Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/6/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 22 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al (PGPUB 2020/0286410 A1).
As to claim 1, Wu (Figs. 3-6, 13) teaches, a variable-resolution display (stretchable display device), comprising:
a display substrate (stretchable substrate 102); and
pixels (subpixels 108a, 108b) disposed on the display substrate (¶ 56, Figs. 3-5),
wherein the pixels have a variable spatial resolution (Figs. 3-5: i.e. distances PL1 and PL2 are variable in status 1 and 2) over the display substrate and are controllable to emit light in response to an unchanging image frame (Fig. 10: i.e. “FLOWER” is displayed and image frame is unchanged) comprising data for each of the pixels during a temporal frame period (Fig. 10: i.e. displayed during frame periods for display status I and II)(¶ 62).
wherein two adjacent ones of the pixels are separated by a first distance (first distance PL1’) in a first direction (i.e. horizontal direction) and two other adjacent ones of the pixels are separated by a second distance (second distance PL2’ as shown in Fig. 5) in the first direction that is different from the first distance (Fig. 5: PL1’ is longer than PL2’ as shown in Fig. 5).
As to claim 5, Wu (Fig. 5) teaches, wherein (i) the pixels comprise a first pixel (i.e. subpixel at first row and third column as shown in II(A2) of Fig. 5), a second pixel (i.e. subpixel at first row and fourth column as shown in II(A2) of Fig. 5), and a third pixel (i.e. subpixel at first row and second column as shown in II(A2) of Fig. 5), (ii) the first pixel and the second pixel are adjacent and separated by a first pixel distance (PL2’) in a first pixel direction (i.e. horizontal direction)(Fig. 5), (iii) the first pixel and the third pixel are adjacent and separated by a second pixel distance (PL1’ or a distance value between PL1’ and PL2’ as shown in Fig. 5) in a second pixel direction (i.e. horizontal direction) parallel to the first pixel direction, and (iv) the first distance is less than the second distance (Fig. 5: i.e. PL2’ is less than PL1’ or the distance value between PL1’ and PL2’).
As to claim 6, Wu (Fig. 5) teaches, wherein the pixels comprise a first pixel (i.e. subpixel at first row and fourth column as shown in Fig. 3), a second pixel (i.e. subpixel at first row and fifth column as shown in Fig. 3), and a third pixel (i.e. subpixel at second row and fourth column as shown in Fig. 3), the first pixel and the second pixel are adjacent and separated by a first distance (PL2’) in a first direction (i.e. horizontal direction), the first pixel and the third pixel are adjacent and separated by a second distance (PL3’) in a second direction (vertical direction) non-parallel to the first direction (i.e. perpendicular), and the first distance (PL2’) is less than the second distance (PL3’)(Fig. 5: i.e. PL3’ is shown to be longer distance than PL2’)
As to claim 10, Wu (Fig. 5) teaches, wherein the pixels are connected in clusters (region Ra) to a cluster controller (i.e. hardware for performing methods in Figs. 11, 13, 14, 15) and a spatial resolution of the pixels within each of the clusters is less than an average spatial resolution of the pixels across the display substrate (Fig. 5: i.e. spatial resolution of Ra is less than Rb and would necessarily be lower than average resolution, which would be higher than Ra’s resolution due to the resolution of Rb).
As to claim 12, Wu (Fig. 5) teaches, wherein fewer of the pixels per unit area of the display substrate are disposed in a second region (region Ra) than in a first region (middle region Rb) and wherein (1) the first region is closer to a center of the display substrate than to an edge (i.e. vertical edge on left and right side of substrate 102 as shown in Fig. 5) of the display substrate and the second region is closer to the edge of the display substrate than to the center of the display substrate or (ii) the second region is at an edge of the display substrate and the first region is in a cluster of pixels away from the edge (Fig. 5).
As to claim 22, Wu (Fig. 2) teaches, wherein the pixels are color pixels comprising subpixels that each emit a different color of light (¶ 32: i.e. each subpixel can produce red, green or blue light).
As to claim 29, Wu (Figs. 2, 8 and 10) teaches, wherein two adjacent one of pixels are separated by a third distance in a second direction and two other adjacent ones of the pixels are separated by a fourth distance in the second direction that is different from the third distance (¶ 34: i.e. Wu teaches stretching the display at various distance and amount, and ¶ 56: i.e. stretching to irregular polygons. In other words, the discussion of PL1’ and PL2’ having two different distances can apply to pixels distances in vertical direction).
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13-20, 28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Zou et al (PGPUB 2020/0175916 A1).
As to claim 11, Wu (Fig. 6) teaches, wherein the pixels are disposed directly on the display substrate (Fig. 6: i.e. directly on stretchable substrate 102).
Wu does not specifically teach wherein fewer of the pixels per unit area of the display substrate are disposed in a first region than in a second region and wherein (i) the first region is closer to a center of the display substrate than to an edge of the display substrate and the second region is closer to the edge of the display substrate than to the center of the display substrate or (ii) the second region is at an edge of the display substrate and the first region is in a cluster of pixels away from the edge.
Zou (Figs. 1, 3) teaches, wherein fewer of the pixels per unit area of the display substrate are disposed in a first region (second resolution display panel 4) than in a second region (first resolution display panel 2)(¶ 75, 76: i.e. the resolution of second resolution region can be 500 PPI while the resolution of the first resolution region can be 501-1000 PPI) and wherein (i) the first region is closer to a center of the display substrate than to an edge (Figs. 1, 3: i.e. the second resolution region is at the center of the display substrate) of the display substrate (substrate 12 and silicon substrate 32) and the second region is closer to the edge (i.e. left edge as shown in Fig. 3) of the display substrate than to the center of the display substrate (Figs. 1, 3) or (ii) the second region is at an edge (i.e. top, right and bottom edges as shown in Fig. 3) of the display substrate and the first region is in a cluster of pixels (i.e. pixels corresponding to second resolution display panel 4) away from the edge (Figs. 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zou’s display structure into Wu’s display, so as to reduce the cost of the display device while improving the display quality (¶ 47).
As to claim 13, Wu teaches the variable-resolution display of claim 1 and that the substrate 102 may include driving element (¶ 32) but does not specifically teach a circuit disposed on the display substrate that is electrically connected to and controls two or more of the pixels.
Zou (Figs. 1, 2) teaches, a circuit (display driving chip 3) disposed on the display substrate (silicon substrate 32) that is electrically connected to and controls two or more of the pixels (¶ 61: i.e. controls pixels on the second resolution display panel 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zou’s display structure into Wu’s display, so as to reduce the cost of the display device while improving the display quality (¶ 47).
As to claim 14, Wu (Fig. 2) teaches, wherein the circuit is a thin-film circuit (i.e. switching element STE may be a thin film transistor, ¶ 32) native to the display substrate (¶ 32, 35, Fig. 2).
As to claim 15, Wu teaches the variable-resolution display of claim 13, but does not specifically teach, wherein the circuit is an integrated circuit comprising a circuit substrate non-native to the display substrate.
Zou (Fig. 1) teaches, wherein the circuit is an integrated circuit (integrated driver 5) comprising a circuit substrate (substrate 12) non-native to the display substrate (i.e. different than the silicon substrate 32 for second resolution display panel 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zou’s display structure into Wu’s display, so as to reduce the cost of the display device while improving the display quality (¶ 47).
As to claim 16, Wu teaches the variable-resolution display of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the circuit is disposed in or on the display substrate in a region having a lower spatial resolution of pixels than another region of the display substrate.
Zou (Figs. 1, 3) teaches, wherein the circuit is disposed in or on the display substrate in a region having a lower spatial resolution of pixels than another region of the display substrate (Fig. 2, ¶ 76: i.e. display driving chip 3 is positioned in the second resolution display panel 4 that can have resolution of 500 PPI while first resolution display panel 2 can have resolution of 501-1000PPI).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zou’s display structure into Wu’s display, so as to reduce the cost of the display device while improving the display quality (¶ 47).
As to claim 17, Wu (Fig. 3) teaches, wherein the display substrate has edges and fewer of the pixels per unit area of the display substrate are disposed at one of the edges than at another of the edges (Fig. 3: i.e. II(A2) shows fewer pixels per unit area in the horizontal direction edges than the vertical direction edges).
As to claim 18, Wu teaches the variable-resolution display of claim 17, but does not specifically teach a wire.
Zou (Fig. 1) teaches, a wire (driver bonding pads 112) that extends from an edge (i.e. left edge as shown in Fig. 1) of the display substrate to the circuit and is electrically connected to the circuit (¶ 66).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zou’s display structure into Wu’s display, so as to reduce the cost of the display device while improving the display quality (¶ 47).
As to claim 19, Wu (Figs. 3, 4) teaches, wherein the edge has fewer display pixels per unit area of the display substrate than another edge of the display substrate (i.e. horizontal pixel density along the horizontal edge is lower than the vertical pixel density along the vertical edge).
As to claim 20, Wu teaches the variable-resolution display of claim 1, but does not specifically teach a plurality of circuits.
Zou (Figs. 1, 2) teaches, a plurality of circuits (display driving chip 3 and integrated display driver 5), wherein each of the circuits is exclusively electrically
connected to and controls an exclusive subset of the pixels (¶ 61: i.e. display driving chip drives second resolution display panel 4 and ¶ 95: i.e. integrated display driver 5 drives first resolution display panel 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zou’s display structure into Wu’s display, so as to reduce the cost of the display device while improving the display quality (¶ 47).
As to claim 28, Wu teaches the variable-resolution of claim 1 but does not specifically teach the display substrate is a silicon, glass, a semiconductor, or quartz.
Zou (Fig. 3) teaches, the display substrate is a silicon, glass, a semiconductor, or quartz (¶ 17: i.e. the substrate is silicon substrate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zou’s display structure into Wu’s display, so as to reduce the cost of the display device while improving the display quality (¶ 47).
As to claim 30, Wu teaches the variable-resolution display of claim 1 and teaches irregular stretches that may result in equal distances but does not specifically teach wherein the first distance and the third distance are equal, wherein the second distance and fourth distance are equal.
Zou (Fig. 3) teaches, wherein the first distance and the third distance are equal, wherein the second distance and fourth distance are equal (Fig. 3: i.e. Zou teaches same resolution in horizontal and vertical directions among different sets of adjacent pixels).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zou’s display structure into Wu’s display, so as to reduce the cost of the display device while improving the display quality (¶ 47).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Pan (PGPUB 2021/0111302 A1).
As to claim 21, Wu teaches the variable-resolution display of claim 1 but does not specifically teach a monochrome pixels.
Pan (Fig. 1) teaches, wherein the pixels are monochrome pixels that each emit a same color of light (¶ 32: i.e. single color LED can be use).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pan’s structure of using single color LED in Wu’s display device, so as to simplify manufacturing cost and improve fabrication efficiency and quality (¶ 32).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Hong (PGPUB 2021/0335187 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pan (PGPUB 2021/0111302 A1).
As to claim 23, Wu teaches the variable-resolution display of claim 1, but does not specifically teach alternately separated by two different distances.
Hong (Figs. 2A, 4) teaches, wherein successive adjacent pixels along at least one direction are alternately separated by two different distances (Fig. 4: i.e. as shown in Fig. 3, each sub-pixel R, G, and B have smaller distance among each other than the distance between each of the pixel distanced by transparent region TR. This pattern alternates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hong’s pixel structure into Wu’s display device, so as to improve image quality in specific pattern (¶ 64).
Pan (Fig. 1) teaches, wherein the pixels are monochrome pixels that each emit a same color of light (¶ 32: i.e. single color LED can be use).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pan’s structure of using single color LED in Wu’s display device as modified with the teaching of Hong, so as to simplify manufacturing cost and improve fabrication efficiency and quality (¶ 32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 24 recites the limitation, “a camera system comprising a digital camera and a processor connected to the digital camera, wherein the digital camera is disposed relative to the variable-resolution display such that the digital camera is operable to record an entire image displayed on the variable-resolution display and processor is operable to process the recorded image”.
Examiner conducted a search to find the prior arts that would teach the limitations required by claim 24. While Wu teaches monitoring length-to-width of whole- picture of image data in ¶ 62 but does not specifically teach the camera system for processing the entire image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite the new limitation, “wherein two adjacent ones of the pixels are separated by a first distance in a first direction and two other adjacent ones of the pixels are separated by a second distance in the first direction that is different from the first distance” and argues that Wu prior art does not specifically teach this limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In view of the amendment made in claim 1, Examiner reconsidered and provided new ground of office action based on Wu prior art. Wu in Fig. 3 teaches different distances between two adjacent pixels in the same direction. The first stretched distance PL1’ is higher than the second stretched distance PL2 as shown in Fig. 4 in status II(A2). Therefore, Wu prior art still teaches the new limitations recited in claim 1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGHYUK PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7359. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00AM - 6:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on ((571) 272-7772. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SANGHYUK PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623