DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jung et al (WO 2020060228 in which US 20210359277 is being used as the direct translation).
As to claims 1 and 11, Jung discloses a display panel in which at least a portion is flexible (abs). As seen in the figures the display panel 110 comprises a cover window 120 which has a flexible region in the middle of to remnant regions (figure 8). The display also comprises a display driver IC (DDI) which is will read on a drive chip (paragraph 51). As seen in figure 10, the window 120 in the folding region has a groove and filled by an anti-reflection layer (filling layer) 131 (paragraphs 154). Since the anti-reflection layer is considered the filling layer it will have a lower reflectivity than the cover window which is made of glass.
As to claims 6, 7, 16 and 17, Jung discloses that the shape of the groove can be a rectangle 10c-g.
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.
Claims 2 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (WO 2020060228 in which US 20210359277 is being used as the direct translation) in view of Park (EP 3644383).
As to claims 2 and 12, Jung anticipates claims 1 and 11, for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the specific type of glass.
Park discloses a flexible display device comprising a cover window that is formed from ultrathin glass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jung and used the ultrathin glass as suggested by Park for the cover window as it would have been a suitable alternative material for the cover window. See MPEP 2141.06.
Claims 3 and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (WO 2020060228 in which US 20210359277 is being used as the direct translation) and Park (EP 3644383) in view of Miyatake (US Publication 20030076596).
Jung and Park render claims 2 and 12, obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the material of the filling layer.
Miyatake discloses an antireflection film used on a display device, wherein the antireflection film comprises a tetraalkoxysilane or a fluoroalkyl structure and a polysiloxane structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jung and Park and used the antireflection layer as suggested by Miyatake for the antireflection layer as it would have been a suitable alternative material for the layer and it’s known to use that material for that layer. See MPEP 2141.06.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (WO 2020060228 in which US 20210359277 is being used as the direct translation).
As to claims 4, 5, 14 and 15, Jung anticipates claim 1 and 11 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the depth of the first groove and thickness of the cover layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jung and formed the depth of the first groove to be greater than ½ a thickness of the cover window of the non-bending region and less than the thickness of the cover window of the non-bending region, wherein the thickness of the non-bending region was between 60 and 100 microns, as Jung discloses that the thickness of the anti-reflection layer can be adjusted to allow for the proper suppression of light and one would know how to adjust this as noted in paragraphs 120 and 121. As to the thickness of the cover window one would know a thicker layer provides more protection, costs more and is sturdier while a thinner layer is more flexible and provides less protection and is cheaper.
Claims 4, 5, 8-10, 14, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (WO 2020060228 in which US 20210359277 is being used as the direct translation) in view of Park (Kr 102068685 B1 in which US 20200292731 is being used as the direct translation).
As to claims 4, 5, 8-10, 14, 15 and 18-20, Jung anticipates claims 1 and 11 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to a second groove and groove thickness and cover window thickness.
Park discloses a flexible cover window wherein a first and second groove is formed in the cover window and is filled with a coating material that can have an anti-reflection function. The thickness of the cover window is 50 to 300 microns. As seen in the figures the first and second groove have the same shape and the first and/or second groove can have a thickness of at least ½ of the thickness of the cover window in the non-bending region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jung with the design of having a groove on both surfaces of the cover layer filled by an antireflection material as suggested by Park with a thickness of the grooves and cover window as this would be a suitable alternative and it’s known to provide these thickness and configurations to for foldable display devices. See MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights