DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 11, and 22-24 have been amended. Claims 1-10 have been previously cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 11-30 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-30 are 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.
With respect to claim 11, the applicant claims “the screen carrier having a first inherent rigidity in at least the first carrier portion” and later claims “wherein there is a region of first inherent rigidity between in each case two stiffening elements”. It is not clear to the examiner whether the two first inherent rigidity are the same or different. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as being the same.
Claims 12-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl DE 10115050 B4 (the examiner has provided an English translation on 07/15/2025 and is relying upon, hence Uhl) in view of Meersman et al US 2020/0066828 A1 (hence Meersman).
In re claim 11, Uhl discloses a display device, in particular for a means of transport (Paragraph 0001) and teaches the following:
A display system (Paragraph 0009), comprising: a display apparatus including a flexible screen film and a screen carrier to which the flexible screen film is fastened, the screen carrier including a first carrier portion, the screen carrier having a first inherent rigidity in at least the first carrier portion, and the first carrier portion being bendable and/or foldable (Fig.1, #2, #7, and Paragraph 0023); a housing including a housing interior space for at least partially receiving the display apparatus and a housing opening (Fig.1, and Paragraph 0014); a drive device configured to move the display apparatus, in response to a control signal, through the housing opening between a first use position, in which at least the first carrier portion is arranged in the housing interior space, and at least one further use position, in which the first carrier portion at least partially projects from the housing interior space (Paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0023, 0026, 0029 and Fig.2); parallel guide rails arranged fixedly with respect to the housing and being of curved shape in the housing interior space, the parallel guide rails to define a movement path which is curved in the housing interior space and which leads through the housing opening out of the housing interior space and into the housing interior space (Paragraphs 0017, 0023, and 0025); and guide elements mounted to be movable along a respective one of the guide rails and arranged on a rear side of the first carrier portion, said rear side facing away from the flexible screen film, wherein a respective guide element is in form-fitting engagement with its respective guide rail in relation to transverse directions transverse to the movement path, such that, during a movement of the display apparatus along the movement path, the display apparatus, at least in the region of the first carrier portion along the guide rails, is retained in relation to the transverse directions on the guide rail (Paragraphs 0018, 0023)
However, Uhl doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the screen carrier has stiffening elements along the rear side which also extend between the guide rails and are supported by the guide rails in the event of an operating force acting on the screen film
Nevertheless, Meersman discloses tiled displays (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the screen carrier has stiffening elements along the rear side which also extend between the guide rails and are supported by the guide rails in the event of an operating force acting on the screen film (Fig.2A, #102, Paragraph 0118, and 0120, Fig.9, #940 and Paragraphs 0144-0145, and 0168)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Uhl reference to include the rigid substrate or the plurality of truss, as taught by Meersman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to block or cancel the flexure of the display (Meersman, Paragraph 0168).
In re claim 12, Uhl teaches the following:
wherein a first portion of the respective guide rail is within the housing interior space and a second portion of the respective guide rail is outside the housing interior space and extends away from the housing opening, and the portion projecting from the housing interior space is of rectilinear shape (Paragraph 0017, Fig.1)
In re claim 13, Uhl teaches the following:
wherein the respective guide rail has a concavely curved profile along the first portion (Fig.1 and Fig.2 and Paragraph 0025)
In re claim 14, Uhl teaches the following:
wherein the respective guide rail has a circular-arc-shaped profile along the first portion (Fig.1 and Fig.2 and Paragraph 0025)
In re claims 15-17, Uhl teaches the following:
wherein the first carrier portion at least partially has a rear honeycomb structure and/or lamellae, wherein the honeycombs and/or lamellae are of elongate shape and their longitudinal extent direction runs parallel to an axis of curvature oriented perpendicularly in relation to the movement path (Fig.1, #7, #8, #9, and Paragraph 0023)
In re claims 18-21, Uhl teaches the following:
wherein the screen carrier has a second carrier portion with a second inherent rigidity which is greater than the first inherent rigidity, wherein, in the first use position of the display apparatus, the second carrier portion at least partially extends outside the housing interior space away from the housing opening (Paragraph 0023)
In re claims 22-24, the combination of Uhl and Meersman discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a dimension of the stiffening elements, measured along the movement path, is less than one third of a dimension of the region of first inherent rigidity located between said stiffening elements
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set a dimension of the stiffening elements less than one third of a dimension of the region of first inherent rigidity because Applicant has not disclosed that doing so provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected that the combination of Uhl and Meersman, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well because both would perform the same function of adding rigidity to a flexible screen element.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combination of Uhl and Meersman to obtain the invention as specified in claims 22-24 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior arts.
In re claims 25-27, Uhl teaches the following:
wherein the respective guide rail is enclosed, at least in certain regions, between a first limb and a second limb, arranged oppositely to the first limb, of the respective guide element in such a way that the first limb engages behind the respective guide rail and the second limb spaces the respective guide rail and the rear side of the first carrier portion apart from one another (Paragraph 0025)
In re claim 28, Uhl teaches the following:
wherein the respective guide element has at least one roller element on its first limb and a sliding friction element, arranged oppositely to the roller element, on its second limb, wherein the respective guide rail is arranged between the at least one roller element and the sliding friction element (Paragraph 0018)
In re claim 29, Uhl teaches the following:
wherein the drive device has at least one pivot arm to move the first carrier portion along the movement path and is configured to pivot the pivot arm about an axis of rotation by a rotary motor (Paragraph 0025)
In re claim 30, Uhl teaches the following:
A motor vehicle having a display system as claimed in claim 11 (Paragraph 0009)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 11-21, and 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl in view of Meersman and that neither Uhl nor Meersman discloses or suggests at least the features recited in amended independent claim 11 of "wherein there is a region of first inherent rigidity between in each case two stiffening elements”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, Meersman discloses an area of inherent rigidity between the plurality of trusses 940 of Fig.9 and Paragraphs 0144-0145 and in Paragraph 0168 “Additional mechanisms may be used to block the displacement in z, or the flexure of the individual tiles”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights