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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KitGuruTech youtube video titled “Corsair Xeneon Flex OLED Review – this monitor BENDS!” Corsair Xeneon Flex OLED Review - this monitor BENDS! (hereinafter referred to as “KitGuruTech video”).
Regarding claim 1, KitGuruTech video discloses a system (Corsair Xeneon Flex OLED display monitor and stand), comprising: a display having a backplate (video at 0:07 min, 4:41 min and 5:07 min show a bendable display with a black bendable backplate); a fixture point disposed on a surface of the backplate (video at 2:56 min shows at least two fixture points located on the surface of backplate for the mounting of the bending flex mechanism arm to handles at end); and a flexure having a frame mounted to the backplate (video at 2:54 min: brackets containing electrical panel) and a compliant member (flex mechanism arm) secured to the fixture point (bending flex mechanism arm secured to two fixture points in video at 0:07 min, 4:41 min and 5:07 min), wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate (note: during usage of the monitor during gameplay, it is likely the monitor backplate and monitor would both expand due to elevated temperature, meanwhile, the bending flex mechanism arm would exert force to maintain the shape, note: video at 5:12 min explain the flex mechanism is rated for between 10000 and 15000 life cycles).
Regarding claim 2, KitGuruTech video discloses wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each one of the fixture points (video at 2:56 min, at least two fixture points located on the surface of backplate for the mounting of the bending flex mechanism arm to handles at end).
Regarding claim 3, KitGuruTech video discloses wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each of a subset of the fixture points (video at 2:56 min shows at least two fixture points located on the surface of backplate for the mounting of the bending flex mechanism arm to handles at end; note: no definition is recited to limit the meaning of “subset”, thus can be interpreted as being a component part of fixture points, thus each one of the two fixture points with a handle for flex mechanism can count as “subset”).
Regarding claim 4, KitGuruTech video discloses wherein the system includes multiple flexures, and the multiple flexures are mounted symmetrically around a single fixture point (note: the two brackets at the back of the backplate and flex mechanism arm located in the middle of the assembly can be considered as “single fixture point”, thus each section of flex mechanism arm extending left and right of the two brackets at the back can be a flexure mounted symmetrically thereof).
Regarding claim 7, KitGuruTech video discloses wherein the flexures reduce thermal distortion of the backplate by about 40% (note: flexure of the flex mechanism arm can bend at many adjustable angles at each side independently, thereby correcting or adjusting for any thermal distortion induced shape bending of the backplate).
Regarding claim 8, KitGuruTech video discloses wherein the expansion of the backplate is thermally induced (video 11:10 min ~ 14:30 min demonstrate that display is used for continuous gameplay with extensive graphics updates, which imply of heating and expanding of backplate).
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamakura (US 20220236579A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kamakura”).
Regarding claim 9, Kamakura discloses an apparatus (Figs 10A and 11, fixing member 78), comprising: an elongated metal frame (Fig 10A, elongated flange 78i) having anchor points (Figs 10A and 10B, fixing portions 81a, 81b) at opposite ends thereof (Fig 10B, [0044]); and an integral flexible element (Fig 10B, elongated web 78j) extending between the opposite ends such that when the elongated metal frame (78i) is secured at the anchor points and at a center of the integral flexible element ([0050] and Fig 10B, secured at 81a, 81b and at center of 78j, fixed to the fixing member 78 using pair of fastening portions 78z), the integral flexible element (78j) deflects in response to transverse pressure applied to a mid-section of the frame ([0044], [0029] fixing member 78 (which includes flexible element 78j) formed from magnesium alloy has a shape that allows the first and second optical systems 12a, 12b to rotate, implying that 78j would deflect).
Regarding claim 10, Kamakura discloses wherein the integral flexible element includes at least one of steel or titanium ([0029] fixing member 78 formed from magnesium alloy, which can contain titanium in the form of Mg-Ti alloy).
Regarding claim 11, Kamakura discloses wherein the integral flexible element has a thickness-to-width ratio in a range of about 10.0 to about 25.0 (Figs 10A and 10B, notice the thickness of 78j and 78i and width of bridge 78a in Fig 10B).
Regarding claim 12, Kamakura discloses wherein the integral flexible element deflects by a distance of about 0.1 mm to about 1.0 mm (note: amount of deflection is dependent upon amount of force/torque applied, and since [0029] fixing member 78 (which includes flexible element 78j) formed from magnesium alloy has a shape that allows the first and second optical systems 12a, 12b to rotate, implying that the fixing member 78j would also deflect and rotate based upon amount of applied force or torque).
Regarding claim 13, Kamakura discloses wherein the elongated metal frame is mounted to a first object and the center of the integral flexible element is secured to a second object, so that the integral flexible element deflects in response to motion of the first object relative to the second object (Fig 3, and [0029] fixing member 78 (which includes flexible element 78j) formed from magnesium alloy has a shape that allows the first and second optical systems 12a, 12b to rotate or move relative to one another).
Regarding claim 14, Kamakura discloses wherein the first object is a fixed structure, and the second object is a movable structure ([0029] fixing member 78 (which includes flexible element 78j) formed from magnesium alloy has a shape that allows the first and second optical systems 12a, 12b to rotate or move relative to one another, implying that the independence of movement allows for one object (12a) to remain fixed, while the other one (12b) alongside second display device 100b are rotated, see also Fig 3).
Regarding claim 15, Kamakura discloses wherein the first object is a display, and the second object is a fixture point of the display (Fig 3, first and second object can be chosen arbitrarily from either display units 100a, 100b, or either first or second frames 61a, 61b (fixture point at 81b, 82b)).
Regarding claim 16, Kamakura discloses wherein the anchor points are configured with holes to receive fasteners (Figs 12A and 12B, 81a, 81b have hole to receive SB).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin Gao et al “Viewing resolution and viewing angle enhanced tabletop 3D light field display based on voxel superimposition and collimated backlight” Optics Communications 474 (2020) 126157, (hereinafter referred to as “Xin Gao”) in view of Li (US 20220050124A1, hereinafter referred to as “LI”), and further in view of Guillermo F. Diaz Lankenau “Precisely Co-located Cameras with High Geometric and Thermo- mechanical Stability” Technical Disclosure Commons Defensive Publications Series dated 13 Apr 2023, (hereinafter referred to as “Lankenau”).
Regarding claim 1, Xin Gao discloses a system, comprising: a display (page 1, light field 3d display, Fig 1) having a backplate (Fig 1, LED light source would be mounted to a backplate, together serving as the display backlight);
However, Xin Gao fails to disclose a fixture point disposed on a surface of the backplate; and a flexure having a frame mounted to the backplate and a compliant member secured to the fixture point, wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate.
However, Xin Gao and LI combined teach the following: a fixture point disposed on a surface of the backplate (LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88); and a flexure (LI: Fig 4, springs 90, 92, 94, 96) having a frame (Fig 5) mounted to the backplate (Xin Gao: backplate of LED of backlight of 3d light field display; note: LI teaches warpage of substrate 24 can be caused by mismatch of the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) among different materials in [0027]) and a compliant member (LI: Fig 4, spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) secured to the fixture point (Fig 4), wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate (LI [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xin Gao and LI in view of Lankenau based on the following rationale: referring to Xin Gao, as recited in page 4, a LED light source and a Fresnel lens are used to generate collimated backlight. Combining with the collimated backlight, the compound lens array is designed to suppress aberrations and reproduce 3D images with high quality in a large viewing angle of 90◦ and Fig 1 shows the LED as just one square dot. No teachings is found in Xia Gao for describing the LED backlight system for the 3D light field display, nor any corresponding issues for the LED backlight. Meanwhile, Lankenau recites in Bottom of page 4: “The LEDs each produce, as a side-effect, about 1 Watt of heat, such that the array of LEDs produces a total of 200-400 W. The metal backplate on which the LEDs are mounted have a relatively large coefficient of thermal expansion. Combined with the heat expended by the LEDs, the metal backplate can undergo substantial distortion, e.g., during operation, particular points on the backplate may deviate from their room-temperature positions by up to 3 mm.” Furthermore, LI teaches various flexures/springs and suspension anchors to handle warpage of substrate due to differences in coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) resulting in change in size of object corresponding to change in temperature (see [0027]) and wherein, in response to expansion of the substrate relative to the fixture points, the compliant member (spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) compresses by absorbing strain from the substrate as discussed in [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039] of LI. As a result, above discussed advantages of structural stability improvement achieved by LI in view of the conventional problem taught by Lankenau for metal backplate thermal expansion on which the LEDs are mounted, combined with the heat expended by the LEDs, so that the metal backplate can undergo substantial distortion, thereby can be adapted for improving the LED backlight for the 3d light field display of Xin Gao, thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Xin Gao by LI in view of background knowledge of Lankenau.
Regarding claim 2, Xin Gao fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each one of the fixture points.
However, LI and Xin Gao and Lankenau combined teach the following: wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each one of the fixture points (LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88 (fixture points) and springs 90, 92, 94, 96 (flexure) mounted at each anchor; Lankenau: Fig 2 metal backplate).
Regarding claim 3, Xin Gao fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each of a subset of the fixture points.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each of a subset of the fixture points (Lankenau: Fig 2 metal backplate, LI Fig 4, each shaded area for sensor elements 68, 70 can be considered a subset).
Regarding claim 4, Xin Gao fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the system includes multiple flexures, and the multiple flexures are mounted symmetrically around a single fixture point.
However, LI teach the following: wherein the system includes multiple flexures, and the multiple flexures are mounted symmetrically around a single fixture point (LI: Fig 4, coupler 102 can be considered a single fixture point, while springs 90, 92, 94, 96 are symmetrically around thereof).
Regarding claim 5, Xin Gao fails to sufficiently disclose wherein an axis of the compliant member is oriented in a direction transverse to expansion of the backplate.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: wherein an axis of the compliant member (LI Fig 4, 108, 110, 116, 118, vertically oriented) is oriented in a direction transverse to expansion of the backplate (Fig 4, horizontally oriented along beams 98, 100; Lankenau: Fig 2 metal backplate).
Regarding claims 2-5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xin Gao and LI in view of Lankenau based on the same rationale previously discussed for claim 1 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillermo F. Diaz Lankenau “Precisely Co-located Cameras with High Geometric and Thermo- mechanical Stability” Technical Disclosure Commons Defensive Publications Series dated 13 Apr 2023, (hereinafter referred to as “Lankenau”) in view of Li (US 20220050124A1, hereinafter referred to as “LI”).
Regarding claim 1, Lankenau discloses a system, comprising: a display having a backplate (page 3, Fig 1, display 106, metal backplate, back light unit (BLU), array of high power LEDs, page 4, Fig 2, metal backplate with LEDs, bottom of page 4: metal backplate on which the LEDs are mounted have a relatively large coefficient of thermal expansion. Combined with the heat expended by the LEDs, the metal backplate can undergo substantial distortion).
However, Lankenau fails to disclose a fixture point disposed on a surface of the backplate; and a flexure having a frame mounted to the backplate and a compliant member secured to the fixture point, wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: a fixture point disposed on a surface of the backplate (LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88; Lankenau page 3, Fig 1, metal backplate, back light unit (BLU), array of high power LEDs, page 4, Fig 2, metal backplate with LEDs); and a flexure (LI: Fig 4, springs 90, 92, 94, 96) having a frame (Fig 5) mounted to the backplate (Lankenau, metal backplate) and a compliant member (LI Fig 4, spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) secured to the fixture point (Fig 4), wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate (LI [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lankenau and LI based on the following rationale: Lankenau recites in Bottom of page 4: “The LEDs each produce, as a side-effect, about 1 Watt of heat, such that the array of LEDs produces a total of 200-400 W. The metal backplate on which the LEDs are mounted have a relatively large coefficient of thermal expansion. Combined with the heat expended by the LEDs, the metal backplate can undergo substantial distortion, e.g., during operation, particular points on the backplate may deviate from their room-temperature positions by up to 3 mm.”. However, Lankenau does not offer any sufficient solution to solve above problem of thermal distortion of backplate due to thermal expansion of LEDs during usage of display. On the other hand, LI teaches various flexures/springs and suspension anchors to handle warpage of substrate due to differences in coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) resulting in change in size of object corresponding to change in temperature (see [0027]) and wherein, in response to expansion of the substrate relative to the fixture points, the compliant member (spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) compresses by absorbing strain from the substrate as discussed in [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039] of LI. As a result, above discussed advantages of structural stability improvement achieved by LI in view of the conventional problem taught by Lankenau for metal backplate thermal expansion on which the LEDs are mounted, combined with the heat expended by the LEDs, so that the metal backplate can undergo substantial distortion, thereby can be adapted for improving the LED backlight for the 3d light field display of Fig 2 of Lankenau, thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Lankenau by LI.
Regarding claim 2, Lankenau fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each one of the fixture points.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each one of the fixture points (LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88 (fixture points) and springs 90, 92, 94, 96 (flexure) mounted at each anchor; Lankenau: Fig 2, metal backplate).
Regarding claim 3, Lankenau fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each of a subset of the fixture points.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each of a subset of the fixture points (LI Fig 4, each shaded area for sensor elements 68, 70 can be considered a subset; Lankenau: Fig 2, metal backplate).
Regarding claim 4, Lankenau fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the system includes multiple flexures, and the multiple flexures are mounted symmetrically around a single fixture point.
However, LI teach the following: wherein the system includes multiple flexures, and the multiple flexures are mounted symmetrically around a single fixture point (LI: Fig 4, coupler 102 can be considered a single fixture point, while springs 90, 92, 94, 96 are symmetrically around thereof).
Regarding claim 5, Lankenau fails to sufficiently disclose wherein an axis of the compliant member is oriented in a direction transverse to expansion of the backplate.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: wherein an axis of the compliant member (LI Fig 4, 108, 110, 116, 118, vertically oriented) is oriented in a direction transverse to expansion of the backplate (Fig 4, horizontally oriented along beams 98, 100; Lankenau: Fig 2, metal backplate).
Regarding claim 7, Lankenau fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the flexures reduce thermal distortion of the backplate by about 40%.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach wherein the flexures reduce thermal distortion of the backplate by about 40% (note: reaching 40% of reduction of thermal distortion would be a matter of optimization and experimentation depending on the material property, structure, dimensions and numbers of the flexures taught by LI being used).
Regarding claim 8, Lankenau discloses wherein the expansion of the backplate is thermally induced (bottom of page 4: The LEDs each produce, as a side-effect, about 1 Watt of heat, such that the array of LEDs produces a total of 200-400 W. The metal backplate on which the LEDs are mounted have a relatively large coefficient of thermal expansion. Combined with the heat expended by the LEDs, the metal backplate can undergo substantial distortion, e.g., during operation, particular points on the backplate may deviate from their room-temperature positions by up to 3 mm).
Regarding claim 17, Lankenau discloses a method, comprising: forming an optical display having a metal backplate with fixtures; embedding LEDs in the metal backplate; mounting multiple cameras to the optical display (Lankenau TDC, page 3, Fig 1, display 106, metal backplate, back light unit (BLU), array of high power LEDs, camera array 104, page 4, Fig 2, metal backplate with LEDs);
However, Lankenau alone fails to sufficiently disclose the following: and mounting a flexure device at one or more of the fixtures to absorb strain on the optical display due to thermal expansion.
However, Lankenau and LI combined teach: and mounting a flexure device at one or more of the fixtures to absorb strain on the optical display due to thermal expansion (Lankenau: bottom of page 4: metal backplate on which the LEDs are mounted have a relatively large coefficient of thermal expansion. Combined with the heat expended by the LEDs, the metal backplate can undergo substantial distortion, e.g., during operation; LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88; springs 90, 92, 94, 96 (flexure) mounted to the metal backplate of Lankenau in Fig 2, and a compliant member (LI Fig 4, spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) secured to the fixture point (Fig 4), compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate, [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039]).
Regarding claim 18, Lankenau alone fails to sufficiently disclose the following: wherein mounting the flexure device includes mounting the flexure device in an orientation such that the flexure device deforms linearly in response to motion of the backplate.
However, Lankenau and LI combined teach: wherein mounting the flexure device includes mounting the flexure device in an orientation such that the flexure device deforms linearly in response to motion of the backplate (LI Fig 4, springs 90, 92, 94, 96 deform linearly in extending vertical direction, [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Lankenau alone fails to sufficiently disclose wherein a sensitivity of the flexure device is adjusted according to a strain predicted by a simulation of the thermal expansion.
However, Lankenau and LI combined teach wherein a sensitivity of the flexure device is adjusted according to a strain predicted by a simulation of the thermal expansion (LI: [0025], [0027] measured capacitances, SNS+ and SNS- by inertial sensor 20 can be used to estimate amount of substrate tilt as well as degree of thermal expansion; [0037] compliance of folded springs 90, 92 can be suitably designed by the number of turns as well as the length of the spans).
Regarding claim 20, Lankenau alone fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the flexure device is compliant in a direction of the thermal expansion.
However, LI teaches wherein the flexure device is compliant in a direction of the thermal expansion ([0037]).
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7 and 17-20, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lankenau and LI based on the same rationale previously discussed for claim 1 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler (US 20210021748A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cutler” in view of Li (US 20220050124A1, hereinafter referred to as “LI”) and further in view of Guillermo F. Diaz Lankenau “Precisely Co-located Cameras with High Geometric and Thermo- mechanical Stability” Technical Disclosure Commons Defensive Publications Series dated 13 Apr 2023, (hereinafter referred to as “Lankenau”).
Regarding claim 1, Cutler discloses a system, comprising: a display having a backplate (Figs 1B and 1C, telepresence device 112, first device 114, Fig 2, display 210, enclosure 220; [0100] OLED display panels, [0037] display 210 may be transparent OLED display);
However, Cutler fails to sufficiently disclose the following: a fixture point disposed on a surface of the backplate; and a flexure having a frame mounted to the backplate and a compliant member secured to the fixture point, wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: a fixture point disposed on a surface of the backplate (LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88; Lankenau: Fig 2, metal backplate); and a flexure (LI: Fig 4, springs 90, 92, 94, 96) having a frame (Fig 5) mounted to the backplate (LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88; Lankenau, metal backplate) and a compliant member (LI Fig 4, spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) secured to the fixture point (Fig 4), wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate (LI: [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039]; Lankenau, Fig 2, backplate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cutler and LI based on the following rationale: referring to Cutler, the descriptions for display 210 and telepresence device 112 and device 114 are very generic and vague, see [0100] OLED display panels, and [0037] display 210 may be transparent OLED display, and Figs 1B and 1C for details. No teachings is found in Cutler for describing the LED backlight system for the 3D light field display, nor discussing any corresponding issues for the LED backlight. Meanwhile, Lankenau recites in Bottom of page 4: “The LEDs each produce, as a side-effect, about 1 Watt of heat, such that the array of LEDs produces a total of 200-400 W. The metal backplate on which the LEDs are mounted have a relatively large coefficient of thermal expansion. Combined with the heat expended by the LEDs, the metal backplate can undergo substantial distortion, e.g., during operation, particular points on the backplate may deviate from their room-temperature positions by up to 3 mm.” Furthermore, LI teaches various flexures/springs and suspension anchors to handle warpage of substrate due to differences in coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) resulting in change in size of object corresponding to change in temperature (see [0027]) and wherein, in response to expansion of the substrate relative to the fixture points, the compliant member (spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) compresses by absorbing strain from the substrate as discussed in [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039] of LI. As a result, above discussed advantages of structural stability improvement achieved by LI in view of the conventional problem taught by Lankenau for metal backplate thermal expansion on which the LEDs are mounted, combined with the heat expended by the LEDs, so that the metal backplate can undergo substantial distortion, thereby can be adapted for improving the OLED backlight for the 3d light field display of Cutler, thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Cutler by LI in view of background knowledge of Lankenau.
Regarding claim 2, Cutler fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each one of the fixture points.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each one of the fixture points (LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88 (fixture points) and springs 90, 92, 94, 96 (flexure) mounted at each anchor; Lankenau: Fig 2, metal backplate).
Regarding claim 3, Cutler fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each of a subset of the fixture points.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: wherein the backplate has a plurality of fixture points and a flexure is mounted to the backplate at each of a subset of the fixture points (LI Fig 4, each shaded area for sensor elements 68, 70 can be considered a subset; Lankenau: Fig 2, metal backplate).
Regarding claim 4, Cutler fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the system includes multiple flexures, and the multiple flexures are mounted symmetrically around a single fixture point.
However, LI teach the following: wherein the system includes multiple flexures, and the multiple flexures are mounted symmetrically around a single fixture point (LI: Fig 4, coupler 102 can be considered a single fixture point, while springs 90, 92, 94, 96 are symmetrically around thereof).
Regarding claim 5, Cutler fails to sufficiently disclose wherein an axis of the compliant member is oriented in a direction transverse to expansion of the backplate.
However, LI and Lankenau combined teach the following: wherein an axis of the compliant member (LI Fig 4, 108, 110, 116, 118, vertically oriented) is oriented in a direction transverse to expansion of the backplate (Fig 4, horizontally oriented along beams 98, 100; Lankenau: Fig 2, metal backplate).
Regarding claims 2-5, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cutler and LI in view of Lankenau based on the same rationale previously discussed for claim 1 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillermo F. Diaz Lankenau “Precisely Co-located Cameras with High Geometric and Thermo- mechanical Stability” Technical Disclosure Commons Defensive Publications Series dated 13 Apr 2023, (hereinafter referred to as “Lankenau”) in view of Li (US 20220050124A1, hereinafter referred to as “LI”), and further in view of Zhou (US20220299700A, hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 6, Lankenau and Li fail to disclose or teach wherein the backplate includes at least one of steel or aluminum.
However, Zhou teaches wherein the backplate includes at least one of steel or aluminum ([0039] material of backplate is aluminum alloy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lankenau and Zhou based on the following rationale: referring to Lankenau, the descriptions for metal backplate for LED backlight is very generic and vague, Meanwhile, LI teaches various flexures/springs and suspension anchors to handle warpage of substrate due to differences in coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) resulting in change in size of object corresponding to change in temperature (see [0027]) and wherein, in response to expansion of the substrate relative to the fixture points, the compliant member (spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) compresses by absorbing strain from the substrate as discussed in [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039] of LI. However, LI does not specify the material for the metal backplate. On the other hand, Zhou sufficiently teach in [0039] material of backplate is aluminum alloy. As a result, above information advantage taught by Zhou to make the metal backplate of Lankenau thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Lankenau by Zhou.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Responding to applicant arguments directed to Corsair in pages 6-7 of remarks, Examiner submits the following rebuttal:
a) according to claim 1, the only required limitation recited for “compliant member” is as follow: “wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate.” Please note that this is a functional limitation, and not a structural limitation, Meanwhile, instant specification discussed in [0015] ~ [0017] and [0041] that embodiments shown by Figs 6A, 6B, 6C, 7, 8A, 8b, are said to be “possible implementation of the present disclosure”. Furthermore, [0060] further explains that example embodiments of the concept are described herein. And [0063] embodiments are presented as by of way of example only not limitation, and various changes in form and details may be made. Examiner reminds that according to MPEP 2111.01, II, which recites in part: “IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.”. As a result, without importing structural limitations from possible implementation and illustrated examples from instant disclosure into claim limitations of claim 1, that are not part of the existing claim, the claimed compliant member of claim 1 can take on various changes in form and details.
b) KitGuruTech youtube video/Corsair Xeneon Flex OLED video sufficiently teaches a compliant member secured to the fixture point (which is in the form of a bending flex mechanism arm secured to two fixture points in video at 0:07 min, 4:41 min and 5:07 min), wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member (flex mechanism arm) compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate (note: during usage of the monitor during gameplay, it is likely the monitor backplate and monitor would both expand due to elevated temperature, which is a well known phenomenon, meanwhile, the bending flex mechanism arm would exert force to maintain the shape, note: video at 5:12 min explain the flex mechanism is rated for between 10000 and 15000 life cycles).
c) Because the bending flex mechanism arm of Corsair Xeneon Flex provides equivalent “compliant” functionality as that of the “compliant member” by being “bending and flexing”, and would likely compress and absorb strain in response to expansion of the backplate during gameplay caused by heat, thus bending flex mechanism arm of Corsair sufficiently reads on compliant member of claim 1, and applicant arguments directing to Corsair in pages 6-7 of remarks deemed not persuasive to overcome rejection.
Responding to applicant arguments directed to Li in pages 7-8 of remarks,
Examiner submits the following rebuttal:
a) Applicant specifically directed arguments to Li alone in pages 7-8, However, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin Gao in view of Li, and further in view of Lankenau (see paragraph 8 in previous office action), and also Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lankenau in view of Li (see paragraph 22 in previous office action), and Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler in view of Li and further in view of Lankenau (see paragraph 39 in previous office action).
b) In the office action, Xin Gao and LI are combined to teach the following: a fixture point disposed on a surface of the backplate (LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88); and a flexure (LI: Fig 4, springs 90, 92, 94, 96) having a frame (Fig 5) mounted to the backplate (Xin Gao: backplate of LED of backlight of 3d light field display; note: LI teaches warpage of substrate 24 can be caused by mismatch of the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) among different materials in [0027]) and a compliant member (LI: Fig 4, spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) secured to the fixture point (Fig 4), wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate (LI [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039]).
c) Meanwhile, in the office action, Li and Lankenau combined teach the following: a fixture point disposed on a surface of the backplate (LI: Figs 4, 9 and 10, suspension system 74, 194 including anchors 82, 84, 86, 88; Lankenau page 3, Fig 1, metal backplate, back light unit (BLU), array of high power LEDs, page 4, Fig 2, metal backplate with LEDs); and a flexure (LI: Fig 4, springs 90, 92, 94, 96) having a frame (Fig 5) mounted to the backplate (Lankenau, metal backplate) and a compliant member (LI Fig 4, spring ends 108, 110, 116, 118) secured to the fixture point (Fig 4), wherein, in response to expansion of the backplate relative to the fixture point, the compliant member compresses by absorbing strain from the backplate (LI [0027]~[0028], [0038]~[0039]).
d) If the rejection is based on a combination of prior art references, the applicant must respond to the entire rationale — not just the single reference. Arguing that a single reference would have been sufficient is generally not persuasive unless the examiner’s combination rationale is shown to be invalid, which has not been shown by applicant in remarks submitted on 07/22/2026. Thus, it would be improper to argue to Li separately or individually, when LI is combined with Xin Gao and Lankenau in one set of 103 rejection, or just Lankenau in another set of 103 rejection, or combined with Cutler in view of Lankenau in another rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Furthermore, please note that no argument was provided by applicant directed to Cutler (US 20210021748A1), meanwhile, Claim 1 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler in view of Li and further in view of Lankenau (see paragraph 39 in previous office action).
Furthermore, please note that no argument was provided by applicant to Xia Gao (Xin Gao et al “Viewing resolution and viewing angle enhanced tabletop 3D light field display based on voxel superimposition and collimated backlight” Optics Communications 474 (2020) 126157), meanwhile, Claim 1 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin Gao in view of Li and further in view of Lankenau (see paragraph 8 in previous office action).
Furthermore, please note that no arguments were provided by applicant to Lankenau (Guillermo F. Diaz Lankenau “Precisely Co-located Cameras with High Geometric and Thermo- mechanical Stability” Technical Disclosure Commons Defensive Publications Series dated 13 Apr 2023, (hereinafter referred to as “Lankenau”), but Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin Gao in view of Li, and further in view of Lankenau (see paragraph 8 in previous office action), and also Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lankenau in view of Li (see paragraph 22 in previous office action), and Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutler in view of Li and further in view of Lankenau (see paragraph 39 in previous office action).
Furthermore, please note that no argument was provided by applicant to Zhou (US20220299700A), meanwhile, Claim 6 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lankenau in view of Li and further in view of Zhou.
Responding to applicant arguments directed to Kamakura in page 7 of remarks filed on 07/22/2026, Examiner submits the following rebuttal: Kamakura teaches that the bridge 78a is part of the fixing member 78, (see [0032] last line) and the fixing member 78 is said to have a shape that allows the two optical systems 12a, 12b to rotate in rotational directions around two or more axes in [0029] lines 10-13, thus implying that the bridge 78a is a flexible element to allow such multiple axes rotational movement by the fixing member 78 as said for fixing member 78 in [0029]. As a result, bridge 78a reads on the integral flexible element as claimed in claim 9. and applicant arguments directing to Kamakura in page 7 of remarks deemed not persuasive to overcome rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guo (US 12546434B2) teaches a bracket structure for tiled display devices. McNeil (US 10712359B2) discloses flexure structure. DeForest (US 20160077371A1) discloses a display having a flexure element, and Bae Mun Sik (KR 20110107670A) discloses a thermal diffusion member disposed between the heat-generating unit and the backlight unit of display.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 am MT-- 5:00 pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights