DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 1-20 are pending and prosecuted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10735569. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of obvious correspondence
Regarding Claim 1, US Patent 10735569 discloses an electronic device having a front face and an opposing rear face (Claim 19; An electronic device having opposing front and rear surfaces ), the electronic device comprising:
a first display region on the front face, wherein the first display region has a convex outer surface (Claim 19 and 20; wherein the display and the housing form a surface that wraps around an interior space, wherein the surface has a first portion that forms the front surface of the electronic device; wherein the display and the housing each have a convex shape);
a second display region on the rear face (Claim 19; wherein the display and the housing form a surface that wraps around an interior space, wherein the surface has a first portion that forms the front surface of the electronic device and a second portion that forms the rear surface of the electronic device,); and
electrical components interposed between the first and second display regions (Claim 19; wherein the first curved display edge is flush with the first housing edge and the second curved display edge is flush with the second housing edge, wherein the display and the housing form a surface that wraps around an interior space, wherein the surface has a first portion that forms the front surface of the electronic device and a second portion that forms the rear surface of the electronic device, and wherein a first portion of the surface is more curved than a second portion of the surface; and electronic components located within the interior space).
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 6, 10, and 19 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.
Claims 6 and 19 recite the term “user input component”, however the specification fails to disclose or describe a “user input component” but rather describes a “user interface component” with corresponding examples of what they include as stated on page 5 line 18 – page 6 line 8, for example. Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “user interface component” to overcome this rejection.
Claim 10 recite “a housing having curved sidewalls”. However, the specification and the drawings fail to disclose or describe an embodiment in which an electronic device having “a first display region on the front face, wherein the first display region has a convex outer surface” and a “a second display region on the rear face” also has a housing. Figure 10 and pages 14, line 22 – page 15, ll. 28 of the specification fail to disclose both a display that surrounds a device 10 and also comprises of a housing, where that housing also has curved sidewalls. Therefore, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smoyer et al., US Patent 2010/0216514.
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.
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.
Regarding Claim 8, Smoyer 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).
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 Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593.
Regarding Claim 2, Smoyer 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 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 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 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 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 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];).
Claims 5 and 9 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 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 and Sasaki teaches 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 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;).
Regarding Claim 9, Smoyer doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a metal member located between the first and second display regions.
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 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. 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];).
However, The combination of Smoyer and Sasaki doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a metal member located between the first and second display regions.
However, Haim et al., US Patent 5402141, discloses the use transparent metal, such as indium tin oxide, as the material for the pixel electrodes in a liquid crystal display (col. 4, ll. 28-46;).
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 Sasaki to further include the teachings of Haim in order to provide a metal member located between the first and second display regions 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 Sanford, US Patent Publication 2010/0061039 .
Regarding Claim 2, Smoyer 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 6 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 Tseng, US Patent 8442600.
Regarding Claim 6, Smoyer doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first display region has an inactive area and an active area, the electronic device further comprising a user input 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 disclosure of Smoyer 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 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;)
Regarding Claim 10, Smoyer doesn’t explicitly further comprising a housing having curved sidewalls.
Tseng, US Patent Publication 8442600, discloses systems and techniques for substantially wrapping a mobile electronic device in a display are provided. A mobile electronic device is described that includes a housing and a flexible electronic graphical display. The flexible electronic graphical display forms an exterior surface of the housing and extends continuously from the front surface to the back surface and across one of the side surfaces. The flexible electronic display has an outer surface from which information that is generated on the display can be seen (Abstract).
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 Tseng in order to provide a housing having curved sidewalls. The motivation to combine these analogous arts is because Tseng teaches that a mobile electronic device comprises of a housing to which has a flexible graphical display that forms the exterior surface of the housing and that extends continuously from the front surfaces to the back surface (Tseng: Abstract)
Claims 11 and 12 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.
Regarding Claim 11, Sanford discloses a electronic device (Abstract; an electronic device), comprising:
a housing (Figure 1; [0046-0055]; a housing 120);
a display mounted in the housing (Figure 1; [0046-0055]; a display enclosed within the housing 120, that for example may be an LCD or OLED); and
a cover glass overlapping the display and having a convex outer surface (Figure 1 and 5 ; [0046-0055]; [0081] ;a cover 160 that overlays or covers the screen, and can be formed of glass. The cover glass 160 includes a curved out surface 540 (convex outer surface)).
However, Stanford doesn’t explicitly disclose the electronic device is a wearable electronic device and the display having an array of pixels.
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 Stanford 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. 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];)
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Stanford and Yanase teaches wherein the housing comprises curved sidewalls (Stanford: Figure 1; [0009]; [0046-0055]; a housing 120 has “curved sidewalls”);
Claim 13 is 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 Sasaki et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0073593.
Regarding Claim 13, The combination of Sanford and Yanase 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 Stanford and Yanase 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 a display having an outer display surface that mimics the contour of the curved outer housing surface (Sandford: Claim 32 and 33), where a cover is positioned over the liquid crystal display, in order to protect it, and can also be manufactured to mimic the outward contour of the housing (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 overlapping the first display portion, 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. 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 portion, wherein the cover glass comprises a convex outer surface. 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]; )
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 Smoyer teaches that the display surface can utilize LCD (Smoyer: [0020];).
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 input 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;)
Conclusion
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