Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,256,059. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover equivalent subject matter.
Detailed analysis for claim 1 is provided below.
Claim 1 of Application
Claim 1 of Patent ‘059
Comparison
An electronic device, comprising: a flexible display having a front surface; a stimulus-responsive material disposed at least partially under the flexible display,
An electronic device, comprising: a flexible display having a front surface; a stimulus-responsive material disposed at least partially under the flexible display,
Identical
wherein the stimulus-responsive material comprises one or more layers, each of the one or more layers arranged to enable displacement of the flexible display along an axis substantially perpendicular to the front surface, and
wherein the stimulus-responsive material comprises multiple layers arranged at different points along an axis substantially perpendicular to the front surface and having different arrangements,
Multiple layers correspond to more layers.
each of the one or more layers having one or more activatable portions configurable to transition from an initial shape to one or more different shapes based on a presence or level of a stimulant;
each of the multiple layers having one or more activatable portions binarily configurable between a respective deactivated shape when not activated by the stimulant and a respective activated shape when activated by the stimulant;
Each layer having one or more activable portions can result in many different combinations of activated portions and thus one or more different shapes from an initial shape (ex. Flat).
at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive image data; determine or receive depth data relating to the image data; display, on the flexible display, an image based on the image data; and
at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive image data; determine or receive depth data relating to the image data; display, on the flexible display, an image based on the image data; and
Identical
activate, using a stimulant, the stimulus-responsive material based on the depth data to cause the stimulus-responsive material to transition from the initial shape to the one or more different shapes,
activate, using a stimulant, the stimulus-responsive material based on the depth data to cause the stimulus-responsive material to change from a first shape to a second shape,
Second shape corresponds to the one or more different shapes as the depth data have many possible combinations.
wherein activating the stimulus-responsive material is at least partially concurrent with displaying the image and comprises activating at least one of the one or more layers, and wherein the stimulus-responsive material displaces at least a portion of the flexible display in a direction substantially perpendicular to the front surface when transitioning from the initial shape to the one or more different shapes.
wherein activating the stimulus-responsive material is at least partially concurrent with displaying the image and comprises activating at least two of the multiple layers, and wherein the stimulus-responsive material displaces at least a portion of the flexible display in a direction substantially perpendicular to the front surface when changing from the first shape to the second shape.
Two of the multiple layers correspond to more layers.
As analyzed above, the claims are not identical but relating to equivalent subject matter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to similarly modify claim 1 of patent ‘059 as claim 1 of the application for the reason above.
Claim 2 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 2 of the application.
Claim 3 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 3 of the application.
Claim 4 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 4 of the application.
Claim 5 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 5 of the application.
Claim 6 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 6 of the application.
Claim 7 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 7 of the application.
Claim 8 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 8 of the application.
Claim 9 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 9 of the application.
Claim 10 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 10 of the application.
Claim 11 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 11 of the application.
Claim 12 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 12 of the application.
Claim 13 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 13 of the application.
Claim 14 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 14 of the application.
Claim 15 of patent ‘059 corresponds to claim 15 of the application.
As for claim 16, further the determining of depth by means such as LiDAR or radar is well known in the art.
As for claim 18, further utilizing a depth profile provides a defined range of depths to be simulated based on the application as to be practical.
As for claim 19, further using different types of stimulants for the different layers are achievable though may not be necessary.
As for claim 20, further determining perceived depths based on a user perspective is the way as it is the user utilizing the 3D display.
The double patenting rejections could be overcome by incorporating claim 17 into independent claim 12 and similarly into independent claim 1 as patent ‘059 teaches binary configuration of the activable portion and not in a continuous manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (US 2017/0213488), hereinafter as Koo.
As for claim 1, Koo teaches an electronic device (display device 1; fig. 1; [0057], comprising:
a flexible display (flexible display panel 300; [0063]) having a front surface (note top surface as shown);
a stimulus-responsive material (morphing driver 400; fig. 1 and 3-5; [0073]) disposed at least partially under the flexible display (disposed under display panel 300 as shown), wherein the stimulus-responsive material comprises one or more layers (one layer, in various forms; fig. 7-22), each of the one or more layers arranged to enable displacement of the flexible display along an axis substantially perpendicular to the front surface (signal controller 600 generates control signals D_DEP and CONT2 to morphing driver controller 540 to alter heights within morphing driver 400; [0073-0074 and 0076]), and each of the one or more layers having one or more activatable portions (morphing driver 400 is dividable into less more morphing units 410 to even per pixel; fig. 3-5; [0078-0079]) configurable to transition from an initial shape to one or more different shapes based on a presence or level of a stimulant (each morphing unit 410’s position is variously controlled based on D_DEP, which is based from depth information DEP; [0082]; note the numerous positions each morphing unit 410, of the same type, can achieve in fig. 7-10);
at least one processor (signal controller 600; [0071]); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive image data (receive input image data IDAT and input control signal ICON; [0065]);
determine or receive depth data relating to the image data (IDAT includes image information IMG and depth information DEP are received);
display, on the flexible display, an image based on the image data (image information IMG is displayed; fig. 2; [0067]; specifically, signal controller 600 generates D_IMG and CONT1 to display driver 530 to display an image; [0071-0072]); and
activate, using a stimulant, the stimulus-responsive material based on the depth data to cause the stimulus-responsive material to transition from the initial shape to the one or more different shapes (signal controller 600 generates D_DEP and CONT2 to morphing driving controller 540 to alter heights within the morphing driver 400 accordingly; [0073, 0074 and 0076]),
wherein activating the stimulus-responsive material is at least partially concurrent with displaying the image and comprises activating at least one of the one or more layers (driving of display and morphing are simultaneous), and
wherein the stimulus-responsive material (e.g. magnetic elements 310; fig. 20-22; [0147-0155]) displaces at least a portion of the flexible display in a direction substantially perpendicular to the front surface when transitioning from the initial shape to the one or more different shapes (displacements in the Dr3 direction).
The signal controller 600 is either hard-wired or with internal firmware to carry out above steps. Thus, Koo does not teach at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform above steps. On the other hand, it is equally workable to have the signal controller as an instructions driver processor provided with instructions stored in a memory. Therefore, it would have been obvious to alternatively provide an instructions driven processor with associated memory due to functional equivalence.
As for claim 3, Koo teaches wherein:
at least one layer of the one or more layers of the stimulus-responsive material comprises multiple discrete portions; and the at least one processor is further caused to: activate, using the stimulant, a first discrete portion of at least one layer of the one or more layers of the stimulus-responsive material based on the depth data to cause the first discrete portion to displace by a first amount; and activate, using the stimulant, a second discrete portion at least one layer of the one or more layers of the stimulus-responsive material based on the depth data to cause the second discrete portion to displace by a second amount different from the first amount (the morphing driver 400, as one layer, is made up multiple morphing units 410 that correspond to different parts of the display panel 300 and activate independently based on corresponding depth data D_DEP in relation to the image data D_IMG; fig. 1 and 3; [0078-0079]).
As for claim 4, Koo teaches
wherein the stimulus-responsive material is configured to expand or contract along an axis normal to the flexible display (can protrude, depress or maintain the original position; [0082]).
As for claim 5, Koo teaches
wherein the at least one processor is further caused to display a new image no more than once every ten seconds (the speed is simply dependent on how fast the morphing driver 400 can respond to the depth data D_DEP).
As for claim 6, Koo teaches
further comprising circuitry (fig. 24; [0160-0162]) coupled with the stimulus-responsive material (for each morphing unit 410), wherein the at least one processor is further caused to: transmit, via the circuitry, current to at least one of the one or more activatable portions of at least one layer of the one or more layers of the stimulus-responsive material based on the depth data to activate at least one of the one or more activatable portions (depth data voltage applied which results in current Ia affecting corresponding magnetic field controlling the morphing unit).
As for claim 7, Koo teaches
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to heat at least one of the one or more activatable portions of at least one layer of the one or more layers of the stimulus-responsive material based on the depth data to activate the at least one of the one or more activatable portions. The examiner takes Official Notice of the common availability of heat responding materials that change volume that can be used alternatively as the stimulus-responsive material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to alternatively use a heat responsive material as the stimulus-responsive material for the reason above.
As for claim 8, Koo teaches
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate a magnetic field in at least one of the one or more activatable portions of at least one layer of the one or more layers of the stimulus-responsive material based on the depth data to activate the at least one of the one or more activatable portions (depth data voltage applied which results in current Ia affecting corresponding magnetic field controlling the morphing unit and specifically inductor La; fig. 24).
As for claim 9, Koo teaches
wherein the stimulus-responsive material comprises magnetic, electroactive, or thermally activated nanoparticles or a magnetic, electroactive, or thermally activated polymer (use of magnetic elements 310 as the stimulus-responsive material; fig. 20-22).
As for claim 10, Koo teaches
wherein the at least one processor is further caused to receive depth data relating to the image (DEP part of IDAT; fig. 1). However, Koo does not teach the depth data including one or more depth measurements of an environment that was captured to produce the image data, the one or more depth measurements captured using a sensor capable of measuring depth in the environment. The examiner takes Official Notice of the common use of depth imaging to identify depths of an environment such as LiDAR. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the DEP data comes from capturing the environment together with regular image capture.
As for claim 11, Koo teaches
wherein: at least one layer of the one or more layers of the stimulus-responsive material comprises multiple discrete portions (morphing units 410), each of the multiple discrete portions having to transition from an initial shape (i.e. original shape) to one or more different shapes based on a presence or level of the stimulant (i.e. variably protruded or depressed); and the at least one processor is further caused to activate multiple of the multiple discrete portions to transition the stimulus-responsive material from the initial shape to the one or more different shapes (the shape/height is according to the value of control signal D_DEP).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 would be allowable with submission of terminal disclaimer.
Claim 17 is objected in above double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and with submission of terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches, inter alia,
wherein the at least one processor is further caused to: determine perceived depths of different portions of the image based on the image data; and determine the depth data based on the perceived depths, of claim 2 (For example, the depth data can be determined using a 2D-to-3D image converter by analyzing the image data. In some cases, the image data can be analyzed (e.g., based on image data at a particular location of the image or one or more surrounding locations) to determine a perceived depth (e.g., the extent to which an element at that location is located in the background or the foreground of the image) at a particular location; [0012]); and
wherein the material comprises one or more layers, each of the one or more layers arranged along an axis substantially perpendicular to a front surface of the flexible display and having different arrangements, each of the one or more layers having one or more activatable portions configurable to transition from an initial shape to one or more different shapes based on a level or presence of the stimulant,
wherein the one or more activatable portions of a first layer of the one or more layers comprises the first portion of the material,
wherein the one or more activatable portions of a second layer of the one or more layers comprises the second portion of the material, of claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM V SHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-6:30.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached at 571-272-7677. 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.
/TOM V SHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628