DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 24, 2025 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 & 20 – 21, the cancellation of claims 2, 5 – 6, 9 – 10, 16 – 19, 24. Claims 1, 3 – 4, 7 – 8, 11 – 15, 20 – 23, & 25 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 4, 7 – 8, 12 – 13, & 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0035208 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0091288 A1), Shin et al. (US 2019/0101784 A1), & Du et al. (US 2019/0392737 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Choi et al. teach a foldable display device comprising first and second non-folding areas (PR1 & PR2), and a foldable area (FR) between the first and second non-folding areas. The display panel (113) is attached to other layers of the foldable display device via a plurality of adhesive layers (112, 114, 116) (paragraph [0039] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
330
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. teach a first upper adhesive layer (114) disposed above the display panel in the folding area and the non-folding area. Additionally, Lee et al. teach a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed above the display panel (Fig. 1 above & paragraph [0043]). Choi et al. teach one lower adhesive layer (112), but not a plurality of lower adhesive layers, below the display panel (113) and above the support unit (120) (backing layer).
Lee et al. teach a display comprising a flexible (bendable) display panel (101), a second adhesive (104) (Applicant’s “second lower adhesive layer”) disposed on a second surface (below) the display panel for joining a second protective film (105) to the display panel, and a third adhesive (106) (Applicant’s “third lower adhesive layer”) is located below the second adhesive layer (Fig. 1) for joining second protective film (105) and a third protective film (107) as a bottom layer (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]). As shown in Fig. 1 below, the lower adhesive layers have a continuous, constant thickness. The protective films are formed of flexible plastic material (paragraphs [0017] & [0057]) and improve the strength of the display panel and prevent the display panel from being damaged (paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of lower adhesive layers below a display panel of a flexible display device in order to attach additional desirable layers, such as protective films for providing the display panel with additional damage protection.
Lee et al. teach two lower adhesive layers (104 & 106) for applying two protective layers (105 & 107) to the underside of the display panel (101) (see Fig. 1 above), but do not disclose a third lower adhesive layer for joining a third corresponding functional layer.
Shin et al. teach a display device comprising at least three adhesive layers disposed in a bending area (BA) of the display device for joining first, second, third, and fourth members (MB1, MB2, MB3, MB4) (paragraph [0078] – [0079] & Fig. 2). Each of the members may be a window, a touch member, a display member, a touch screen, an optical member, a protective member, and/or any combination thereof (paragraph [0079]).
PNG
media_image5.png
394
462
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Shin et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate three or more lower adhesive layers for joining three or more functional layers, such as protective members, to the underside of a display panel.
Choi et al. & Lee et al. do not teach the second lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the first lower adhesive layer, and a third lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the second lower adhesive layer.
Du et al. teach, as shown in FIG. 2 below, the flexible display apparatus in a bent state, such that the bend radius of some components (layers) are farther away from the bend centerline than others. The bend radius (R1) of a layer closest to the bend centerline (OO′) is less than a bend radius (R2) of a layer farthest from the bend centerline. Wrinkles are easy to occur on the surface P of the layer close to the bend centerline (OO′) when the layer is compressed and relative slipping between components (layers) does not occur. The layer farthest from the bend centerline is stretched, and its length perpendicular to the bend centerline is increased, which causes cracks (paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image6.png
452
215
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To resolve this problem, Du et al. teach a flexible display device comprising multiple adhesive layers of different thicknesses (paragraph [0007]). When each adhesive layer may have a different thickness, the probability of wrinkles, cracks or interface separation is reduced (paragraph [0056]). When the thickness of the second adhesive layers are greater than the thickness of the first adhesive layers, it makes the flexible display apparatus easy to be bent in the bending process and easy to be recovered in the unfolding process (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by Bang through routine experimentation in order to reduce the probability of wrinkles, cracks, or interface separation within the flexible display device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Du et al. teach a second adhesive layer 302 (the adhesive layer of greater thickness) has a smaller storage modulus (i.e. “shear modulus” due to shear stress) than a storage modulus of the first adhesive layer 301, and thus is more easily deformed (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the relative shear modulus of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by references cited above through routine experimentation in order to optimize the deformity of the device in the bendable area. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 3, Lee et al. teach the thickness of the second adhesive layer and the third adhesive layer is in the range of 20 – 30 µm, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range about 10 µm to about 20 µm for the lower adhesive layers. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 4, Du et al. teach each optical adhesive layer has a glass transition temperature lower than -30°C for enabling the flexible display apparatus to be bent in a larger temperature range (paragraph [0135]).
With regard to claim 7, Lee et al. teach the thickness of the second adhesive layer and the third adhesive layer (Applicant’s “lower adhesive layers”) is in the range of 20 – 30 µm, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range about 10 µm to about 20 µm for the lower adhesive layers. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 8, Du et al. teach each optical adhesive layer has a glass transition temperature lower than -30°C for enabling the flexible display apparatus to be bent in a larger temperature range (paragraph [0135]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 12, Lee et al. teach a first adhesive (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) may have a thickness of about 70 – 80 µm (paragraphs [0014] & [0063]), which is greater than the thickness of the thickness of the lower adhesive layers. Furthermore, as discussed above for claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by Lee et al. through routine experimentation in order to reduce the probability of wrinkles, cracks, or interface separation within the flexible display device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 13, Lee et al. teach the thickness of the first adhesive layer (Applicant’s “fourth thickness” of the “upper adhesive layer”) may be 70 – 80 µm, but this teaching is merely an example.
MPEP 2122 [R-6]. II. states:
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
However, Du et al. teach each of the adhesive layers have a thickness of 2 – 50 µm or 10 – 50 µm (paragraph [0014]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of about 40 µm to about 50 µm for the upper adhesive layer. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 21, Choi et al. teach a foldable display device comprising first and second non-folding areas (PR1 & PR2), and a foldable area (FR) between the first and second non-folding areas. The display panel (113) is attached to other layers of the foldable display device via an upper adhesive layer (114) and a lower adhesive layer (112) (paragraph [0039] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
330
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. teach a first upper adhesive layer (114) disposed above the display panel in the folding area and the non-folding area. Additionally, Lee et al. teach a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed above the display panel (Fig. 1 above & paragraph [0043]). Choi et al. teach one lower adhesive layer (112), but not a plurality of lower adhesive layers, below the display panel (113) and above the support unit (120) (backing layer).
Lee et al. teach a display comprising a flexible display panel (101), a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed on a first surface of the display panel, a second adhesive (104) (Applicant’s “second lower adhesive layer”) disposed on a second surface (below) the display panel for joining a second protective film (105) to the display panel, and a third adhesive (106) (Applicant’s “third lower adhesive layer”) is located below the second adhesive layer (Fig. 1) for joining second protective film (105) and a third protective film (107) as a bottom layer (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]). As shown in Fig. 1 below, the lower adhesive layers have a continuous, constant thickness. The additional protective films are formed of flexible plastic material (paragraph [0017]) and improve the strength of the display panel and prevent the display panel from being damaged (paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of lower adhesive layers below a display panel of a flexible display device in order to attach additional desirable layers, such as protective films for providing the display panel with additional damage protection.
Lee et al. teach two lower adhesive layers for applying two protective layers to the underside of the display panel (104 – 107 of Fig. 1 above), but do not disclose a third lower adhesive layer and a third corresponding functional layer.
Shin et al. teach a display device comprising at least three adhesive layers disposed in a bending area (BA) of the display device for joining first, second, third, and fourth members (MB1, MB2, MB3, MB4) (paragraph [0078] – [0079] & Fig. 2). Each of the members may be a window, a touch member, a display member, a touch screen, an optical member, a protective member, and/or any combination thereof (paragraph [0079]).
PNG
media_image5.png
394
462
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Shin et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate three or more lower adhesive layers for joining three or more functional layers, such as protective members, to the underside of a display panel.
Choi et al. & Lee et al. do not teach the second lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the first lower adhesive layer taught by Lee et al., and a third lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the second lower adhesive layer.
Du et al. teach, as shown in FIG. 2 below, the flexible display apparatus in a bent state, such that the bend radius of some components (layers) are farther away from the bend centerline than others. The bend radius (R1) of a layer closest to the bend centerline (OO′) is less than a bend radius (R2) of a layer farthest from the bend centerline. Wrinkles are easy to occur on the surface P of the layer close to the bend centerline (OO′) when the layer is compressed and relative slipping between components (layers) does not occur. The layer farthest from the bend centerline is stretched, and its length perpendicular to the bend centerline is increased, which causes cracks (paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image6.png
452
215
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To resolve this problem, Du et al. teach a flexible display device comprising multiple adhesive layers of different thicknesses (paragraph [0007]). When each adhesive layer may have a different thickness, the probability of wrinkles, cracks or interface separation is reduced (paragraph [0056]). When the thickness of the second adhesive layers are greater than the thickness of the first adhesive layers, it makes the flexible display apparatus easy to be bent in the bending process and easy to be recovered in the unfolding process (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by Bang through routine experimentation in order to reduce the probability of wrinkles, cracks, or interface separation within the flexible display device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Du et al. teach a second adhesive layer 302 (the adhesive layer of greater thickness) has a smaller storage modulus (i.e. “shear modulus” due to shear stress) than a storage modulus of the first adhesive layer 301, and thus is more easily deformed (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the relative shear modulus of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by references cited above through routine experimentation in order to optimize the deformity of the device in the bendable area. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 22, as shown in Fig. 1 above, Lee et al. teach the first adhesive layer (102) (“upper adhesive layer”) directly contacts the first surface of the display panel (101). As discussed above for claim 21, Lee et al. teach an adhesive layer (“first lower adhesive layer”) in direct contact with the display panel for adhering a polarizing plate directly below the display panel.
With regard to claim 23, as shown in Fig. 1 above, Lee et al. teach the first adhesive layer (102) (“upper adhesive layer”) and the second and third adhesive layers (lower adhesive layers) are continuously disposed along the length of the flexible display device without any breaks or openings.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 11, 14 – 15, & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al., Lee et al., Shin et al., & Du et al., as applied to claims 1, 9, & 21 above, and further in view of Everaerts et al. (WO 2017/112438 A1).
With regard to claims 2 & 6, the references cited above fail to teach a shear modulus of the multiple lower adhesive layers is in the range of about 200 kPa to about 300 kPa at about -25°C to about -15°C.
With regard to claim 11, the references cited above fail to teach the shear modulus of the upper adhesive layer is about 100 kPa to about 150 kPa at about -25°C to about 15°C.
Everaerts et al. teach the bending stiffness and bending stresses in a bent or folded display will be related to the layers in the display, as well as the thickness/modulus of each layer, including the bonding layer. To ensure low bending stiffness and adequate performance with minimum stress involved in bending, it is preferred the bonding layer have a shear modulus below 1 MPa, more preferably below 0.5 MPa (500 kPa), and most preferred below 0.4 MPa (400 kPa) over a temperature range of -30°C to 80°C (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Everaerts et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the bonding (adhesive) layers of a flexible display device having a shear modulus below 400 kPa in the range of -30°C to 80°C, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of about -25°C to about 15°C, for ensuring low bending stiffness and adequate performance with minimum stress involved in bending when operating the display device in this temperature range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claims 14 – 15 & 25, Du et al. teach each optical adhesive layer has a glass transition temperature lower than -30°C, such as -40°C to 85°C, enabling the flexible display apparatus to be bent in a larger temperature range (paragraph [0135]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, Du et al. do not explicitly teach the upper adhesive layer is smaller (lower) than the glass transition temperature of the lower adhesive layers.
Everaerts et al. teach the glass transition temperature of the bonding layer is designed to be outside and below the required operating temperature range of the desired shear modulus (low bending stiffness), such as less than -30°C (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Everaerts et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the glass transition temperature of each adhesive layer present in the laminate through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired bending stiffness of each adhesive layer for the desired shear modulus temperature. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0035208 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0091288 A1), Shin et al., Du et al. (US 2019/0392737 A1), & Everaerts et al. (WO 2017/112438 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Choi et al. teach a foldable display device comprising first and second non-folding areas (PR1 & PR2), and a foldable area (FR) between the first and second non-folding areas. The display panel (113) is attached to other layers of the foldable display device via an upper adhesive layer (114) and a lower adhesive layer (112) (paragraph [0039] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
330
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. teach a first upper adhesive layer (114) disposed above the display panel in the folding area and the non-folding area. Additionally, Lee et al. teach a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed above the display panel (Fig. 1 above & paragraph [0043]). Choi et al. teach one lower adhesive layer (112), but not a plurality of lower adhesive layers, below the display panel (113) and above the support unit (120) (backing layer).
Lee et al. teach a display comprising a flexible display panel (101), a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed on a first surface of the display panel, a second adhesive (104) (Applicant’s “second lower adhesive layer”) disposed on a second surface (below) the display panel for joining a second protective film (105) to the display panel, and a third adhesive (106) (Applicant’s “third lower adhesive layer”) is located below the second adhesive layer (Fig. 1) for joining second protective film (105) and a third protective film (107) as a bottom layer (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]). As shown in Fig. 1 below, the lower adhesive layers have a continuous, constant thickness. The additional protective films are formed of flexible plastic material (paragraph [0017]) and improve the strength of the display panel and prevent the display panel from being damaged (paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of lower adhesive layers below a display panel of a flexible display device in order to attach additional desirable layers, such as protective films for providing the display panel with additional damage protection.
Lee et al. teach two lower adhesive layers for applying two protective layers to the underside of the display panel (104 – 107 of Fig. 1 above), but do not disclose a third lower adhesive layer and corresponding third functional layer.
Shin et al. teach a display device comprising at least three adhesive layers disposed in a bending area (BA) of the display device for joining first, second, third, and fourth members (MB1, MB2, MB3, MB4) (paragraph [0078] – [0079] & Fig. 2). Each of the members may be a window, a touch member, a display member, a touch screen, an optical member, a protective member, and/or any combination thereof (paragraph [0079]).
PNG
media_image5.png
394
462
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Shin et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate three or more lower adhesive layers for joining three or more functional layers, such as protective members, to the underside of a display panel.
Choi et al. & Lee et al. do not teach the first lower adhesive layer has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the bonding layer, the second lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the first lower adhesive layer, and a third lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the second lower adhesive layer.
Du et al. teach, as shown in FIG. 2 below, the flexible display apparatus in a bent state, such that the bend radius of some components (layers) are farther away from the bend centerline than others. The bend radius (R1) of a layer closest to the bend centerline (OO′) is less than a bend radius (R2) of a layer farthest from the bend centerline. Wrinkles are easy to occur on the surface P of the layer close to the bend centerline (OO′) when the layer is compressed and relative slipping between components (layers) does not occur. The layer farthest from the bend centerline is stretched, and its length perpendicular to the bend centerline is increased, which causes cracks (paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image6.png
452
215
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To resolve this problem, Du et al. teach a flexible display device comprising multiple adhesive layers of different thicknesses (paragraph [0007]). When each adhesive layer may have a different thickness, the probability of wrinkles, cracks or interface separation is reduced (paragraph [0056]). When the thickness of the second adhesive layers are greater than the thickness of the first adhesive layers, it makes the flexible display apparatus easy to be bent in the bending process and easy to be recovered in the unfolding process (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each adhesive layer of the display device through routine experimentation in order to reduce the probability of wrinkles, cracks, or interface separation within the flexible display device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Lee et al. do not teach the relative shear storage modulus of the upper adhesive layer or the lower adhesive layers.
Everaerts et al. teach the bending stiffness and bending stresses in a bent or folded display will be related to the layers in the display, as well as the thickness/modulus of each layer, including the bonding layer. To ensure low bending stiffness and adequate performance with minimum stress involved in bending, it is preferred the bonding layer have a shear modulus below 1 MPa, more preferably below 0.5 MPa (500 kPa), and most preferred below 0.4 MPa (400 kPa) over a temperature range of -30°C to 80°C (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Everaerts et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the bonding (adhesive) layers of a flexible display device having a shear modulus below 400 kPa in the range of -30°C to 80°C for ensuring low bending stiffness and adequate performance with minimum stress involved in bending when operating the display device in this temperature range. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the (shear) storage modulus of each adhesive layer present in the laminate through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired bending stiffness of each adhesive layer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Du et al. teach a second adhesive layer 302 (the adhesive layer of greater thickness) has a smaller storage modulus (i.e. “shear modulus” due to shear stress) than a storage modulus of the first adhesive layer 301, and thus is more easily deformed (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the relative shear modulus of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by references cited above through routine experimentation in order to optimize the deformity of the device in the bendable area. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 4, 7 – 8, 12 – 13, & 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0035208 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0091288 A1), & Du et al. (US 2019/0392737 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Choi et al. teach a foldable display device comprising first and second non-folding areas (PR1 & PR2), and a foldable area (FR) between the first and second non-folding areas. The display panel (113) is attached to other layers of the foldable display device via a plurality of adhesive layers (112, 114, 116) (paragraph [0039] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
330
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. teach a first upper adhesive layer (114) disposed above the display panel in the folding area and the non-folding area. Additionally, Lee et al. teach a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed above the display panel (Fig. 1 above & paragraph [0043]). Choi et al. teach one lower adhesive layer (112), but not a plurality of lower adhesive layers, below the display panel (113) and above the support unit (120) (backing layer).
Lee et al. teach a display comprising a flexible (bendable) display panel (101), a second adhesive (104) (Applicant’s “second lower adhesive layer”) disposed on a second surface (below) the display panel for joining a second protective film (105) to the display panel, and a third adhesive (106) (Applicant’s “third lower adhesive layer”) is located below the second adhesive layer (Fig. 1) for joining second protective film (105) and a third protective film (107) as a bottom layer (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]). As shown in Fig. 1 below, the lower adhesive layers have a continuous, constant thickness. The protective films are formed of flexible plastic material (paragraphs [0017] & [0057]) and improve the strength of the display panel and prevent the display panel from being damaged (paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of lower adhesive layers below a display panel of a flexible display device in order to attach additional desirable layers, such as protective films for providing the display panel with additional damage protection.
Lee et al. teach two lower adhesive layers (104 & 106) for applying two protective layers (105 & 107) to the underside of the display panel (101) (see Fig. 1 above), but do not disclose a third lower adhesive layer for joining a third corresponding functional layer.
Although the reference did not disclose a third adhesive layer for joining a corresponding functional layer (e.g., a third protective layer) to the underside of a display device, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Choi et al. & Lee et al. do not teach the second lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the first lower adhesive layer, and a third lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the second lower adhesive layer.
Du et al. teach, as shown in FIG. 2 below, the flexible display apparatus in a bent state, such that the bend radius of some components (layers) are farther away from the bend centerline than others. The bend radius (R1) of a layer closest to the bend centerline (OO′) is less than a bend radius (R2) of a layer farthest from the bend centerline. Wrinkles are easy to occur on the surface P of the layer close to the bend centerline (OO′) when the layer is compressed and relative slipping between components (layers) does not occur. The layer farthest from the bend centerline is stretched, and its length perpendicular to the bend centerline is increased, which causes cracks (paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image6.png
452
215
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To resolve this problem, Du et al. teach a flexible display device comprising multiple adhesive layers of different thicknesses (paragraph [0007]). When each adhesive layer may have a different thickness, the probability of wrinkles, cracks or interface separation is reduced (paragraph [0056]). When the thickness of the second adhesive layers are greater than the thickness of the first adhesive layers, it makes the flexible display apparatus easy to be bent in the bending process and easy to be recovered in the unfolding process (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by Bang through routine experimentation in order to reduce the probability of wrinkles, cracks, or interface separation within the flexible display device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Du et al. teach a second adhesive layer 302 (the adhesive layer of greater thickness) has a smaller storage modulus (i.e. “shear modulus” due to shear stress) than a storage modulus of the first adhesive layer 301, and thus is more easily deformed (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the relative shear modulus of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by references cited above through routine experimentation in order to optimize the deformity of the device in the bendable area. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 3, Lee et al. teach the thickness of the second adhesive layer and the third adhesive layer is in the range of 20 – 30 µm, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range about 10 µm to about 20 µm for the lower adhesive layers. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 4, Du et al. teach each optical adhesive layer has a glass transition temperature lower than -30°C for enabling the flexible display apparatus to be bent in a larger temperature range (paragraph [0135]).
With regard to claim 7, Lee et al. teach the thickness of the second adhesive layer and the third adhesive layer (Applicant’s “lower adhesive layers”) is in the range of 20 – 30 µm, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range about 10 µm to about 20 µm for the lower adhesive layers. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 8, Du et al. teach each optical adhesive layer has a glass transition temperature lower than -30°C for enabling the flexible display apparatus to be bent in a larger temperature range (paragraph [0135]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 12, Lee et al. teach a first adhesive (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) may have a thickness of about 70 – 80 µm (paragraphs [0014] & [0063]), which is greater than the thickness of the thickness of the lower adhesive layers. Furthermore, as discussed above for claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by Lee et al. through routine experimentation in order to reduce the probability of wrinkles, cracks, or interface separation within the flexible display device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 13, Lee et al. teach the thickness of the first adhesive layer (Applicant’s “fourth thickness” of the “upper adhesive layer”) may be 70 – 80 µm, but this teaching is merely an example.
MPEP 2122 [R-6]. II. states:
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
However, Du et al. teach each of the adhesive layers have a thickness of 2 – 50 µm or 10 – 50 µm (paragraph [0014]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of about 40 µm to about 50 µm for the upper adhesive layer. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 21, Choi et al. teach a foldable display device comprising first and second non-folding areas (PR1 & PR2), and a foldable area (FR) between the first and second non-folding areas. The display panel (113) is attached to other layers of the foldable display device via an upper adhesive layer (114) and a lower adhesive layer (112) (paragraph [0039] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
330
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. teach a first upper adhesive layer (114) disposed above the display panel in the folding area and the non-folding area. Additionally, Lee et al. teach a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed above the display panel (Fig. 1 above & paragraph [0043]). Choi et al. teach one lower adhesive layer (112), but not a plurality of lower adhesive layers, below the display panel (113) and above the support unit (120) (backing layer).
Lee et al. teach a display comprising a flexible display panel (101), a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed on a first surface of the display panel, a second adhesive (104) (Applicant’s “second lower adhesive layer”) disposed on a second surface (below) the display panel for joining a second protective film (105) to the display panel, and a third adhesive (106) (Applicant’s “third lower adhesive layer”) is located below the second adhesive layer (Fig. 1) for joining second protective film (105) and a third protective film (107) as a bottom layer (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]). As shown in Fig. 1 below, the lower adhesive layers have a continuous, constant thickness. The additional protective films are formed of flexible plastic material (paragraph [0017]) and improve the strength of the display panel and prevent the display panel from being damaged (paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of lower adhesive layers below a display panel of a flexible display device in order to attach additional desirable layers, such as protective films for providing the display panel with additional damage protection.
Lee et al. teach two lower adhesive layers for applying two protective layers to the underside of the display panel (104 – 107 of Fig. 1 above), but do not disclose a third lower adhesive layer and corresponding third corresponding functional layer.
Although the reference did not disclose a third adhesive layer for joining a corresponding functional layer (e.g., a third protective layer) to the underside of a display device, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Choi et al. & Lee et al. do not teach the second lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the first lower adhesive layer taught by Lee et al., and a third lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the second lower adhesive layer.
Du et al. teach, as shown in FIG. 2 below, the flexible display apparatus in a bent state, such that the bend radius of some components (layers) are farther away from the bend centerline than others. The bend radius (R1) of a layer closest to the bend centerline (OO′) is less than a bend radius (R2) of a layer farthest from the bend centerline. Wrinkles are easy to occur on the surface P of the layer close to the bend centerline (OO′) when the layer is compressed and relative slipping between components (layers) does not occur. The layer farthest from the bend centerline is stretched, and its length perpendicular to the bend centerline is increased, which causes cracks (paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image6.png
452
215
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To resolve this problem, Du et al. teach a flexible display device comprising multiple adhesive layers of different thicknesses (paragraph [0007]). When each adhesive layer may have a different thickness, the probability of wrinkles, cracks or interface separation is reduced (paragraph [0056]). When the thickness of the second adhesive layers are greater than the thickness of the first adhesive layers, it makes the flexible display apparatus easy to be bent in the bending process and easy to be recovered in the unfolding process (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by Bang through routine experimentation in order to reduce the probability of wrinkles, cracks, or interface separation within the flexible display device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Du et al. teach a second adhesive layer 302 (the adhesive layer of greater thickness) has a smaller storage modulus (i.e. “shear modulus” due to shear stress) than a storage modulus of the first adhesive layer 301, and thus is more easily deformed (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the relative shear modulus of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by references cited above through routine experimentation in order to optimize the deformity of the device in the bendable area. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 22, as shown in Fig. 1 above, Lee et al. teach the first adhesive layer (102) (“upper adhesive layer”) directly contacts the first surface of the display panel (101). As discussed above for claim 21, Lee et al. teach an adhesive layer (“first lower adhesive layer”) in direct contact with the display panel for adhering a polarizing plate directly below the display panel.
With regard to claim 23, as shown in Fig. 1 above, Lee et al. teach the first adhesive layer (102) (“upper adhesive layer”) and the second and third adhesive layers (lower adhesive layers) are continuously disposed along the length of the flexible display device without any breaks or openings.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 11, 14 – 15, & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al., Lee et al., & Du et al., as applied to claims 1, 9, & 21 above, and further in view of Everaerts et al. (WO 2017/112438 A1).
With regard to claims 2 & 6, the references cited above fail to teach a shear modulus of the multiple lower adhesive layers is in the range of about 200 kPa to about 300 kPa at about -25°C to about -15°C.
With regard to claim 11, the references cited above fail to teach the shear modulus of the upper adhesive layer is about 100 kPa to about 150 kPa at about -25°C to about 15°C.
Everaerts et al. teach the bending stiffness and bending stresses in a bent or folded display will be related to the layers in the display, as well as the thickness/modulus of each layer, including the bonding layer. To ensure low bending stiffness and adequate performance with minimum stress involved in bending, it is preferred the bonding layer have a shear modulus below 1 MPa, more preferably below 0.5 MPa (500 kPa), and most preferred below 0.4 MPa (400 kPa) over a temperature range of -30°C to 80°C (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Everaerts et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the bonding (adhesive) layers of a flexible display device having a shear modulus below 400 kPa in the range of -30°C to 80°C, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of about -25°C to about 15°C, for ensuring low bending stiffness and adequate performance with minimum stress involved in bending when operating the display device in this temperature range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claims 14 – 15 & 25, Du et al. teach each optical adhesive layer has a glass transition temperature lower than -30°C, such as -40°C to 85°C, enabling the flexible display apparatus to be bent in a larger temperature range (paragraph [0135]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, Du et al. do not explicitly teach the upper adhesive layer is smaller (lower) than the glass transition temperature of the lower adhesive layers.
Everaerts et al. teach the glass transition temperature of the bonding layer is designed to be outside and below the required operating temperature range of the desired shear modulus (low bending stiffness), such as less than -30°C (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Everaerts et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the glass transition temperature of each adhesive layer present in the laminate through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired bending stiffness of each adhesive layer for the desired shear modulus temperature. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2018/0035208 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0091288 A1), Du et al. (US 2019/0392737 A1), & Everaerts et al. (WO 2017/112438 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Choi et al. teach a foldable display device comprising first and second non-folding areas (PR1 & PR2), and a foldable area (FR) between the first and second non-folding areas. The display panel (113) is attached to other layers of the foldable display device via an upper adhesive layer (114) and a lower adhesive layer (112) (paragraph [0039] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
330
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. teach a first upper adhesive layer (114) disposed above the display panel in the folding area and the non-folding area. Additionally, Lee et al. teach a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed above the display panel (Fig. 1 above & paragraph [0043]). Choi et al. teach one lower adhesive layer (112), but not a plurality of lower adhesive layers, below the display panel (113) and above the support unit (120) (backing layer).
Lee et al. teach a display comprising a flexible display panel (101), a first adhesive layer (102) (Applicant’s “upper adhesive layer”) disposed on a first surface of the display panel, a second adhesive (104) (Applicant’s “second lower adhesive layer”) disposed on a second surface (below) the display panel for joining a second protective film (105) to the display panel, and a third adhesive (106) (Applicant’s “third lower adhesive layer”) is located below the second adhesive layer (Fig. 1) for joining second protective film (105) and a third protective film (107) as a bottom layer (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]). As shown in Fig. 1 below, the lower adhesive layers have a continuous, constant thickness. The additional protective films are formed of flexible plastic material (paragraph [0017]) and improve the strength of the display panel and prevent the display panel from being damaged (paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of lower adhesive layers below a display panel of a flexible display device in order to attach additional desirable layers, such as protective films for providing the display panel with additional damage protection.
Lee et al. teach two lower adhesive layers for applying two protective layers to the underside of the display panel (104 – 107 of Fig. 1 above), but do not disclose a third lower adhesive layer and corresponding third corresponding functional layer.
Although the reference did not disclose a third adhesive layer for joining a corresponding functional layer (e.g., a third protective layer) to the underside of a display device, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Choi et al. & Lee et al. do not teach the first lower adhesive layer has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the bonding layer, the second lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the first lower adhesive layer, and a third lower adhesive layer has a thickness greater than the second lower adhesive layer.
Du et al. teach, as shown in FIG. 2 below, the flexible display apparatus in a bent state, such that the bend radius of some components (layers) are farther away from the bend centerline than others. The bend radius (R1) of a layer closest to the bend centerline (OO′) is less than a bend radius (R2) of a layer farthest from the bend centerline. Wrinkles are easy to occur on the surface P of the layer close to the bend centerline (OO′) when the layer is compressed and relative slipping between components (layers) does not occur. The layer farthest from the bend centerline is stretched, and its length perpendicular to the bend centerline is increased, which causes cracks (paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image6.png
452
215
media_image6.png
Greyscale
To resolve this problem, Du et al. teach a flexible display device comprising multiple adhesive layers of different thicknesses (paragraph [0007]). When each adhesive layer may have a different thickness, the probability of wrinkles, cracks or interface separation is reduced (paragraph [0056]). When the thickness of the second adhesive layers are greater than the thickness of the first adhesive layers, it makes the flexible display apparatus easy to be bent in the bending process and easy to be recovered in the unfolding process (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the thickness of each adhesive layer of the display device through routine experimentation in order to reduce the probability of wrinkles, cracks, or interface separation within the flexible display device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Lee et al. do not teach the relative shear storage modulus of the upper adhesive layer or the lower adhesive layers.
Everaerts et al. teach the bending stiffness and bending stresses in a bent or folded display will be related to the layers in the display, as well as the thickness/modulus of each layer, including the bonding layer. To ensure low bending stiffness and adequate performance with minimum stress involved in bending, it is preferred the bonding layer have a shear modulus below 1 MPa, more preferably below 0.5 MPa (500 kPa), and most preferred below 0.4 MPa (400 kPa) over a temperature range of -30°C to 80°C (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Everaerts et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the bonding (adhesive) layers of a flexible display device having a shear modulus below 400 kPa in the range of -30°C to 80°C for ensuring low bending stiffness and adequate performance with minimum stress involved in bending when operating the display device in this temperature range. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the (shear) storage modulus of each adhesive layer present in the laminate through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired bending stiffness of each adhesive layer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Du et al. teach a second adhesive layer 302 (the adhesive layer of greater thickness) has a smaller storage modulus (i.e. “shear modulus” due to shear stress) than a storage modulus of the first adhesive layer 301, and thus is more easily deformed (paragraphs [0043] & [0056]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Du et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the relative shear modulus of each adhesive layer of the display device taught by references cited above through routine experimentation in order to optimize the deformity of the device in the bendable area. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Applicant submits that the Office Action does not articular how Choi (or Choi in view of Lee) is being modified according to Ahn, and the Office Action does not articulate why one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify Choi (or Choi in view of Lee) according to Ahn. Therefore, Applicant submits that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been made in the administrative record” (Remarks, Pgs. 11 – 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As Applicant noted on pg. 11 of the remarks, the Examiner explained the motivation to incorporating additional (three) adhesive layers for joining additional (three) functional layers as needed. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Office action clearly articulated why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the display device of Choi (or Choi in view with Lee) with additional adhesive layers, based on the teachings of Ahn.
One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the fact that most functional layers used in a display device do not have inherent adhesive properties, and therefore, in order for the display device to contain these functional layers and remain operational, the additional functional layers incorporated into the display device must have a means for adhering to the display panel and each other. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use adhesive layer(s) to join each of said functional layers to the display device.
Applicant argues, “To the contrary, Applicant submits that one having ordinary skill in the art would not find the teachings of Ahn, including adhesive layers AM4, AM5, and AM6 of Ahn and the intervening layers PF and SPP of Ahn, to be suggestive of a modification of the primary reference to Choi (or Choi in view of Lee). This is because in Ahn (and unlike Choi and Applicant’s claimed invention), none of the cited adhesive layers AM4, AM5, an AM6 of Ahn nor the intervening layers PF, SPP or FSU of Ahn are disposed in the folding region BA. In contrast, Applicant submits that cited adhesive layer 112 of Choi extends through a folding region. Furthermore, Applicant’s claim 1 claims that teach of the first, second and third lower adhesive layers 310, 320, and 330 are disposed in the folding area FA” (Remarks, Pg. 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shin et al. (US 2019/0101784 A1).
Applicant argues, “Applicant submits that claim 20 as so amended overcomes the applied art for similar reasons as previously given in Applicant’s discussion of claim 1 above.
“Thus, independent claim 20 as so amended is directed to patentable subject matter, and the dependent claims are similarly directed to patentable subject matter by virtue of their dependency as well as for the additional features recited. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection respectfully requested” (Remarks, Pgs. 13 – 14).
Applicant argues, “Applicant submits that claim 21 as so amended overcomes the applied art for similar reasons as previously given in Applicant’s discussion of claim 1 above.
“Thus, independent claim 21 as so amended is directed to patentable subject matter, and the dependent claims are similarly directed to patentable subject matter by virtue of their dependency as well as for the additional features recited. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection respectfully requested” (Remarks, Pgs. 14 – 15).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s discussion of claim 1 above is with regard to the teachings of Ahn and the presence of additional adhesive layers in the folding area. However, Applicant’s amendments of independent claims 20 & 21 are with regard to the shear modulus of the respective adhesive layers. For the reasons given in the interview conducted February 3, 2026 and the advisory action mailed March 27, 2026, Applicant’s amended limitations of claims 20 & 21 are obvious based on the teachings of the prior art. The Examiner explained in the interview that Applicant would need to provide a showing of unexpected results in order to overcome the rejection of these limitations.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments do not address a separate rejection of the pending claims over Choi et al., Lee et al., Du et al., and Everaerts et al. (without Ahn).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights