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
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shepelev et al. (US 11,488,499 B2), hereinafter Shepelev.
Regarding claim 1, Shepelev teaches an electronic device (display device 200) comprising:
a flexible display (flexible display panel 210) with a first portion (portion of 210 above bend axis 202 in Fig. 2 and to the left of 202 in Fig. 4A), a second portion (portion of 210 roughly coterminous with 202 in Figs. 2 and 4A) that is aligned with a bend axis that extends in a first direction (202), and a third portion (portion of 210 below 202 in Fig. 2 and to the right of 202 in Fig. 4A), wherein the second portion is interposed between the first and third portions (see Figs. 2 and 4A), wherein the first portion is configured to bend relative to the third portion about the bend axis (see Figs. 4A-C), and wherein the flexible display (210) comprises an array of pixels and a thin-film transistor circuitry layer with thin-film transistor circuitry that controls the array of pixels (from col. 8, lines 34-39: “The front plane of the flexible display panel 210 includes an array of display pixels [such as the pixel elements 101 of Fig. 1] and the backplane of the display panel includes an array of access transistors [such as the access transistors M or Fig. 1] coupled to the display pixels.”); and
at least one strain gauge (strain sensors 214; Figs. 3A-B show example strain sensors) that is part of the thin-film transistor circuitry layer (from col. 10, lines 39-41: “[T]he strain gauges S1-S4 may be disposed on the backplane or TFT layer of the flexible display panel.”), wherein the at least one strain gauge (214) is aligned with the bend axis (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Shepelev teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Shepelev further teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the strain gauge comprises a Wheatstone bridge (from col. 9, lines 15-16: “[T]he strain gauges may be configured in a Wheatstone bridge configuration.”).
Regarding claim 3, Shepelev teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Shepelev further teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the strain gauge comprises conductive traces (see Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 7, Shepelev teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Shepelev further teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the at least one strain gauge comprises a first strain gauge that is aligned with the bend axis at a first edge of the flexible display and a second strain gauge that is aligned with the bend axis at a second, opposing edge of the flexible display (see Fig. 2 showing six strain sensors 214 distributed along the edges of display panel 210; two of the strain sensors 214 are aligned with bend axis 202 and are located on opposite edges of the display panel 210).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2515942 B1, hereinafter KR.
KR teaches an electronic device (see Abstract) comprising:
a flexible display (display film FL) with a first portion (portion of FL to the left of the bending axis as shown in Fig. 1 and above the bending axis as shown in Fig. 3), a second portion that is aligned with a bend axis that extends in a first direction (portion of FL roughly coterminous with the bending axis as shown in Figs. 1 and 3), and a third portion (portion of FL to the right of the bending axis as shown in Fig. 1 and below the bending axis as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the second portion is interposed between the first and third portions (see Figs. 1 and 3) and wherein the first portion is configured to bend relative to the third portion about the bend axis (see Fig. 4);
a display cover layer (polarizing film POL) that overlaps the flexible display (FL), wherein the display cover layer (POL) has an upper surface and a side surface (see Figs. 1-2 and 4)
a first adhesive layer (second adhesive layer PSA2) between the flexible display (FL) and the display cover layer (POL); and
a second adhesive layer (third adhesive layer PSA3 and side seal SS; from pg. 4, paragraph 6: “[T]he side sealing material SS may include the same material as the first and third adhesive layers PSA1, PSA2, and PSA3.”) that conforms to and directly contacts the upper surface and the side surface of the display cover layer (POL; see Fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepelev as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 108153075 A), hereinafter Chen I.
Regarding claim 4, Shepelev teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Shepelev teaches that the at least one strain gauge comprises conductive traces that may be formed on the thin-film transistor circuitry layer (from col. 10, lines 39-41: [T]he strain gauges S1-S4 may be disposed on the backplane or TFT layer of the flexible display panel.”), thus suggesting that the conductive traces may be formed from the same metal layer as a data line. However, Shepelev does not state this explicitly.
Chen I teaches a thin-film transistor display device (see Abstract) that includes multiple Wheatstone bridge strain gauges (pressure sensors 3) with conductive traces (connecting bridges R1, R2, R3, and R4) formed from the same metal layer as a data line (from pg. 8, third full paragraph: “[A]t least one connecting bridge are [sic] set in the same layer with the metal layer, the metal layer is a gate metal layer or source and drain metal layer.”)
Shepelev and Chen I are both considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to form the conductive traces from the same metal layer as a data line. Doing so would allow the conductive traces to be formed by the same patterning process as the data lines (see Chen I, pg. 8, third full paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Shepelev teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Shepelev teaches that the at least one strain gauge comprises conductive traces that may be formed on the thin-film transistor circuitry layer (from col. 10, lines 39-41: [T]he strain gauges S1-S4 may be disposed on the backplane or TFT layer of the flexible display panel.”), thus suggesting that the conductive traces may be formed from the same metal layer as a gate line. However, Shepelev does not state this explicitly.
Chen I teaches a thin-film transistor display device (see Abstract) that includes multiple Wheatstone bridge strain gauges (pressure sensors 3) with conductive traces (connecting bridges R1, R2, R3, and R4) formed from the same metal layer as a gate line (from pg. 8, third full paragraph: “[A]t least one connecting bridge are [sic] set in the same layer with the metal layer, the metal layer is a gate metal layer or source and drain metal layer.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to form the conductive traces from the same metal layer as a gate line. Doing so would allow the conductive traces to be formed by the same patterning process as the gate lines (see Chen I, pg. 8, third full paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Shepelev teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Shepelev teaches that the at least one strain gauge comprises conductive traces that may be formed on the thin-film transistor circuitry layer (from col. 10, lines 39-41: [T]he strain gauges S1-S4 may be disposed on the backplane or TFT layer of the flexible display panel.”), thus suggesting that the conductive traces may be formed from the same metal layer as a gate for a transistor. However, Shepelev does not state this explicitly.
Chen I teaches a thin-film transistor display device (see Abstract) that includes multiple Wheatstone bridge strain gauges (pressure sensors 3) with conductive traces (connecting bridges R1, R2, R3, and R4) formed from the same metal layer as a gate for a transistor (from pg. 8, third full paragraph: “[A]t least one connecting bridge are [sic] set in the same layer with the metal layer, the metal layer is a gate metal layer or source and drain metal layer.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to form the conductive traces from the same metal layer as a gate for a transistor. Doing so would allow the conductive traces to be formed by the same patterning process as the gates for the transistors (see Chen I, pg. 8, third full paragraph).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepelev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aberg et al. (US 2013/0222306 A1), hereinafter Aberg.
Regarding claim 8, Shepelev teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Shepelev fails to teach that the electronic device comprises control circuitry configured to estimate a temperature associated with the flexible display based on data from the at least one strain gauge.
Aberg teaches an electronic device (electronic device 1) comprising control circuitry (control assembly 5) configured to estimate a temperature of the device based on data from a strain gauge (strain gauge sensor 4; see paragraph 0005).
Aberg is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Shepelev to include control circuitry for estimating a temperature of the flexible display based on data from the strain sensors 214. Doing so would allow the temperature of the display to be determined without the need to use a separate temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Shepelev in view of Aberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Shepelev in view of Aberg further teaches the electronic device defined in claim 8, wherein the control circuitry is configured to estimate the temperature using a strain percentage lookup table or a strain relaxation rate lookup table (see Aberg, paragraph 0031).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepelev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2014/0101560 A1), hereinafter Kwak.
Regarding claim 10, Shepelev teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Shepelev fails to teach that data from the at least one strain gauge is used to determine a speed associated with bending the flexible display and wherein the electronic device further comprises: an output device configured to output a notification based on the speed associated with bending the flexible display.
Kwak teaches a flexible display apparatus (100) that uses data from strain gauges (sensor 120; from paragraph 0108: “[T]he sensor may sense bending using a plurality of strain gages.”) to determine a speed associated with bending the flexible display (from paragraph 0182: “[T]he sensor 120 may include a shape recognition sensor 281 … [W]hen the shape of the flexible display apparatus 100 is deformed, the shape recognition sensor 281 may have each coordinate output a voltage value corresponding to the deformed shape. In this case, the controller 130 may recognize … a bending speed.”). The display apparatus further comprises an output device configured to output a notification based on the speed associated with bending the flexible display (from paragraph 0196: “[T]he controller 130 may control the display 100 to change a displayed content in proportion to a bending speed.”).
Kwak is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to use data from stain sensors 214 to determine a speed associated with bending the flexible display and to include some type of output device to output a notification based on the speed associated with bending the flexible display. Doing so would provide means to warn the user if the device is being bent too rapidly or means to change the content displayed on the display screen in response to bending the device (see Kwak, paragraph 0196).
Regarding claim 11, Shepelev teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Shepelev does not disclose a first motion sensor coupled to the first portion of the flexible display; and a second motion sensor coupled to the third portion of the flexible display.
Kwak teaches a flexible display apparatus (100) that includes a first motion sensor (acceleration sensor 81-1) coupled to a first portion (right side of display 110 as shown in Fig. 7A) of a flexible display (110) and a second motion sensor (acceleration sensor 81-2) coupled to a third portion (left side of display 110 as shown in Fig. 7A) of the flexible display (110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include a first motion sensor coupled to the first portion of the flexible display and a second motion sensor coupled to the third portion of the flexible display. Doing so would provide means for determining a bending angle and bending speed of the device (see Kwak, paragraphs 0151-0152). Acceleration sensors could also be utilized in conjunction with certain software applications designed to run on the device, such as games or fitness trackers.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepelev in view of Kwak.
Regarding claim 12, Shepelev teaches an electronic device (200) comprising:
a flexible display (210) with a first portion (portion of 210 above 202 in Fig. 2 and to the left of 202 in Fig. 4A), a second portion (portion of 210 roughly coterminous with 202 in Figs. 2 and 4A) that is aligned with a bend axis that extends in a first direction (202), and a third portion (portion of 210 below 202 in Fig. 2 and to the right of 202 in Fig. 4A), wherein the second portion is interposed between the first and third portions (see Figs. 2A and 4) and wherein the first portion is configured to bend relative to the third portion about the bend axis (see Figs. 4A-C); and
at least one strain gauge (strain sensors 214; Figs. 3A-B show example strain sensors) that is aligned with the bend axis (see Fig. 2).
Shepelev does not disclose that data from the at least one strain gauge is used to determine a speed associated with bending the flexible display, nor does it disclose an output device configured to output a notification based on the speed associated with bending the flexible display.
Kwak teaches a flexible display apparatus (100) that uses data from strain gauges (sensor 120; from paragraph 0108: “[T]he sensor may sense bending using a plurality of strain gages.”) to determine a speed associated with bending the flexible display (from paragraph 0182: “[T]he sensor 120 may include a shape recognition sensor 281 … [W]hen the shape of the flexible display apparatus 100 is deformed, the shape recognition sensor 281 may have each coordinate output a voltage value corresponding to the deformed shape. In this case, the controller 130 may recognize … a bending speed.”). The display apparatus further comprises an output device configured to output a notification based on the speed associated with bending the flexible display (from paragraph 0196: “[T]he controller 130 may control the display 100 to change a displayed content in proportion to a bending speed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to use data from stain sensors 214 to determine a speed associated with bending the flexible display and to include some type of output device to output a notification based on the speed associated with bending the flexible display. Doing so would provide means to warn the user if the device is being bent too rapidly or means to change the content displayed on the display screen in response to bending the device (see Kwak, paragraph 0196).
Regarding claim 17, Shepelev in view of Kwak teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Shepelev in view of Kwak further teaches the electronic device defined in claim 12, wherein the output device comprises a component selected from the group consisting of: a display, a speaker, and a haptic output device (Kwak teaches that the output device is a display; from paragraph 0196: “[T]he controller 130 may control the display 100 to change a displayed content in proportion to a bending speed.”).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepelev and Kwak as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Aberg.
Regarding claim 13, Shepelev in view of Kwak teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as stated above. Shepelev in view of Kwak fails to disclose that the output device is configured to output a notification based on a temperature.
Aberg teaches an electronic device (1) comprising temperature sensor made from a strain gauge (see paragraph 0005). The determined temperature is used to control at lest one function of the electronic device (see paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Shepelev and Kwak to include a temperature sensor and configure the output device to output the temperature determined by the temperature sensor. Doing so would allow the user to see whether or not the device is operating at an appropriate temperature.
Regarding claim 14, Shepelev and Kwak in view of Aberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Shepelev and Kwak in view of Aberg further teaches the electronic device defined in claim 13, further comprising: a temperature sensor that measures the temperature (see Aberg, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 15, Shepelev and Kwak in view of Aberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Shepelev and Kwak in view of Aberg further teaches the electronic device defined in claim 13, wherein the temperature is determined using the data from the at least one strain gauge (see Aberg, paragraph 0005).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepelev, Kwak, and Aberg as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yildiz et al. (US 11,586,243 B2), hereinafter Yildiz.
Shepelev and Kwak in view of Aberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Shepelev and Kwak in view of Aberg teaches all of the necessary features to output a notification when the speed associated with bending the flexible display is greater than a maximum recommended speed associated with the temperature (see Kwak, paragraph 0182 describing sensor 120 capable of determining a bending speed; see Aberg, paragraph 0005 describing strain gauge temperature sensors capable of determining the temperature of the device and a control assembly capable of controlling functions of the device based on the temperature data). However, they do not explicitly teach outputting a notification when the speed associated with bending the flexible display is greater than a maximum recommended speed associated with the temperature.
Yildiz teaches a flexible display device (information handling system 10 and flexible touch screen display 44) that restricts bending if the device is not within a certain temperature range (from col. 4, lines 14-19: “[A] hinge brake interfaced with a hinge restricts housing portion rotation that folds or unfolds a flexible display when the flexible display temperature exceeds a threshold temperature range, indicating that damage may occur to the flexible display if it folds or unfolds.”). Stated differently, the device outputs a notification (activating a hinge brake) when a bending speed (in this case, any speed greater than zero) would be greater than a maximum recommended speed (in this case, the recommended speed would be zero) associated with the temperature.
Yildiz is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Since the device taught by Shepelev, Kwak, and Aberg already comprises the necessary features, and Yildiz teaches that flexible displays are prone to damage if bent when the display’s temperature falls outside of a certain range (see Abstract; see also col. 4, lines 14-19), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to output a notification when the speed associated with bending the flexible display is greater than a maximum recommended speed associated with the temperature. Doing so would help to prevent damage to the display.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 11,143,797 B2), hereinafter Chen II.
Regarding claim 19, KR teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. KR fails to teach a matte layer attached to the display cover layer using the second adhesive layer.
Chen II teaches a matte layer (substrate layer 1 and micro-lens array layer 2) attached to a display cover layer (polarizer 10).
KR and Chen II are both considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by KR by attaching a matte layer above polarizer POL. Doing so would improve the quality of the display by providing a less reflective finish. Additionally, the matte layer could help reduce the Screen Door Effect (Chen II: see col. 4, lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 20, KR in view of Chen II teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 as stated above. KR in view of Chen II further teaches the electronic device defined in claim 19, wherein the matte layer (Chen II: 1 and 2) comprises a first microlens of a first size and a second microlens of a second size that is different than the first size (see Figs. 3 and 12 showing microlenses of different sizes arranged on micro-lens array layer 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841