DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 16, and 19 have been amended, and Claim 9 has been cancelled as per the amendment filed on 8/11/2026.
Currently Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending and prosecuted.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/11/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 10735569 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, “A wearable electronic device having a first and second opposite sides, comprising a housing; a display mounted in the housing….…a cover glass….wherein the cover glass forms an exterior surface of the wearable electronic device on the second side”. However, the specification and the drawings fail to disclose or describe a wearable electronic device having both “a housing” and a “cover glass” where the “cover glass” forms an exterior surface of the wearable electronic device on the “second side”. Figure 10 shows a cross-sectional view of an electronic device in which the display 14 of the device completely surrounds the device 10. The display 14 can comprise of a multiple layers including a rigid cover layer 14C such as a glass. However, this embodiment does not disclose the use of a “housing”.
Meanwhile, Figure 7, disclose the use of a housing 12 where the display 14 comprises of a rigid cover layer 14c such as a layer of rigid cover glass, but does not disclose that said rigid cover layer “formed an exterior surface” of the “second surface” of the wearable electronic device.
Therefore, the specification and fails to disclose or describe an embodiment that has both of these aspects together, as such the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 12-15, which are dependent form Claim 11, are also rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “wherein the housing comprises curved sidewalls”. However, for the same reasons as stated above in Claim 11, the specification fails to further describe an embodiment that also includes wherein the “housing” comprises of “curved sidewalls”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Cho et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0117975, in further view of Freidhoff et al., US Patent Publication 2002/0173215, in further view of Babuka et al., US Patent 5867236.
Regarding Claim 1, Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, discloses an electronic device having a front face and an opposing rear face (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; communication device has a curved display surface that surround the device and faces multiple directions), the electronic device comprising:
a first display region on the front face, wherein the first display region has a convex outer surface (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; as seen in Figure 5B, the communication device has an ellipsoidal cylinder shape with a curved surface, which the examiner considers a “a first display region on the front face, wherein the first display region has a convex outer surface”) ;
a second display region on the rear face (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; because the curved display surface surrounds the communication device, there is a “second display region on the rear face”); and
electrical components (Figure 1 and 2; [0016-0028]; an image recorder 102, image processing unit 106, and/or image storage unit 108).
However, Smoyer doesn’t explicitly teach electrical components interposed between the first and second display regions, and
a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Smoyer such that the an image recorder 102, image processing unit 106, and/or image storage unit 108 are interposed between the “first and second display regions” since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the ar. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter of “electrical components interposed between the first and second display regions” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
However, Smoyer doesn’t explicitly teach a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions.
Cho et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0117975, discloses a full-display type cylindroid or cylindrical mobile terminal with a flexible display 225. As shown in the figure (reproduced below) there is inherently a edge/seam in the flexible display 225 (Figure 8B; [0083] ).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Smoyer to further include the teachings of Cho such that the ellipsoidal cylinder shape of the curved display has an edge/seam. The motivation to combine these arts is because Cho teaches an example of an full-display type cylindroid or cylindrical mobile terminal with a flexible display 225 as shown in the drawing, that is depicted with having a seam/edge (Figure 8B; [0083]) .
However, the combination of Smoyer and Cho doesn’t explicitly teach a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions.
Freidhoff et al., US Patent Publication 2002/0173215, discloses that a space between adjacent tiled displays can be filled by an adhesive or other means (Figure 1 and 2; [0038];)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed inventions to modify the combinational disclosure Smoyer and Cho to further include the teachings of Freidhoff such that the seam/edge is filled can be filled with an adhesive or other means. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because Freidhoff teaches filling in a space between adjacent tiles in a large display ([0002]; [0038];).
However, the combination of Smoyer, Cho, and Freidhoff doesn’t explicitly teach a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions.
Babuka et al., US Patent 5867236, teaches the use of a metallized film adhesive, that is bonded to the tile edges of a flat-panel display comprising of an array of tiles (Abstract;).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Cho, and Freidhoff to further include the teachings of Babuka, such that the adhesive used to fill in the seam/edge is a metallized film adhesive order to provide a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions. The motivation to combine these arts is because Babuka teaches the use of a metallized film adhesive in a flat-panel display comprising of an array of tiles (Abstract;)
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, and Babuka teaches wherein the first and second display regions overlap each other (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; the examiner considers the “fist display region” and the “second display region” overlap each other).
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, and Babuka teaches wherein the front face and the rear face are joined along curved sidewalls (Smoyer: Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; because the curved display surface surrounds the communication device and has an ellipsoidal cylinder shape, the examiner considers the “front face” and the “rear face” to be joined along the “curved sidewalls”).
Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Cho et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0117975, in further view of Freidhoff et al., US Patent Publication 2002/0173215, in further view of Babuka et al., US Patent 5867236, in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593.
Regarding Claim 2, Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, and Babuka doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a cover glass overlapping the first display region.
Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, discloses a bent liquid crystal display panel 10, where the first outer surface is a convex surface, and comprising of a first substrate 12 made of glass (a cover glass) (Figure 2; [0021-0024];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, and Babuka to further include the teachings of Sasaki such that the display surfaces 110, which may use LCD (Smoyer: [0020];), are bent liquid crystal display panels in order to provide further comprising a cover glass overlapping the first display region. The motivation to combine these arts is because Smoyer teaches a liquid crystal display panel that prevents deterioration characters when the panel is bent (Sasaki: [0006];) and because Smoyer teaches that the display surface can utilize LCD ([0020];).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka, and Sasaki teaches wherein the cover glass comprises an additional convex outer surface and a concave inner surface (Sasaki: Figure 2; [0021-0024]; the first substrate has a convex “outer surface” and a concave “inner surface”).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka, and Sasaki teaches wherein the first display region conforms to the concave inner surface (Smoyer: Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; Sasaki: Figure 2; [0021-0024]; the examiner considers the “first display region” as conforming to the concave inner surface of the first substrate).
Regarding Claim 7, Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka, and Sasaki doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first display region comprises a flexible substrate.
Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, discloses a bent liquid crystal display panel 10, where the first outer surface is a convex surface, and comprising of a first substrate 12 made of glass (a flexible substrate) (Figure 2; [0021-0024];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Smoyer to further include the teachings of Sasaki such that the display surfaces 110, which may use LCD (Smoyer: [0020];), are bent liquid crystal display panels in order to provide wherein the first display region comprises a flexible substrate. The motivation to combine these arts is because Smoyer teaches a liquid crystal display panel that prevents deterioration characters when the panel is bent (Sasaki: [0006];) and because Smoyer teaches that the display surface can utilize LCD ([0020];).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Cho et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0117975, in further view of Freidhoff et al., US Patent Publication 2002/0173215, in further view of Babuka et al., US Patent 5867236, in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, and in further view of Haim et al., US Patent 5402141.
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka, and Sasaki doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising an opaque masking layer on the concave inner surface.
However, Haim et al., US Patent 5402141, discloses the use of an upper color filter layer 13 constructed on a glass substate 50 with a red, green, and blue color filter that are each separated by a black matrix 54 (opaque masking layer) on an inner surface of the glass substrate 50 (col. 3, ll. 66- col. 4 ll. 27; col. 5, ll. 37-57;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka, and Sasaki to further include the teachings of Haim in order to provide further comprising an opaque masking layer on the concave inner surface. The motivation to combine these analogues arts is because Haim teaches the specific details of a liquid crystal display structure (Haim: Figure 3; col. 5, ll. 37-57;).
Claims 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Cho et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0117975, in further view of Freidhoff et al., US Patent Publication 2002/0173215, in further view of Babuka et al., US Patent 5867236, and in further view of Sanford, US Patent Publication 2010/0061039 .
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, and Babuka doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a cover glass overlapping the first display region.
Sanford teaches the use of a cover 160, that overlays or covers a display, such as a liquid crystal display, in order to protect it. The cover can be made of glass, and mimics the contour of the curvilinear outer surface of the housing (Claim 11; Figure 10; [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer to further include the teachings of Sanford in order to provide a cover glass overlapping the first display region. The motivation to combine these arts is because Sanford teaches a cover that is used to protect a display and that mimics the contour of the housing (Sanford: [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; )
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Cho et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0117975, in further view of Freidhoff et al., US Patent Publication 2002/0173215, in further view of Babuka et al., US Patent 5867236, in further view of Sanford, US Patent Publication 2010/0061039, and in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka and Sanford teaches wherein the cover glass comprises an additional convex outer surface (Sanford: Claim 11; Figure 10; [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; the cover 160 has an “additional convex outer surface” )
However, the combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka and Sanford doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the cover glass comprises a concave inner surface.
Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, discloses a bent liquid crystal display panel 10, where the first outer surface is a convex surface, and comprising of a first substrate 12 made of glass (Figure 2; [0021-0024];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka and Sanford to further include the teachings of Sasaki such that the display surfaces, which may use LCD (Smoyer: [0020];), are bent liquid crystal display panels thus the cover has a concave inner surface to match the convex curve of the bent liquid crystal panel in order to provide wherein the cover glass comprises a concave inner surface. The motivation to combine these arts is because Sasaki teaches a liquid crystal display panel that prevents deterioration characters when the panel is bent (Sasaki: [0006];) and because Smoyer teaches that the display surface can utilize LCD (Smoyer: [0020];).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka, Sanford, and Sasaki teaches wherein the first display region conforms to the concave inner surface (Smoyer: Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; Sanford: Claim 11; Figure 10; [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; Sasaki: Figure 2; [0021-0024]; the examiner considers the “first display region” as conforming to the concave inner surface of the cover 160).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Cho et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0117975, in further view of Freidhoff et al., US Patent Publication 2002/0173215, in further view of Babuka et al., US Patent 5867236, in further view of Sanford, US Patent Publication 2010/0061039, and in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, and in further view of Haim et al., US Patent 5402141.
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka, Sanford, and Sasaki doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising an opaque masking layer on the concave inner surface.
However, Haim et al., US Patent 5402141, discloses the use of an upper color filter layer 13 constructed on a glass substate 50 with a red, green, and blue color filter that are each separated by a black matrix 54 (opaque masking layer) on an inner surface of the glass substrate 50 (col. 3, ll. 66- col. 4 ll. 27; col. 5, ll. 37-57;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka, Sanford, and Sasaki to further include the teachings of Haim in order to provide further comprising an opaque masking layer on the concave inner surface. The motivation to combine these analogues arts is because Haim teaches the specific details of a liquid crystal display structure (Haim: Figure 3; col. 5, ll. 37-57;)
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Cho et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0117975, in further view of Freidhoff et al., US Patent Publication 2002/0173215, in further view of Babuka et al., US Patent 5867236, in further view of Tseng, US Patent 8442600.
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, and Babuka doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first display region has an inactive area and an active area, the electronic device further comprising a user interface component mounted in the inactive area.
Tseng, US Patent 8442600, teaches a mobile electronic device that has display substantially wrapped around the entire exterior surface of the device. The device further comprises four user-selectable buttons 200a-b and a roller ball 218 (user input component). The examiner considers the four user-selectable buttons 220a-b and a roller ball 218 to be in a “inactive area” that is separate from an “active area” occupied by the primary display 202b (Abstract; Figures 1-4; col. 1, ll. 33-35, col. 4, ll. 41-col. 6, ll. 37; col. 8, ll. 1-col. 10, ll. 41; : col. 15, ll. 29-47;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka to further include the teachings of Tseng in order to provide wherein the first display region has an inactive area and an active area, the electronic device further comprising a user interface component mounted in the inactive area. The motivation to combine these arts is because Tseng teaches a mobile electronic device having user-selectable buttons that can be programmed to activate different applications and a roller ball to provide highlighting and selecting elements on the primary display (Tseng: col. 1, ll. 33-35, col. 15, ll. 29-47;)
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Lube et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0082103, in further view of Kulas, US Patent Publication 2003/0151562, and in further view of Anderson et al., US Patent Publication 2008/0297997.
Regarding Claim 1, Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, discloses an electronic device having a front face and an opposing rear face (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; communication device has a curved display surface that surround the device and faces multiple directions), the electronic device comprising:
a first display region on the front face, wherein the first display region has a convex outer surface (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; as seen in Figure 5B, the communication device has an ellipsoidal cylinder shape with a curved surface, which the examiner considers a “a first display region on the front face, wherein the first display region has a convex outer surface”) ;
a second display region on the rear face (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; because the curved display surface surrounds the communication device, there is a “second display region on the rear face”); and
electrical components (Figure 1 and 2; [0016-0028]; an image recorder 102, image processing unit 106, and/or image storage unit 108).
However, Smoyer doesn’t explicitly teach electrical components interposed between the first and second display regions, and
a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Smoyer such that the an image recorder 102, image processing unit 106, and/or image storage unit 108 are interposed between the “first and second display regions” since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the ar. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter of “electrical components interposed between the first and second display regions” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
However, Smoyer doesn’t explicitly teach a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions.
Lube et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0082103, teaches a flexible display unit 170 comprises of flexible display modules 160a and 160b may be arranged as one functional unit and orientated essential opposed to one another so that opposite viewing angles can be achieved. A frame may be employed for stabilizing the modules and/or to maintain structural integrity (Figure 4B and 5; [0052];).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date is made to modify the disclosure of Smoyer to further include the teachings of Lube such that the curved display surface comprises of flexible display modules arranged as one functional unit and comprises of a frame. The motivation to combine these arts is because Lube teaches the use of a frame to maintain structural integrity of flexible display modules arranged as one functional unit (Lube: [0052];).
However, the combination of Smoyer and Lube doesn’t explicitly teach a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions.
Kulas, US Patent Publication 2003/0151562, teaches the use of a mounting bracket for holding a screen in a fixed orientation with respect to other screens in a multiple screen set up. Any shape and size of display can be used including any size of standing rectangular displays, circular, curved, convex, concave, three dimensional, etc. The brackets are used for holding an edge of screen, and can have arms of any configuration length, size, shape, coloration or other attributes or properties (Abstract; Figure 4A-4c; [0044]; [0052]; [0057];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer and Lube to further include the teachings of Kulas such that a bracket is used for holding the ellipsoidal cylinder shape display screen in a fixed position in order to provide a member that joins edges of the first and second display regions. The motivation to combine these arts is because Kulas teaches use of a mounting bracket for holding a screen, of any shape and size, in a fixed orientation with respect to other screens in a multiple screen set up (Kulas: Abstract; Figure 4A-4c; [0044]; [0052]; [0057];).
However, the combination of Smoyer, Lube, and Kulas doesn’t explicitly teach a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions.
Anderson et al., US Patent Publication 2008/0297997, teaches wherein mounting brackets comprise a metal bracket ([0057];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Lube, and Kulas to further include the teachings of Anderson in order to provide a metal member that joins edges of the first and second display regions. The motivation to combine these arts is because Anderson gives the example that a mounting bracket comprises of a metal bracket (Anderson: [0057];).
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, and Anderson teaches wherein the first and second display regions overlap each other (Smoyer: Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; the examiner considers the “fist display region” and the “second display region” overlap each other).
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, and Anderson teaches wherein the front face and the rear face are joined along curved sidewalls (Smoyer: Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; Kulas: Abstract; Figure 4A-4c; [0044]; [0052]; [0057];). because the curved display surface surrounds the communication device and has an ellipsoidal cylinder shape, the examiner considers the “front face” and the “rear face” to be joined along the “curved sidewalls” through the use of the mounting brackets).
Claims 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Lube et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0082103, in further view of Kulas, US Patent Publication 2003/0151562, and in further view of Anderson et al., US Patent Publication 2008/0297997, and in further view of Sanford, US Patent Publication 2010/0061039 .
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, and Anderson doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a cover glass overlapping the first display region.
Sanford teaches the use of a cover 160, that overlays or covers a display, such as a liquid crystal display, in order to protect it. The cover can be made of glass (Claim 11; Figure 10; [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, and Anderson to further include the teachings of Sanford in order to provide a cover glass overlapping the first display region. The motivation to combine these arts is because Sanford teaches a cover that is used to protect a display (Sanford: [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; )
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Lube et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0082103, in further view of Kulas, US Patent Publication 2003/0151562, and in further view of Anderson et al., US Patent Publication 2008/0297997, and in further view of Sanford, US Patent Publication 2010/0061039, and in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, Anderson, and Sanford teaches wherein the cover glass comprises an additional convex outer surface (Sanford: Claim 11; Figure 10; [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; the cover 160 has an “additional convex outer surface” )
However, the combination of Smoyer, Cho, Freidhoff, Babuka and Sanford doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the cover glass comprises a concave inner surface.
Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, discloses a bent liquid crystal display panel 10, where the first outer surface is a convex surface, and comprising of a first substrate 12 made of glass (Figure 2; [0021-0024];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, Anderson, and Sanford to further include the teachings of Sasaki such that the display surfaces, which may use LCD (Smoyer: [0020];), are bent liquid crystal display panels thus the cover has a concave inner surface to match the convex curve of the bent liquid crystal panel in order to provide wherein the cover glass comprises a concave inner surface. The motivation to combine these arts is because Sasaki teaches a liquid crystal display panel that prevents deterioration characters when the panel is bent (Sasaki: [0006];) and because Sandford describes that a cover is positioned over the liquid crystal display, in order to protect it (Sanford: [0041]; [0058];).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, Anderson, Sanford, and Sasaki teaches wherein the first display region conforms to the concave inner surface (Smoyer: Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; Sanford: Claim 11; Figure 10; [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; Sasaki: Figure 2; [0021-0024]; the examiner considers the “first display region” as conforming to the concave inner surface of the cover 160).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Lube et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0082103, in further view of Kulas, US Patent Publication 2003/0151562, and in further view of Anderson et al., US Patent Publication 2008/0297997, in further view of Sanford, US Patent Publication 2010/0061039, and in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, and in further view of Haim et al., US Patent 5402141.
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, Anderson, Sanford, and Sasaki doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising an opaque masking layer on the concave inner surface.
However, Haim et al., US Patent 5402141, discloses the use of an upper color filter layer 13 constructed on a glass substate 50 with a red, green, and blue color filter that are each separated by a black matrix 54 (opaque masking layer) on an inner surface of the glass substrate 50 (col. 3, ll. 66- col. 4 ll. 27; col. 5, ll. 37-57;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, Anderson, Sanford, and Sasaki to further include the teachings of Haim in order to provide further comprising an opaque masking layer on the concave inner surface. The motivation to combine these analogues arts is because Haim teaches the specific details of a liquid crystal display structure (Haim: Figure 3; col. 5, ll. 37-57;)
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Lube et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0082103, in further view of Kulas, US Patent Publication 2003/0151562, and in further view of Anderson et al., US Patent Publication 2008/0297997, in further view of Tseng, US Patent 8442600.
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, and Anderson doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first display region has an inactive area and an active area, the electronic device further comprising a user interface component mounted in the inactive area.
Tseng, US Patent 8442600, teaches a mobile electronic device that has display substantially wrapped around the entire exterior surface of the device. The device further comprises four user-selectable buttons 200a-b and a roller ball 218 (user input component). The examiner considers the four user-selectable buttons 220a-b and a roller ball 218 to be in a “inactive area” that is separate from an “active area” occupied by the primary display 202b (Abstract; Figures 1-4; col. 1, ll. 33-35, col. 4, ll. 41-col. 6, ll. 37; col. 8, ll. 1-col. 10, ll. 41; : col. 15, ll. 29-47;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Lube, Kulas, and Anderson to further include the teachings of Tseng in order to provide wherein the first display region has an inactive area and an active area, the electronic device further comprising a user interface component mounted in the inactive area. The motivation to combine these arts is because Tseng teaches a mobile electronic device having user-selectable buttons that can be programmed to activate different applications and a roller ball to provide highlighting and selecting elements on the primary display (Tseng: col. 1, ll. 33-35, col. 15, ll. 29-47;)
Claims 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Yanase et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0256820, in further view of Lube et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0082103, henceforth known as Lube, and in further view of Sanford et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0061039.
Regarding Claim 11, Smoyer discloses a electronic device having first and second opposing sides (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; communication device has a curved display surface that surround the device and faces multiple directions), comprising:
a display that presents images on the first side (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; as seen in Figure 5B, the communication device has an ellipsoidal cylinder shape with a curved display surface that displays an image on a “first side”).
However, Stanford doesn’t explicitly disclose the electronic device is a wearable electronic device,
the electronic device comprising a housing;
the display mounted in the housing and having an array of pixels that presents images on the first side;
a cover glass overlapping the display and having a convex outer surface, wherein the cover glass forms an exterior surface of the wearable electronic device on the second side.
Yanase et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0256820, discloses that a display comprising of a plurality of pixels arranged in a matrix, and describes that electronic apparatus may include various kinds of electric products such as wearable information terminals (Figure 14; [0062-0063]; [0266]; [0269];).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Smoyer to further include the teachings of Yanase in order to provide the electronic device is a wearable electronic device and the display having an array of pixels that presents images on the first side. The motivation to combine these arts is because Yanase teaches that an electronic apparatus can be a wearable and that a display can comprise of a plurality of pixels formed in a matrix (Yanase: [0266]; [0269];)
However, the combination of Smoyer and Yanase doesn’t explicitly teach the electronic device comprising a housing;
the display mounted in the housing;
a cover glass overlapping the display and having a convex outer surface, wherein the cover glass forms an exterior surface of the wearable electronic device on the second side.
Lube et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0082103, teaches a flexible display unit 170 comprises of flexible display modules 160a and 160b may be arranged as one functional unit and orientated essential opposed to one another so that opposite viewing angles can be achieved. A frame (housing) may be employed for stabilizing the modules and/or to maintain structural integrity (Figure 4B and 5; [0052];).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date is made to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer and Yanase to further include the teachings of Lube in order to provide the electronic device comprising a housing and the display mounted in the housing. The motivation to combine these arts is because Lube teaches the curved display surface comprises of flexible display modules arranged as one functional unit and comprises of a frame to maintain structural integrity (Lube: [0052];).
However, the combination of Smoyer, Yanase, and Lube doesn’t explicitly teach a cover glass overlapping the display and having a convex outer surface, wherein the cover glass forms an exterior surface of the wearable electronic device on the second side.
Sanford teaches the use of a cover 160, that overlays or covers a display, such as a liquid crystal display, in order to protect it and comprises of a “convex outer surface” and forms an “exterior surface” of the electronic device 100. The cover can be made of glass (Claim 11; Figure 10; [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Yanase, and Lube to further include the teachings of Sanford such that a cover glass is formed over the communication device having an ellipsoidal cylinder shape with the curved surface in order to provide a cover glass overlapping the display and having a convex outer surface, wherein the cover glass forms an exterior surface of the wearable electronic device on the second side. The motivation to combine these arts is because Sanford teaches a cover that is used to protect a display (Sanford: [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; ).
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Smoyer, Yanase, Lube, and Sanford teaches wherein the display forms a first display region on a front face of the wearable electronic device (Smoyer: Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; as seen in Figure 5B, the communication device has an ellipsoidal cylinder shape with a curved surface, where the examiner considers there being a “a first display region on a front face of the wearable electronic device”), the wearable electronic device further comprising a second display region overlapping the first display region (Smoyer: Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; because the curved display surface surrounds the communication device, there is a “second display region overlapping the first display region”)).
Regarding Claim 15, The combination of Smoyer, Yanase, Lube, and Sanford teaches further comprising electrical components (Smoyer: Figure 1 and 2; [0016-0028]; an image recorder 102, image processing unit 106, and/or image storage unit 108).
However, the combination of Smoyer, Yanase, Lube, and Sanford doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising electrical components mounted between the first and second display regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Yanase, Lube, and Sanford such that the an image recorder 102, image processing unit 106, and/or image storage unit 108 are interposed between the “first and second display regions” since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the ar. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Yanase et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0256820, in further view of Lube et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0082103, henceforth known as Lube, in further view of Sanford et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0061039, and in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593.
Regarding Claim 13, The combination of Smoyer, Yanase, Lube, and Sanford doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the cover glass comprises a concave inner surface.
Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, discloses a bent liquid crystal display panel 10, where the first outer surface is a convex surface, and comprising of a first substrate 12 made of glass, that is shown having a convex outer surface and a concave inner surface (Figure 2; [0021-0024];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Yanase, Lube, and Sanford to further include the teachings of Sasaki such the display is a bent liquid crystal display surface and the cover 160 has a concave inner surface to match the convex outer surface of the bent liquid crystal display in order to provide wherein the cover glass comprises a concave inner surface. The motivation to combine these arts is because Sasaki teaches a liquid crystal panel that can be bent that prevents deterioration characteristics of said panel, and because Sandford describes that a cover is positioned over the liquid crystal display, in order to protect it (Sanford: [0041]; [0058];).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sanford et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0061039, in further view of Yanase et al., US Patent Publication 2009/0256820, and in further view of Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514.
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Sanford and Yanase doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the display forms a first display region on a front face of the wearable electronic device, the wearable electronic device further comprising a second display region overlapping the first display region.
However, Smoyer teaches a communication device, as shown in Figure 5B, that has an ellipsoidal cylinder shape, and includes a curved display surface 574 that surrounds the communication device and faces multiple directions. Thus, the communication device has a “a first display region on a front face” and a “second display region” on the back of the communication device, that overlaps with the “first display region” ( Figure 5B; [0040]; )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Sanford and Yanase to further include the teachings of Smoyer in order to provide wherein the display forms a first display region on a front face of the wearable electronic device, the wearable electronic device further comprising a second display region overlapping the first display region. The motivation to combine these arts is because Smoyer teaches being able to display an image in a plurality of directions by having a plurality of display surfaces that face a different direction (Smoyer: Abstract;)
Regarding Claim 15, The combination of Sanford, Yanase, and Smoyer teaches further comprising electrical components mounted between the first and second display regions (Sanford: Figure 8; [0098-0109]; Smoyer: Figure 5B; [0040]; a first electronic assembly 806 (electrical components) is arrange within the housing, thus it is arranged between the “first and second display regions”).
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Sanford et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0061039, and in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593.
Regarding Claim 16, Smoyer discloses an electronic device (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; communication device has a curved display surface that surround the device and faces multiple directions), comprising:
a first display portion facing a first direction (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; as seen in Figure 5B, the communication device has an ellipsoidal cylinder shape with a curved surface, which the examiner considers a “a first display portion facing a first direction”) ;
a second display portion overlapping the first display portion and facing a second direction opposite the first direction (Abstract; Figure 4A-4D and 5B; [0031-0041]; because the curved display surface surrounds the communication device, there is a “a second display portion overlapping the first display portion and facing a second direction opposite the first direction”).
However, Smoyer doesn’t explicitly disclose a cover glass that overlaps the first display portion and is located on an exterior of the electronic device, wherein the cover glass comprises a convex outer surface and a concave inner surface.
Sanford teaches the use of a cover 160, that overlays or covers a display, such as a liquid crystal display, in order to protect it and comprises of a “convex outer surface” and forms an “exterior surface” of the electronic device 100. The cover can be made of glass (Claim 11; Figure 10; [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer to further include the teachings of Sanford in order to provide a cover glass that overlaps the first display portion and is located on an exterior of the electronic device. The motivation to combine these arts is because Sanford teaches a cover that is used to protect a display (Sanford: [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; ).
However, the combination of Smoyer and Sanford doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the cover glass comprises a convex outer surface and a concave inner surface.
Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, discloses a bent liquid crystal display panel 10, where the first outer surface is a convex surface, and comprising of a first substrate 12 made of glass (Figure 2; [0021-0024];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer and Sanford to further include the teachings of Sasaki such that the display surfaces, which may use LCD (Smoyer: [0020];), are bent liquid crystal display panels thus the cover has a concave inner surface to match the convex curve of the bent liquid crystal panel in order to provide wherein the cover glass comprises a concave inner surface. The motivation to combine these arts is because Sasaki teaches a liquid crystal display panel that prevents deterioration characters when the panel is bent (Sasaki: [0006];) and because Sandford describes that a cover is positioned over the liquid crystal display, in order to protect it (Sanford: [0041]; [0058];).
Regarding Claim 17, The combination of Smoyer, Sanford, and Sasaki teaches wherein the first display portion conforms to the concave inner surface (Sanford: Claim 11: Figure 10; [0041]; [0054]; [0058]; Sasaki: Figure 2; [0021-0024]; the liquid crystal display portion, as taught by Sasaki, conforms to the concave inner surface of the cover 160).
Regarding Claim 20, The combination of Smoyer, Sanford, and Sasaki doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising electrical components mounted between the first and second display portions.
However, Sanford discloses a first electronic assembly 806 (electrical components) is arrange within the housing (Sanford: Figure 8; [0098-0109];)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Sanford, and Sasaki to further utilize the teachings of Sanford in order to provide further comprising electrical components mounted between the first and second display portions. The motivation to combine these arts is because Sanford teaches an example of how the electronic assembly is arranged within the electronic device (Figure 8; [0098-0109];) and because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the ar. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Sanford et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0061039, and in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, and in further view of Haim et al., US Patent 5402141.
Regarding Claim 18, The combination of Smoyer, Sanford, and Sasaki doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising an opaque masking layer on the concave inner surface.
However, Haim et al., US Patent 5402141, discloses the use of an upper color filter layer 13 constructed on a glass substate 50 with a red, green, and blue color filter that are each separated by a black matrix 54 (opaque masking layer) on an inner surface of the glass substrate 50 (col. 3, ll. 66- col. 4 ll. 27; col. 5, ll. 37-57;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Sanford, and Sasaki to further include the teachings of Haim in order to provide further comprising an opaque masking layer on the concave inner surface. The motivation to combine these analogues arts is because Haim teaches the specific details of a liquid crystal display structure (Haim: Figure 3; col. 5, ll. 37-57;)
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514, in further view of Sanford et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0061039, and in further view of Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593, and in further view of Tseng, US Patent 8442600.
Regarding Claim 19, The combination of Smoyer, Sanford, and Sasaki wherein the first display portion has an active area and an inactive area, the electronic device further comprising a user interface component mounted in the inactive area.
Tseng, US Patent 8442600, teaches a mobile electronic device that has display substantially wrapped around the entire exterior surface of the device. The device further comprises four user-selectable buttons 200a-b and a roller ball 218 (user input component). The examiner considers the four user-selectable buttons 220a-b and a roller ball 218 to be in a “inactive area” that is separate from an “active area” occupied by the primary display 202b (Abstract; Figures 1-4; col. 1, ll. 33-35, col. 4, ll. 41-col. 6, ll. 37; col. 8, ll. 1-col. 10, ll. 41; : col. 15, ll. 29-47;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinational disclosure of Smoyer, Sanford, and Sasaki to further include the teachings of Tseng in order to provide wherein the first display portion has an active area and an inactive area, the electronic device further comprising a user input component mounted in the inactive area. The motivation to combine these arts is because Tseng teaches a mobile electronic device having user-selectable buttons that can be programmed to activate different applications and a roller ball to provide highlighting and selecting elements on the primary display (Tseng: col. 1, ll. 33-35, col. 15, ll. 29-47;)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-20 have been fully considered, but they are directed to claims as amended, and therefore are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F MARINELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571)-272-7495. 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.
/PATRICK F MARINELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights