DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 31, the limitation “wherein the first display region has a first pixel density, the second display region has a second pixel density, the transition region has a third pixel density, the second pixel density is smaller than the first pixel density, and the third pixel density is equal to the first pixel density or the second pixel density or between the first pixel density and the second pixel density; wherein pixel density is a quantity of the display subpixels in unit area” does not appear to have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, the originally filed disclosure recites “the pixel density refers to the quantity of pixels in unit area,” (see [0062] of published version of applicant’s disclosure), and does not support the recitation of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 31 is 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.
Regarding claim 31, the limitation “wherein the first display region has a first pixel density, the second display region has a second pixel density, the transition region has a third pixel density, the second pixel density is smaller than the first pixel density, and the third pixel density is equal to the first pixel density or the second pixel density or between the first pixel density and the second pixel density; wherein pixel density is a quantity of the display subpixels in unit area” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, while the claim attempts to define “pixel density” in terms of the number of subpixels (see [0062] of published version of applicant’s disclosure), the disclosure provides an inconsistent definition, and therefore what is required by the claim is unclear.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (US 10,879,491; herein “Yoo).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses in Figs. 1, 4, and related text a display substrate, comprising a display region, wherein the display region comprises:
a first display region (e.g. region to one side of OA, see dashed lines in annotated Figs. 1 and 4 below) comprising a plurality of display units (e.g. OLEDs 221/222/223) at the first display region arranged on a substrate (100) and a first thin film encapsulation structure (e.g. 310/320/330) arranged at a light-emitting side of the plurality of display units at the first display region;
a second display region (e.g. region at other side of OA, see dashed lines in annotated Figs. 1 and 4 below) comprising a plurality of display units (e.g. OLEDs 221/222/223) at the second display region arranged on the substrate and a second thin film encapsulation structure (e.g. 310/330/410) arranged at a light-emitting side of the plurality of display units at the second display region; and
a transition display region (e.g. region between first and second display regions and including region of OA, see dashed lines in annotated Figs. 1 and 4 below) comprising a plurality of display units (e.g. OLEDs 221/222/223) at the transition display region arranged on the substrate and a third thin film encapsulation structure (e.g. 310/320/330/410) arranged at a light-emitting side of the plurality of display units at the transition display region, the transition display region being located between the first display region and the second display region,
wherein the first thin film encapsulation structure (310/320/330) comprises a first inorganic encapsulation layer (310), a first organic encapsulation layer (320) and a second inorganic encapsulation layer (330) laminated one on another at the light-emitting side of the plurality of display units (see col. 8 lines 46-55) at the first display region;
the second thin film encapsulation structure (310/330/410) comprises the first inorganic encapsulation layer (310), the second inorganic encapsulation layer (330) and a second organic encapsulation layer (410) laminated one on another at the light-emitting side of the plurality of display units (see col. 8 lines 46-55 and col. 9 lines 55-57) at the second display region; and
the third thin film encapsulation structure comprises a first portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below) arranged at a side adjacent to the first display region and a second portion arranged at a side adjacent to the second display region, the first portion comprises the first inorganic encapsulation layer (310), the first organic encapsulation layer (320), the second inorganic encapsulation layer (330) and the second organic encapsulation layer (410) laminated one on another at the light-emitting side of the plurality of display units at the transition display region, and the second portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below) comprises the first inorganic encapsulation layer (310), the second inorganic encapsulation layer (330) and the second organic encapsulation layer (410) laminated one on another at the light-emitting side of the plurality of display units at the transition display region;
wherein the display region comprises a plurality of sides, adjacent sides in the plurality of sides cross to define a plurality of corner portions, and the second display region is located at at least one of the plurality of corner portions (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
the plurality of display units at the first display region, the plurality of display units at the second display region and the plurality of display units at the transition display region comprise display subpixels (see col. 5 lines 57-63 at least).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
732
1635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yoo further discloses wherein the second organic encapsulation layer (410) has a light transmittance greater than the first organic encapsulation layer (320) (note that 410 and 320 are the same material, see col. 9 lines 55-57, thus for at least some wavelengths, the thinner regions of 410 will have greater transmittance than the thicker regions of 320).
Regarding claim 4, Yoo further discloses wherein a first barrier (e.g. G at dashed line on left side of annotated Fig. 4) is arranged between the first display region and the transition display region, and a second barrier (e.g. G at dashed line on right side of annotated Fig. 4) is arranged between the second display region and the transition display region.
Regarding claim 6, Yoo further discloses wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer (310), the first organic encapsulation layer (320) and the second inorganic encapsulation layer (330) of the first portion are formed by extending the first inorganic encapsulation layer, the first organic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer of the first thin film encapsulation structure to a side of the transition display region adjacent to the first display region is located, the first inorganic encapsulation layer, the first organic encapsulation layer and the second inorganic encapsulation layer of the first portion cover the first barrier (see annotated Fig. 4),
the second portion is formed by extending the second thin film encapsulation structure (310/330/410) to a side of the transition display region adjacent to the second display region is located and covers the second barrier (see annotated Fig. 4), and
the second organic encapsulation layer of the first portion (410) is formed by extending the second organic encapsulation layer of the second portion to a side where the first portion is located (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Yoo further discloses wherein the first organic encapsulation layer (320) of the first portion is provided with a slope surface at a side adjacent to the second display region, and the second organic encapsulation layer (410) of the first portion covers a side of the slope surface away from the substrate (see annotated Fig. 4),
wherein the second organic encapsulation layer (410) of the second thin film encapsulation structure (310/330/410) is substantially flush with a surface of the second organic encapsulation layer (410) of the third thin film encapsulation structure (310/320/330/410) away from the substrate.
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 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.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ding et al. (US 2021/0118865; herein “Ding”).
Regarding claim 31, Yoo further discloses wherein the first display region has a first pixel density, the second display region has a second pixel density, the transition region has a third pixel density, and the third pixel density is equal to the first pixel density or the second pixel density or between the first pixel density and the second pixel density (e.g. pixel density of transition display region is equal to that of first display region, see Figs. 1 and 4), wherein pixel density is a quantity of the display subpixels in unit area.
Yoo does not explicitly disclose the second pixel density is smaller than the first pixel density.
In the same field of endeavor, Ding teaches in Fig. 2 and related text a display device wherein the second pixel density (density at edge region) is smaller than the first pixel density (density in center region) (see [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yoo by having the second pixel density is smaller than the first pixel density, a taught by Ding, in order to achieve a foldable display and accommodate the diameter of wiring lines (see Ding [0027]).
Additionally, the examiner notes that the embodiments of the third pixel density is equal to the first pixel density, the third pixel density is equal to the second pixel density, or the third pixel density is between the first pixel density and the second pixel density critical are considered to be obvious variants of one another. The instant disclosure does not provide any evidence that one embodiment or another is critical to the claimed invention, nor does it set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results from one embodiment to another. Accordingly, it is the position of the Office that each of the alternatives is an obvious variant of the other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. In particular, it is noted that in accordance with MPEP 2111, USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).Therefore the claim limitation “region” (i.e. “second display region” and “second sub-display regions”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, regions can be chosen such that they read on the claimed limitations.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 4/13/2026
Prosecution Insights