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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 1st, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (US 2022/0043489 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Yao discloses a two-dimensional curved display screen (i.e., curved display panel) depicted as having first side surface and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the first side surface being depicted as a display surface (Yao: abstract; para. [0023]; Fig. 1). The first side surface is considered a “smooth display surface” since it has a radius of curvature (i.e., as best understood from para. [0025] of Applicant’s specification per its PGPub, smooth surfaces are those which are curved). The display screen of Yao is further depicted as having a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge sequentially connected end to end, the first edge being opposite to the third edge and the second edge being opposite to the fourth edge, such that the first edge and the second edge intersect at a first corner point, the second edge and the third edge intersect at a second corner point, the third edge and the fourth edge intersect at a third corner point, and the fourth edge then the first edge intersect at a corner point (Yao: Fig. 4). Since the display screen of Yao is in the shape of a square having edges with the same radius of curvature, it follows that a first circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the first corner point, a second circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the second corner point, a third circle center point of a curvature corresponding to the third corner point, and a fourth circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the fourth corner point, are all located at a same point (Yao: Fig. 4). Note that all of the aforementioned limitations necessarily hold for any square display panel having an identical length and width, such that the length and width define edges of identical curvature (i.e., as the circle center point locations are functions solely of radius of curvature and edge length or width, and a four-way symmetric structure as disclosed by Yao is four-way symmetrical with respect to center point location) (Yao: Fig. 4). In addition, Yao depicts the first and third edges are oppositely bent toward the first side surface, and the second and fourth edges are oppositely bent toward the first side surface (Yao: Fig. 5). Although this particular embodiment of Yao does not appear to depict lengths of the first edge and third edge as greater than or smaller than lengths of the second edge and fourth edge, Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the lengths of the first, second, third, and fourth edges for purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance.
With respect to the submitted amendment, Figure 4 of Yao depicts a first virtual line connecting a midpoint of the second edge and a midpoint of the fourth edge, and a second virtual line connecting a midpoint of the first edge and a midpoint of the third edge, wherein the first and second virtual lines are disposed on the first side surface (i.e., the display surface), and an intersection of the first and second virtual lines is a center point of the first side surface, the curved display symmetrically designed with respect to each of the first and second virtual lines (Yao: Fig. 4). Yao also, more specifically, depicts the first and second virtual lines as straight lines in Figure 4, but curved lines in Figure 5 (Yao: Figs. 4 and 5). The virtual lines are made with respect to a two-dimensional cross-section of the three-dimensional curved screen of Yao, and therefore, the lines are “straight” with respect to the cross-section of Figure 4 and “curved” with respect to the cross-section of Figure 5. It is noted that the present claim language essentially describes a display which is square in shape (i.e., all of the properties of the claim hold for a square-shaped display – a square is can even be thought of as four-way symmetrical, and therefore, the display panel is clearly symmetrically designed with respect to the claimed first and second virtual lines). Furthermore, the display screen of Yao may be defined as having the coordinate system as claimed (i.e., Yao depicts the center point as claimed, and ordinates of points of the second edge may be taken as the same and ordinates of points on the second virtual line may be taken as the same, at least since each extends along a same axis designated as an ordinate according to the first virtual line) (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly teach the curvature radius relationships and display screen dimensions (i.e., L being an edge length) Yao teaches that its radii of curvature may be varied (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 3, it is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, it is possible to draw a straight line starting at a center point and ending at a point on one of the first, second, third, or fourth edges (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 4, it is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, the display of Yao includes first, second, third, or fourth edges (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature from a midpoint of one edge to another, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 6, Yao discloses a display screen according to claim 5 above (see above discussion). It is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, the display of Yao includes first and second virtual lines (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature toward a center point, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 7, a connecting line of any one of the first, second, third, or fourth circle center points and the center point is perpendicular to the first virtual line (i.e., as best understood, due to the symmetric nature of the display screen of Yao) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 10, Yao discloses a two-dimensional curved display device (i.e., curved display device) depicted as having first side surface and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the first side surface being depicted as a display surface (Yao: abstract; para. [0023]; Fig. 1). The display screen, specifically, has a display screen layer 102 and a housing 104 (i.e., a curved display panel and a supporting member disposed on a second side surface thereof, respectively, providing support (Yao: para. [0035]-[0036]; Fig. 3). The first side surface is considered a “smooth display surface” since it has a radius of curvature (i.e., as best understood from para. [0025] of Applicant’s specification per its PGPub, smooth surfaces are those which are curved). The display screen of Yao is further depicted as having a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge sequentially connected end to end, the first edge being opposite to the third edge and the second edge being opposite to the fourth edge, such that the first edge and the second edge intersect at a first corner point, the second edge and the third edge intersect at a second corner point, the third edge and the fourth edge intersect at a third corner point, and the fourth edge then the first edge intersect at a corner point (Yao: Fig. 4). Since the display screen of Yao is in the shape of a square having edges with the same radius of curvature, it follows that a first circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the first corner point, a second circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the second corner point, a third circle center point of a curvature corresponding to the third corner point, and a fourth circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the fourth corner point, are all located at a same point (Yao: Fig. 4). Note that all of the aforementioned limitations necessarily hold for any square display panel having an identical length and width, such that the length and width define edges of identical curvature (i.e., as the circle center point locations are functions solely of radius of curvature and edge length or width, and a four-way symmetric structure as disclosed by Yao is four-way symmetrical with respect to center point location) (Yao: Fig. 4). In addition, Yao depicts the first and third edges are oppositely bent toward the first side surface, and the second and fourth edges are oppositely bent toward the first side surface (Yao: Fig. 5). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the lengths of the first, second, third, and fourth edges for purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance.
With respect to the submitted amendment, Figure 4 of Yao depicts a first virtual line connecting a midpoint of the second edge and a midpoint of the fourth edge, and a second virtual line connecting a midpoint of the first edge and a midpoint of the third edge, wherein the first and second virtual lines are disposed on the first side surface (i.e., the display surface), and an intersection of the first and second virtual lines is a center point of the first side surface, the curved display symmetrically designed with respect to each of the first and second virtual lines (Yao: Fig. 4). Yao also, more specifically, depicts the first and second virtual lines as straight lines in Figure 4, but curved lines in Figure 5 (Yao: Figs. 4 and 5). The virtual lines are made with respect to a two-dimensional cross-section of the three-dimensional curved screen of Yao, and therefore, the lines are “straight” with respect to the cross-section of Figure 4 and “curved” with respect to the cross-section of Figure 5. It is noted that the present claim language essentially describes a display which is square in shape (i.e., all of the properties of the claim hold for a square-shaped display – a square is can even be thought of as four-way symmetrical, and therefore, the display panel is clearly symmetrically designed with respect to the claimed first and second virtual lines). Furthermore, the display screen of Yao may be defined as having the coordinate system as claimed (i.e., Yao depicts the center point as claimed, and ordinates of points of the second edge may be taken as the same and ordinates of points on the second virtual line may be taken as the same, at least since each extends along a same axis designated as an ordinate according to the first virtual line) (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly teach the curvature radius relationships and display screen dimensions (i.e., L being an edge length) Yao teaches that its radii of curvature may be varied (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 12, Yao discloses a display panel as applied to claim 11 above (see above discussion). It is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, it is possible to draw a straight line starting at a center point and ending at a point on one of the first, second, third, or fourth edges (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 13, it is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, the display of Yao includes first, second, third, or fourth edges (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature from a midpoint of one edge to another, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 15, Yao discloses a display screen according to claim 14 above (see above discussion). It is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, the display of Yao includes first and second virtual lines (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature toward a center point, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 16, a connecting line of any one of the first, second, third, or fourth circle center points and the center point is perpendicular to the first virtual line (i.e., as best understood, due to the symmetric nature of the display screen of Yao) (see above discussion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Applicant has deleted the claim language which prompted the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). In addition, Applicant has corrected the previous antecedent basis issues. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On pages 9-10, Applicant summarizes the present claims and the previous grounds of rejection. Applicant concludes that Yao fails to teach the claims as amended. On pages 11-12, Applicant continues summarizing the previous grounds of rejection. Applicant then argues that Yao does not teach the specific mathematical relationship R5a= Σ*L*R2a, nor does Yao expressly disclose the specific numerical values of the claim or any proportionality, starting point, or reasonable expectation of success. These arguments are not found persuasive as Yao expressly teaches that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radii of curvature. As best understood, Σ is simply a scalar which allows a relationship between two separate radii of curvature and a length to be established (i.e., as would be difficult for a person of ordinary skill to describe such a relationship otherwise). In other words, the claimed formula and values are essentially a relationship describing an optimal ratio of radii of curvature relative to length. Yao expressly teaches adjusting radii of curvature and screen size (i.e., length). Therefore, Yao teaches optimization of the same structural features as the claim (i.e., Yao still teaches optimization of the claimed parameters, even if Yao does not use word-for-word identical language or identical mathematical symbols in describing the claimed parameters). It is submitted that a reasonable expectation of success exists, as Yao appears to expect a person of ordinary skill able to optimize (i.e., as otherwise, Yao would not instruct a person of ordinary skill to optimize). Yao also teaches optimization for the same reasons as Applicant (i.e., to create an ideal visual effect with respect to a user at a desired distance, and an overall desired field of view). Therefore, optimization in view of Yao is reasonably motivated, and a person of ordinary skill would have tended towards the claimed values. Applicant then argues that the present specification obtained the recited values via experimentation, and the experimentally derived relationship reflects a design rule not taught by Yao. However, Applicant has not provided any detail about how the claimed values were obtained, simply stating that they were a result of experimentation. Applicant has not provided any evidence suggesting that the claimed values have criticality or constitute unexpected results. Applicant has not appropriately described the effects of the alleged “design rule”, nor has Applicant established that such a rule would not have been obvious in view of Yao.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights