion” of a device plain meaning is also a “section” of a device pursuant to BRI. Figure 8 of shows an embodiment of Wu’s in a similar configuration.
The Office shall apply prior art to claim 7 as it presently understands the applicant’s claim however appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
3. Claim 14 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.
It is unclear to the Office how “determining, with the one or more sensors, whether user gaze falls on one or both of the first display or the second display, wherein when the first display and the second display are oppositely facing or partially oppositely facing the causing the first display to present the presentation content on the first display and the other presentation content on the second display occurs only when the user gaze falls on both the first display and the second display”. It is further unclear what “the other presentation content on the second display … user gaze falls on both the first display and the second display”. It is unclear how a user can gaze at two displays which are oppositely facing at the same time. The applicant’s specification does not resolve or support how a user’s gaze can be on two display which are not facing the same direction and are back to back.
The applicant’s specification at [0108] discusses “whether to present content or cease presenting content will be triggered by detecting a person's gaze upon a display. If, for example, the one or more sensors 821 detect a first person viewing the first display 805 when the electronic device 800 is in the "back to back" configuration (500) and a second person viewing the second display 815 when the electronic device is in the "back to back" configuration (500), the one or more processors 806 can segment content 818 for presentation into a first content portion 819 and a second content portion 23. And at [0146] Where decision 1404 determines that users are not looking at each display, as might be the case when the deformable electronic device is in the "back-to-back" configuration and is being held in the hand of a single user, step 1405 can comprise causing the display facing the person to present content while the display failing to receive any user gaze ceases the presentation of content.
The Office shall apply prior art to claim 14 as it presently understands the applicant’s claim however appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 15 -19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al., US Patent Application (20210349499), hereinafter “Wu”
Regarding claim 1 Wu teaches a deformable electronic device1, As the applicant explains [at paragraph 053] the device housing 104 could also be a combination of rigid segments connected (i.e. coupled) by hinges2, pivots, or flexible materials, Wu teaches the foldable display device 100 can include a flexible substrate SUB … in the first display region DR1, the second display region DR2, and the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2 below] comprising:
a first section3 (the plain meaning of section includes, one of several component parts that may be assembled or reassembled) Similarly, Wu teaches a foldable electronic device ED with three sections; first flat region FL1, a second flat region FL2, and a foldable region FR [Wu para 0029 and see Fig. 2 below], the foldable region FR can be defined by a region between the first boundary B1 and the second boundary B2 [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2 below] comprising a first display (a separate region of a foldable display is) a first display region DR1 [Wu para 0032] an electronic layer 190 disposed on the flexible substrate SUB. According to some embodiments, the electronic layer 190 can be a display layer DL. [Wu para 0030];
a second section the foldable region FR can be defined by a region between the first boundary B1 and the second boundary B2 [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2 below] bendably4 The foldable electronic device ED in the foldable region FR is capable of being curved, bent, and/or folded [Wu para 0029] (since the substrate is flexible) coupled5 (the plain meaning of the word coupled is: 4. Coupled verb 2a: to fasten together: link b: to bring (two electric circuits) into such close proximity as to permit mutual influence) to the first section The foldable region FR connects the first display region DR1 and the second display region DR2 … [Wu para 0032] and devoid of any display According to some embodiments, an electronic layer 190 disposed on the flexible substrate SUB. … the electronic layer 190 can have no display function [Wu para 0030] none of the display units 300 may be disposed in the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0032]; and
a third section a second flat region FL2 [Wu para 0029] bendably the foldable electronic device ED of the present disclosure can include a flexible substrate SUB, and an electronic layer 190 disposed on the flexible substrate SUB. According to some embodiments, the electronic layer 190 can be a display layer DL [Wu para 0030] coupled to the second section The foldable region FR connects the first display region DR1 and the second display region DR2 … [Wu para 0032] and comprising a second display; a second display a second display region DR2 [Wu para 0032] an electronic layer 190 disposed on the flexible substrate SUB. According to some embodiments, the electronic layer 190 can be a display layer DL. [Wu para 0030]
wherein the first display and the second display the first display region DR1 and the second display region DR2 … [Wu para 0032] are oppositely facing. (Regarding the applicant’s reliance on it’s first and second drawings or its specification - Nothing in the claim suggests which side(s) of the claimed “sections” comprise a display. Noting in the claim language describes the position or orientation of the deformable device or the relationship of the sections such as the device is not deformed. Secondly the term “oppositely facing” as related to the position of the displays by the plain meaning for: Opposite6 across from and usually facing. The limitation actually includes the word facing. Again, none of the applicant’s drawings actually show displays facing each other.) FIG. 2, the electronic device ED of the present disclosure can be a foldable electronic device ED, which can be folded along a folding axis FX between 180° to -180°. [Wu para 0029] (the Office finds, pursuant to BRI, the claim is only seeking to claim a “display” and not solely the image face of the display or the light emitting side, as to what is oppositely facing, and therefore since a display has two sides how could the displays not be oppositely facing. However, the Office notes that the prior art below does show the light emitting sides are facing sides of a display being oppositely facing and the Office further notes that if the foldable device can be folded allowing the displays light emitting surfaces to “face in opposite directions” or “oppositely facing displays can be configured” as the applicant describes in its specification at 045])
Regarding claim 5 Wu teaches everything in claim 1, in addition Wu teaches further comprising a deformable housing spanning the first section, the second section, and the third section, The flexible substrate SUB may be a plastic substrate, for example, a polyimide (PI) substrate, a polycarbonate (PC) substrate or a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate, but not limited thereto. [Wu para 0034 and see Fig. 2] wherein the deformable housing Wu teaches the foldable display device 100 can include a flexible substrate SUB … in the first display region DR1, the second display region DR2, and the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2] defines a first deformable portion between the first section (B1, ie. An axis or pivot point as the applicant discusses at [53]) and the second section and a second deformable portion (B2) between the second section and the third section the foldable region FR can be defined by a region between the first boundary B1 and the second boundary B2 [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2 below]. first flat region FL1, a second flat region FL2, and a foldable region FR [Wu para 0029 and see Fig. 2], the foldable region FR can be defined by a region between the first boundary B1 and the second boundary B2 [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2 below] bendably The foldable electronic device ED in the foldable region FR is capable of being curved, bent, and/or folded [Wu para 0029] (As the whole of the foldable region is bendable then Wu’s section two bendably coupled at B1 or B2 to the other sections)
Regarding claim 6 Wu teaches everything in claim 5, in addition Wu teaches further wherein the first display and the second display are flexible. the foldable electronic device ED of the present disclosure can include a flexible substrate SUB, and an electronic layer 190 disposed on the flexible substrate SUB. According to some embodiments, the electronic layer 190 can be a display layer DL. [Wu para 0030 and see Fig. 2]
Regarding claim 15 Wu teaches a deformable electronic device, As the applicant teaches [at paragraph 053] “the device housing 104 could also be a combination of rigid segments connected (i.e. coupled) by hinges , pivots, or flexible materials, …”. Wu teaches the foldable display device 100 can include a flexible substrate SUB … in the first display region DR1, the second display region DR2, and the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2] comprising: a plurality of sections each comprising a corresponding display; Similarly, Wu teaches a foldable electronic device ED with three sections; first flat region FL1, a second flat region FL2, and a foldable region FR [Wu para 0029 and see Fig. 2], the foldable region FR can be defined by a region between the first boundary B1 and the second boundary B2 [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2] a first display region DR1 [Wu para 0032] an electronic layer 190 disposed on the flexible substrate SUB. According to some embodiments, the electronic layer 190 can be a display layer DL. [Wu para 0030] and at least one section devoid of any display The foldable region FR connects the first display region DR1 and the second display region DR2 … none of the display units 300 may be disposed in the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0032]; wherein at least two sections of the plurality of sections are bendable relative to the at least one section FIG. 8 has curved surface. In detail, the flexible substrate SUB has a curvature portion CR1 and a curvature portion CR2 at the outer sides of the first flat region FL1 and the second flat region FL2 respectively. The curvature portion CR1 and the curvature portion CR2 are positioned near an edge of the flexible substrate SUB. The electronic device ED is bent along a bending axis BX1 to form the curvature portion CR1 and bent along a bending axis BX2 to form the curvature portion CR2. [Wu para 0044] The foldable electronic device ED in the foldable region FR is capable of being curved, bent, and/or folded [Wu para 002 and see Fig. 8] and displays of the at least two sections are oppositely facing FIG. 2, the electronic device ED of the present disclosure can be a foldable electronic device ED, which can be folded along a folding axis FX between 180° to −180°. [Wu para 0029]. (the Office notes that because the foldable display of Wu as disclosed could also be folded in way that would leave the displays in a back to back formation, rather than a face to face, as in a facing formation, where again the emitted light would be directed in an opposite direction)
PNG
media_image1.png
710
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16 Wu teaches everything in claim 15, in addition Wu teaches wherein the plurality of sections comprises two sections and the at least one section comprises two other sections. The display layer DL can be disposed in a display region DR (one section can have two display sections) and include a plurality of display units. [Wu para 0032]
Regarding claim 17 Wu teaches everything in claim 15, in addition Wu teaches wherein the plurality of sections comprises four sections and the at least one section comprises three sections. Those skilled in the art will readily observe that numerous modifications and alterations of the device and method may be made while retaining the teachings of the disclosure. [Wu para(s) 0059 & 0060] (The Office notes that Wu discusses simple modifications to the number of sections and one of ordinary skill could make design choices depending upon the wearer or placement of the device and thus the claim describes what Wu anticipates being done)
Regarding claim 18 Wu teaches everything in claim 15, in addition Wu teaches wherein the at least one section comprises a number of sections according with a formula equal to:2 * (X - 1), where: X is a quantity of sections in the plurality of sections. The display layer DL can be disposed in a display region DR (one section can have two or three display sections) and include a plurality of display units. [Wu para 0032]
Those skilled in the art will readily observe that numerous modifications and alterations of the device and method may be made while retaining the teachings of the disclosure. [Wu para(s) 0059 & 0060] (The Office notes that Wu discusses simple modifications to the number and coarsening functions of sections and one of ordinary skill could make design choices depending upon the wearer or placement of the device and thus the claim describes what Wu anticipates being done)
Regarding claim 19 Wu teaches everything in claim 15, in addition Wu teaches wherein the plurality of sections is one section greater than the at least one section. T The display layer DL can be disposed in a display region DR (one section can have two or three display sections) and include a plurality of display units. [Wu para 0032] Those skilled in the art will readily observe that numerous modifications and alterations of the device and method may be made while retaining the teachings of the disclosure. [Wu para(s) 0059 & 0060]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 2, 4, 8-11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Vakil et al., US Patent Application (20100058205), hereinafter “Vakil”
Regarding claim 2 Wu teaches everything in claim 1, in addition Wu does not teach but Vakil teaches wherein the first section, the second section, and the third section are equal in size. displays have substantially the same size and furthermore has a display area that substantially covers the entire surface of the display side [Vakil para(s) 0031 & 0032] the full width of the current display configuration but leave a fixed-size display area of the touch-sensitive displays for use as a keypad entry, etc. [Vakil para 0045] (Vakil teaches that instead of four displays one display maybe a non display keyboard or other input device rather then an image displaying device)
Wu discloses foldable display device includes a flexible substrate; a display layer disposed on the flexible substrate; a first display region, a second display region, and a foldable region disposed between the first display region and the second display region; a biometric sensing structure overlapping the flexible substrate from a top view and having a biometric sensing region; and a supporting film disposed under the flexible substrate and including a recess portion in the foldable region. A total area of the biometric sensing region is less than or equal to a total area of the flexible substrate
Vakil discloses a device comprises a display arrangement which includes a plurality of displays that are movable relative to each other such that a plurality of display configurations can be achieved. Each of the display configurations provides a combined display area which is different for at least two of the display configurations. An application processor is operable to execute a plurality of user applications, each of which can provide a display output. A display driver is arranged to generate an arrangement of display output for the display arrangement from the display output of an application being executed. The display driver sets a display characteristic for the arrangement of display output in response to a characteristic of the executed application and the deployed display configuration. For example, depending on the application being executed and the current display configuration, a size of a display window used for the application can be selected. Vakil further discloses that the device may not only provide a flexible display output but may also provide a flexible user interface that can be adapted to the specific current use of the device. Indeed, the approach may allow the device to be dynamically configured to provide very different user interface configurations. For example, the operation of the device may adapt itself to provide, e.g., predominantly a user display, predominantly an input interface, or a suitable combination thereof. Thus, the function and purpose of the display arrangement 201 can dynamically be changed thereby allowing the device to easily and dynamically be transformed from one device type to another. For example, the device may easily be transformed from being a large display video-rendering device to being a more compact micro-computer with a dedicated keyboard for user input
Prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu and Vakil in the art of deformable displays. Vakil teachings discloses an improved approach to, in particular an approach allowing increased flexibility, increased compatibility and adaptation for multiple applications, an improved user experience.
Regarding claim 4 Wu teaches everything in claim 1, in addition Wu does not teach but Vakil teaches wherein the first section and the third section are hingedly coupled to second section. The rotatable attachment may for example be achieved using a suitable hinge mechanism. [Vakil para 0023]
Regarding claim 8 Wu teaches everything in claim 1, in addition Wu does not teach but Vakil teaches further comprising one or more processors operable by the application processor 203 generate a display output which is fed to a display driver 205 coupled to the application processor 203 and to the display arrangement 201. [Vakil para 0039] to present content on the first display and the second display. the display manager 207 can modify the processing of the display driver 205 such that an appropriate output is generated by the display arrangement [Vakil para 0043]
Regarding claim 9 Wu and Vakil teaches everything in claim 8, in addition Wu does not teach but Vakil teaches wherein the one or more processors are situated in the second section. The invention can be implemented in any suitable form including hardware, software, firmware, or any combination of these … may be implemented in a single unit, in a plurality of units, or as part of other functional units. [Vakil para 0103] he user-input processor 209 then proceeds to generate an image for the input image section which corresponds to a keyboard (e.g., with a plurality of square boxes each of which corresponds to a number or letter). This image is fed to the display arrangement 201 such that it is displayed in the input image section. [Vakil para 0071]
Where the processor is located is a design component of the invention and while control devices such as processors are typically located in non display areas so as to not interfere with the light emitting function of a display at the time of the invention it would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill to design a system with a processor in a non-display area.
Regarding claim 10 Wu and Vakil teaches everything in claim 8, in addition Wu does not teach but Vakil teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: detect a geometric configuration of the deformable electronic device where the first display and the second display are adjacent, the display manager 207 detects that this application is initialized, and based on the configuration of the display arrangement 201 it proceeds to identify an image section of the display arrangement 201 that should be used for displaying the display output of the application as well as an input image section that should be used for the keyboard input. [Vakil para 0070] segment content for presentation into a first content portion and a second content portion if the device is used in the display configuration wherein two displays are active, the display manager 207 defines the active display area as the largest 16:9 aspect ratio window of the combined display area. [Vakil para 0053]; and cause the first display to present the first content portion and the second display to present the second content portion. the display manager 207 may be arranged to determine a display characteristic in response to an identification of the application being executed. Thus, the application processor 203 may provide an identification …The display manager 207 can for example store a set of values for the display characteristic for the different possible applications. … of the display arrangement 201, the text-based communication application should use the full width of the current display configuration but leave a fixed-size display area of the touch-sensitive displays for use as a keypad entry [Vakil para(s) 0044 &0045]
Regarding claim 11 Wu and Vakil teaches everything in claim 8, in addition Wu does not teach but Vakil teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: detect a geometric configuration of the deformable electronic device the display manager 207 detects that this application is initialized, and based on the configuration of the display arrangement 201 it proceeds to identify an image section of the display arrangement 201 that should be used for displaying the display output of the application as well as an input image section that should be used for the keyboard input. [Vakil para 0070] and cease presentation of content on one of the first display or the second display. a policy may be specified for the video application indicating that the aspect ratio … if the device is used in the display configuration wherein only a single display is active and assuming that the display has an aspect ratio of 16:9, the display manager 207 defines the active display area as the entire display area of the single display. … [Vakil para 0052]; and
Vakil does not teach but Wu teaches where the first section abuts the second section, and the third section abuts the second section The foldable region FR connects the first display region DR1 and the second display region DR2 … [Wu para 0032] with the first display and the second display facing opposite directions FIG. 2, the electronic device ED of the present disclosure can be a foldable electronic device ED, which can be folded along a folding axis FX between 180° to -180°. [Wu para 0029]
Regarding claim 20 Wu teaches everything in claim 15, in addition Wu does not teach but Vakil teaches wherein the deformable electronic device defines a stair-stepped perimeter. Thus, the fourth display C can be rotated relative to the second display D such that it takes up a position next to the second display D and without interfering with the second display D or the first display A. Furthermore, the fourth display C may be positioned next to the third display B. Indeed, by rotating the displays relative to each other, the four displays A-D may be positioned next to each other, two of the displays A, D may be positioned next to each other, or the displays may be folded up to take up the space of only a single display. Thus, by a simple rotation of the displays, three different display configurations can be achieved with each configuration having a different combined display area. [Vakil para(s) 0027 and see Fig. 1 (iii)]
PNG
media_image2.png
290
269
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prior to the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu and Vakil in the art of deformable displays. Wu and Vakil teach deformable displays on flexible substrates. Wu teaches at least one section of a segmented display can be void of display. Vakil teaches a segmented deformable display with four sections. One of ordinary skill in the art could design a segmented display with four sections with at least one being a non display area. Wu teaches that the section of the flexible display void of a display could be used for antennas adding an additional screen to Wu allows for a larger screen for the user.
10. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and in further view of Delaporte US Patent Application (20220100235), hereinafter “Delaporte”
Regarding claim 3 Wu teaches everything in claim 1, in addition Wu and Vakil does not teach but Delaporte teaches wherein an aspect ratio of the first display and the second display is one of an 8:9 aspect ratio or a 21:9 aspect ratio. Each display segment also has a rectangular shape based off of the general aspect ratio of a phone with a slate form factor, which can vary anywhere from 3:2 to 21:9. [Delaporte para 0039]
Wu discloses foldable display device includes a flexible substrate; a display layer disposed on the flexible substrate; a first display region, a second display region, and a foldable region disposed between the first display region and the second display region; a biometric sensing structure overlapping the flexible substrate from a top view and having a biometric sensing region; and a supporting film disposed under the flexible substrate and including a recess portion in the foldable region. A total area of the biometric sensing region is less than or equal to a total area of the flexible substrate
Delaporte discloses a reconfigurable touch screen computing devices with folding configurations that include flexible displays made up of segments reconfigured from a folded state to an expanded state are described. The form factor of the folded state is the size of a handheld phone (including an integrated speaker and microphone). The form factor of the expanded state is the size of a tablet computer. Both states provide a configuration including a touch screen display on a front side and a protective housing on a back side. The computing devices include sensors indicating the state and mechanisms for folding, alignment, and structural support, and magnets for the devices to be locked in the folded or unfolded state. A module attached to at least one segment may contain substantially all processing and memory, and a communications system, all which may be used in either state
Prior to the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu and Delaporte in the art of deformable displays. Delaporte improves Wu’s system by known teachings of using different size displays to accommodate different application making the device more user friendly and functional.
11. Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and in further view of Dahlgren et al., US Patent Application (20210373601), hereinafter “Dahlgren”
Regarding claim 7 Wu teaches everything in claim 6, in addition Wu teaches wherein deformable housing he device housing 104 could also be a combination of rigid segments connected (i.e. coupled) by hinges7, pivots, or flexible materials, Wu teaches the foldable display device 100 can include a flexible substrate SUB … in the first display region DR1, the second display region DR2, and the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2] (applicant discusses using a flexible substrate as a deformable housing like Wu teaches) is also deformable along a major axis (The applicant has not described the size of the sections and as such there is no defined direction of major axis of each section) of each of the first section, the second section, and the third section The electronic device ED is bent along a bending axis BX1 to form the curvature portion CR1 and bent along a bending axis BX2 to form the curvature portion CR2. [Wu para 0031] (and as described above any part of the foldable region including along “B1” maybe be deformed as the substrate is flexible) such that when the first section is bent relative to the second section [Wu see Fig. 8] such that the first section and second section abut [FL1 still abuts FR. Wu see Fig. 8] and the third section is bent relative to the second section [Wu see Fig. 8] such that the second section and third section abut [FL2 still abuts FR. Wu see Fig. 8] such that the first display and second display are adjacent As disclosed above Wu’s sections are each independently deformable because of the flexible substrate [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2] Wu’s Fig. 8 has curved surface. In detail, the flexible substrate SUB has a curvature portion CR1 and a curvature portion CR2 at the outer sides of the first flat region FL1 and the second flat region FL2 respectively. The curvature portion CR1 and the curvature portion CR2 are positioned near an edge of the flexible substrate SUB. The electronic device ED is bent along a bending axis BX1 to form the curvature portion CR1 and bent along a bending axis BX2 to form the curvature portion CR2. [Wu para 0044 and see Fig. 8] It is apparent that if Wu first and third sections are bent further they would be adjacent to each other.;
Wu does not explicitly teach but xx teaches (such that the first display and second display are adjacent) define an exterior surface of the deformable display 100 may comprise a single continuous display, [Dahlgren para 0032]
which may be rigid or flexible electronic device where the display 100 comprises a segmented display that is part of the wristband 12 for the watch, where the segmented display comprises multiple segments 130. [Dahlgren para 0035] the deformable electronic device can be deformed into a loop. the size, shape, location, and number of the display sections 112-116 within display 100 may depend on the size, shape, and/or type of display 100 used for device 10. For example, different display sections 112-116 may be defined for flexible displays that wrap around a user's wrist than would be defined for a flat, rigid display, e.g., that of a smartphone. [Dahlgren para 0032]
PNG
media_image3.png
364
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wu discloses foldable display device includes a flexible substrate; a display layer disposed on the flexible substrate; a first display region, a second display region, and a foldable region disposed between the first display region and the second display region; a biometric sensing structure overlapping the flexible substrate from a top view and having a biometric sensing region; and a supporting film disposed under the flexible substrate and including a recess portion in the foldable region. A total area of the biometric sensing region is less than or equal to a total area of the flexible substrate
Dahlgren discloses a display disclosed herein receives input via one section of the display and controls another different section of the display responsive to this received input. Exemplary embodiments include a smartwatch, where the display encompasses at least part of the wristband and where multiple display sections are defined for the wristband display. A control circuit for the display receives input from a second display section of the wristband display, e.g., that is not fully visible to the user, and controls the first display section that is visible to the user responsive to the input received by the second display section.
Prior to the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu and Dahlgren in the art of deformable displays. Dahlgren improves Wu’s system by known teachings of to create a flexible display with adjacent display areas to be formed into a loop allowing the device to be worn on the wrist of a user. Both Wu and Dahlgren use a flexible displays that can be attached to a flexible substrate in sectional segments. Wu teaches using one section for electronics such as an antenna and Dahlgren discussing a control section which could also be located in a segment with out a display. It would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill to design a system incorporating the above well known design features.
Regarding claim 16 Wu teaches everything in claim 15, in addition Wu does not teach but Dahlgren teaches wherein the plurality of sections comprises two sections and the at least one section comprises two other sections. display 100 may comprise a segmented display with distinct display segments 130 located in different locations on the electronic device 10, e.g., a front display segment and a back display segment of a smartphone, where each display segment may comprise a rigid display segment or a flexible display segment. It will be appreciated that a segmented display may comprise adjacent display segments (e.g., FIG. 6) and/or spaced apart display segments (e.g., FIG. 8). [Dahlgren para 0020]
12. Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Vakil and in further view of Schwartz et al., (20190324825), hereinafter “Schwartz”.
Regarding claim 12 Wu teaches method, comprising: comprising a first section first flat region FL1, … [Wu para 0029 and see Fig. 2] comprising a first display, a first display region DR1 [Wu para 0032]; a second section a second flat region FL2 … [Wu para 0029 and see Fig. 2] bendably coupled the foldable region FR can be defined by a region between the first boundary B1 and the second boundary B2 [Wu para 0033 and see Fig. 2 below] The foldable electronic device ED in the foldable region FR is capable of being curved, bent, and/or folded [Wu para 0029] The foldable region FR connects the first display region DR1 and the second display region DR2 [Wu para 0032]; to the first section and devoid of any display According to some embodiments, an electronic layer 190 disposed on the flexible substrate SUB. … the electronic layer 190 can have no display function [Wu para 0030] none of the display units 300 may be disposed in the foldable region FR. [Wu para 0032] and a third section bendably coupled to the second section and comprising a second display a second display a second display region DR2 [Wu para 0032] an electronic layer 190 disposed on the flexible substrate SUB. According to some embodiments, the electronic layer 190 can be a display layer DL. [Wu para 0030]; and
Wu does not each but Vakil teaches detecting, using one or more sensors, deformation of a deformable electronic device the display manager 207 detects that this application is initialized, and based on the configuration of the display arrangement 201 it proceeds to identify an image section of the display arrangement 201 that should be used for displaying the display output of the application as well as an input image section that should be used for the keyboard input. [Vakil para 0070] (pursuant to BRI and the plain meaning of “sensor” the display manager acts as a sensor as it can “detects” the configuration of multiple display screens
Wu nor Vakil explicitly teach but Schwartz teaches determining, using the one or more sensors, the data sources/resources 406 are shown to include various external APIs, databases, video streams, file systems, sensor(s), or sensor system(s). … from different types of sensors, cameras, storage locations and software interfaces. [Schwartz para 0301] whether the deformation results in the first display and the second display being adjacent or oppositely facing; The method also includes the step of identifying parameters of an output display system, including determining a display area for the canvas to be rendered on the output display system (step 3320). This step may include, for example, acts of identifying a quantity and/or sizes of the display screen(s) associated with the display area (act 3322) and identifying display boundaries (act 3324) of the display system. This may also include determining whether the display area is configured within horizontally adjacent display screen(s) and/or vertically adjacent display screen(s) and which portion(s) of each screen are designated as part of the display area. [Schwartz para 0301]
when the first display and the second display are adjacent, segmenting presentation content into a first content portion and a second content portion and causing, by one or more processors the first display to present the first content portion and the second display to present the second content portion the operating system designates which portions of the display screen(s) may be used by the canvas application for the display area based on an analysis of other applications running at the same time. This step may also include identifying portions of the display screen(s) that are damaged and that should be excluded from the display area. In some instances, the display area is a contiguous display area (as shown) [Schwartz para 0301]; and when the first display and the second display are oppositely facing, one of: causing, by the one or more processors, hardware processors of the systems to instantiate/implement the various components described and to thereby implement the acts and steps shown and described in FIGS. 33 and 34 and throughout this disclosure [Schwartz para 0301] the first display to present the presentation content and the second display to cease presentation of any content; or causing, by the one or more processors, the first display to present the presentation content and the second display to present other presentation content. which portion(s) of each screen are designated as part of the display area. the operating system designates which portions of the display screen(s) may be used by the canvas application for the display area based on an analysis of other applications running at the same time … In other embodiments, the display area includes a plurality of non-contiguous display ( such as displays light emitting areas not facing the same direction) areas from the display screen(s) (not shown). [Schwartz para 0301];
Wu discloses foldable display device includes a flexible substrate; a display layer disposed on the flexible substrate; a first display region, a second display region, and a foldable region disposed between the first display region and the second display region; a biometric sensing structure overlapping the flexible substrate from a top view and having a biometric sensing region; and a supporting film disposed under the flexible substrate and including a recess portion in the foldable region. A total area of the biometric sensing region is less than or equal to a total area of the flexible substrate
Vakil discloses a device comprises a display arrangement which includes a plurality of displays that are movable relative to each other such that a plurality of display configurations can be achieved. Each of the display configurations provides a combined display area which is different for at least two of the display configurations. An application processor is operable to execute a plurality of user applications, each of which can provide a display output. A display driver is arranged to generate an arrangement of display output for the display arrangement from the display output of an application being executed. The display driver sets a display characteristic for the arrangement of display output in response to a characteristic of the executed application and the deployed display configuration. For example, depending on the application being executed and the current display configuration, a size of a display window used for the application can be selected. Vakli further discloses that the device may not only provide a flexible display output but may also provide a flexible user interface that can be adapted to the specific current use of the device. Indeed, the approach may allow the device to be dynamically configured to provide very different user interface configurations. For example, the operation of the device may adapt itself to provide, e.g., predominantly a user display, predominantly an input interface, or a suitable combination thereof. Thus, the function and purpose of the display arrangement 201 can dynamically be changed thereby allowing the device to easily and dynamically be transformed from one device type to another. For example, the device may easily be transformed from being a large display video-rendering device to being a more compact micro-computer with a dedicated keyboard for user input
Schwartz discloses an interactive event creation control consoles are provided to facilitate the creation of events from a plurality of different content sources. In some instances, the event creation control consoles include two different frames, a content source frame for selecting content for corresponding content tiles and an event creation frame for identifying the content tiles to be published in an event canvas associated with a particular event and which is published differently on different end user systems based on the contextual event role of the end user and/or the different end user system configurations.
Prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu, Vakil and Schwartz in the art of deformable displays. Vakil teachings discloses an improved approach to, in particular an approach allowing increased flexibility, increased compatibility and adaptation for multiple applications, an improved user experience. Schwartz improves the system by deterring the display configuration of the deformable device.
Regarding claim 13 Wu and Vakil teaches everything in claim 12, in addition Vakil teaches further comprising, when the first display and the second display are partially oppositely facing, causing, by the one or more processors, the first display to present the presentation content and the second display to present the other presentation content. The method also includes the step of identifying parameters of an output display system, including determining a display area for the canvas to be rendered on the output display system (step 3320). This step may include, for example, acts of identifying a quantity and/or sizes of the display screen(s) associated with the display area (act 3322) and identifying display boundaries (act 3324) of the display system. This may also include determining whether the display area is configured within horizontally adjacent display screen(s) and/or vertically adjacent display screen(s) and which portion(s) of each screen are designated as part of the display area. [Schwartz para 0301] In other embodiments, the display area includes a plurality of non-contiguous display ( such as displays light emitting areas not facing the same direction) areas from the display screen(s) (not shown). [Schwartz para 0301]; the operating system designates which portions of the display screen(s) may be used by the canvas application for the display area based on an analysis of other applications running at the same time …[Schwartz para 0301]
13. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, Vakil and Schwartz and in further view of Lapstun et al., US Patent Application (20190162950), hereinafter “Lapstun”
Regarding claim 14 Wu, Vakil and Schwartz teaches everything in claim 13, in addition Wu and Vakil do not teach but Lapstun teaches further comprising determining, with the one or more sensors, viewer 250 gazing at a light field display 200 emitting a light field corresponding to a virtual scene consisting of several objects 252. A tracking system incorporated in or associated with the display 200 tracks the face of the viewer 250 and hence the locations of the viewer's two eyes 240. [Lapstun para 0491] whether user gaze falls on one or both of the first display or the second display, wherein when the first display and the second display are oppositely facing or partially oppositely facing the causing the first display to present the presentation content on the first display and the other presentation content on the second display occurs only when the user gaze falls on both the first display and the second display. Unlike traditional head-tracking 3D displays where the displayed content is viewer-specific, a light field display 200 operating in viewer-specific mode displays viewer-independent content with viewer-specific focus. If the viewer changes their point of fixation or moves relative to the display then the display focus may need to be updated, [Lapstun para 0489]
Wu discloses foldable display device includes a flexible substrate; a display layer disposed on the flexible substrate; a first display region, a second display region, and a foldable region disposed between the first display region and the second display region; a biometric sensing structure overlapping the flexible substrate from a top view and having a biometric sensing region; and a supporting film disposed under the flexible substrate and including a recess portion in the foldable region. A total area of the biometric sensing region is less than or equal to a total area of the flexible substrate
Vakil discloses a device comprises a display arrangement which includes a plurality of displays that are movable relative to each other such that a plurality of display configurations can be achieved. Each of the display configurations provides a combined display area which is different for at least two of the display configurations. An application processor is operable to execute a plurality of user applications, each of which can provide a display output. A display driver is arranged to generate an arrangement of display output for the display arrangement from the display output of an application being executed. The display driver sets a display characteristic for the arrangement of display output in response to a characteristic of the executed application and the deployed display configuration. For example, depending on the application being executed and the current display configuration, a size of a display window used for the application can be selected. Vakli further discloses that the device may not only provide a flexible display output but may also provide a flexible user interface that can be adapted to the specific current use of the device. Indeed, the approach may allow the device to be dynamically configured to provide very different user interface configurations. For example, the operation of the device may adapt itself to provide, e.g., predominantly a user display, predominantly an input interface, or a suitable combination thereof. Thus, the function and purpose of the display arrangement 201 can dynamically be changed thereby allowing the device to easily and dynamically be transformed from one device type to another. For example, the device may easily be transformed from being a large display video-rendering device to being a more compact micro-computer with a dedicated keyboard for user input
Schwartz discloses an interactive event creation control consoles are provided to facilitate the creation of events from a plurality of different content sources. In some instances, the event creation control consoles include two different frames, a content source frame for selecting content for corresponding content tiles and an event creation frame for identifying the content tiles to be published in an event canvas associated with a particular event and which is published differently on different end user systems based on the contextual event role of the end user and/or the different end user system configurations.
Lapstun discloses head-mounted light field display device, the device comprising at least one multiplexed light field display module adapted to face an eye of a viewer wearing the device, the multiplexed light field display module comprising a light field view image generator and a waveguide with a set of shutters, the light field view image generator operable to generate, over time, a set of beams of light from a different one of a set of light field view images, the shuttered waveguide operable to transmit the set of beams and to open, over time, a different subset of the set of shutters, the subset corresponding to a position associated with the view image, thereby to emit the set of beams via the subset, thereby to display to the viewer a time-varying optical light field representative of the set of view images.
Prior to the effective date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu, Vakil and Schwartz in the art of deformable displays. Vakil teachings discloses an improved approach to, in particular an approach allowing increased flexibility, increased compatibility and adaptation for multiple applications, an improved user experience. Schwartz improves the combined system by determining the display configuration to ensure the proper output is match to the proper display formation. Lapstun improves the Wu’s deformable displays by using a user’s gaze as an input to the system
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MICHAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3981. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached on 571-272-7603. 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.
/ROBERT J MICHAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2622
1 the device housing 104 supports both the first display 105 and the second display 205. In one or more embodiments, the device housing 104 is flexible. In one embodiment, the device housing 104 may be manufactured from a malleable, bendable, or physically deformable material such as a flexible thermoplastic, flexible composite material, flexible fiber material, flexible metal, organic or inorganic textile or polymer material, or other materials. [See Applicant’s specification at paragraph 051]
2 This embodiment of the invention does not include hinges to be coupled because the applicant does not introduce hinges until claim 4. Claim 12 nor 15 do not mention hinges
3 2.Section – noun: 2: a distinct part or portion of something written (such as a chapter, law, or newspaper); 8a: a part that may be, is, or is viewed as separated; 13: one of several component parts that may be assembled or reassembledhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/section
4 , the device housing 104 may be manufactured from a malleable, bendable, or physically deformable material such as a flexible thermoplastic, flexible composite material, flexible fiber material, flexible metal, organic or inorganic textile or polymer material, or other materials. [See Applicant’s specification at paragraph 052]
5 the device housing 104 could also be a combination of rigid segments connected by
hinges, pivots, or flexible materials. [See Applicant’s specification at paragraph 053]
6 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppositely
7 This embodiment of the invention does not include hinges to be coupled because the applicant does not introduce hinges until claim 4. Claim 12 nor 15 do not mention hinges