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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 11/28/2025 have been entered. Claims 13, 16, 18-33 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: “PET layer “ should read “polyethylene terephthalate layer”. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 16 and 18-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when the claim recites “a first adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer are provided on a light -emitting side of the flexible display panel”. The presently claimed subject matter is a bended display device which comprises a flexible display panel, a supporting backplate, a first backplate, a second backplate and a filling gasket (See Fig. 6); wherein the second adhesive layer 22 is apparently on the back of light-emitting side. This adhesive layer also overlap with display area which is located in the display area. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) (see MPEP 2173.03). Claims 16 and 18-33 are also rejected for depending from claim 1, thus inclusion of indefinite features.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13, 16 and 18-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al (US 2017/0047547, ‘547 hereafter) in view of Shin et al (US 2018/0182829, ‘829 hereafter).
Regarding claims 13, 16 and 18-23, ‘547 discloses a display device comprising a flexible display panel, which comprises a display area and a non-display area located at a periphery of the display area (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, layer 210 and layer 230, [0033]-[0036]), and the non-display area comprises a first extension portion, bendable portion and a second extension portion connected in a direction away from the display area (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, [0034], [0041]-[0042]); a supporting backplate is provided on the non-light emitting side and covers display area; (Fig. 2, layer 270, [0049]), a first backplate covers the display area and the first extension portion (Fig.2 layer 260a, [0049]), a second backplate is located in a second extension portion (Fig 2, layer 260b, [0049]); a polarizing layer cover display area (Fig 2, layer 232, Fig. 6B and 7, [0047], [0056]); a first adhesive layer connected to the polarizer layer and extends in a direction away from display area (Fig 2 and 3, Fig. 6B, Layer 240, [0044], [0046], [0054]), and a second adhesive layer being used to bond driving chip and printed circuit board which are on a side of the second adhesive layer away from the display area (Fig. 1-3, Layer 250, [0038], [0045]), are provided on a light-emitting side of the display panel (Fig 2 and 3, Layer 240); and the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are both located in the non-display area (Fig 2 and 3). The first adhesive layer covers the bendable portion and extends along a direction from the bendable portion toward the display area (Fig, 2 and 3, layer 240, [0048]), and the second adhesive layer is located on a side of the first adhesive layer away from the display area and connected to the first adhesive layer (Fig, 2 and 3, layer 250). The non-display area is bent to the non-light emitting side of the flexible display panel through bendable portion, and the supporting backplate is disposed between the first backplate and the second backplate (Fig. 2). ‘547 does not specifically set forth that the display device comprising a filling gasket. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘829 discloses a display comprising a displayer device comprising a flexible display panel having a display area and a non-display area located at a periphery of the display area, which has a first extension portion, a bendable portion and a second extension portion connected in a direction away from the display area (Fig. 1C, [0074]-[0082]); a supporting backplate is provided on the non-light emitting side and covers display area; (Fig. 1C, layer 180), a first backplate covers the display area and the first extension portion (Fig. 1C, layer 170), a second backplate is located in a second extension portion (Fig 2, layer 170, back side); wherein the supporting layer is disposed between two backplate and bonded by adhesive layers, which read upon filling gasket, to define and maintain bending curvature of bending area ([0077]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use adhesive layers (filling gasket) to bond a support plate to two backplates as taught by 829, to modify the display device of ‘547, in order to define and maintain curvature of the bending area of the display device. ‘547 shows that there is a predetermined distance between polarizing layer and the bendable portion (See Fig.7, there is a distance from end of polarizer layer and starting point of bent area and hollow area), but does not expressly set forth that this distance is 550 microns or greater. However, the instant specification is silent to unexpected results with respect to the distance between polarizing layer and bent area as claimed, thus the distance between polarizing layer and bent area is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Therefore, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance between polarizing layer and bent area cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between polarizing layer and bent area including the distance as presently claimed, to obtain desired bending properties of the displayer panel. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) (See 2144.05 IIA).
Regarding claims 24-25 and 30-33, modified ‘547 teaches all the limitations of claim 18 , ‘547 also discloses a cover plate being laminated by an optical adhesive layer on a side of the polarizing layer away from the flexible display panel, which cover display area (Fig. 2. Layer 234 and layer 236, [0047]). ‘547 does not expressly name a cover plate satisfying limitations as recited in the present claims 30 to 33. However, it is well-known in the art that a protection film formed from a flexible substrate of polyimide, cycloolefin or polyethylene terephthalate with a hard coat layer is commonly used to protect a display device from scratch, wherein the thickness of the of the substrate and coating layer can be adjusted to render the surface having sufficient scratch resistance.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, modified ‘547 teaches all the limitations of claim 13, 547 also discloses that the adhesive layer can be various material such as acrylic resin hardening by UV ([0054]), which may include polymethyl methacrylate or UV adhesive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 112 rejections as set forth above and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for the allowance is that the prior art of record, does not specifically disclose, teach or fairly suggest a display as recited in the present claim 13, wherein a foam adhesive layer is provided between first backplate, second backplate and supporting backplate; and the prior art of record also fails to disclose or fairly suggest the second adhesive layer is a PET layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in light of Applicant's amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782