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 .
Drawings
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior drawing objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior 112(a) rejections are withdrawn.
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.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claims 2 and 6-7 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.
(Re Claims 2 and 6-7) As claim 1 is now a product-by-process claim - due to claiming different device structure at different times - it is unclear whether the following limitations are meant for the structure of the display panel before it is bent or after it is bent:
Claim 2: “the maximum thickness of the first bending portion is greater than or equal to 0.13 mm and less than or equal to 0.15 mm, and the minimum thickness of the second bending portion is greater than or equal to 0.08 mm and less than or equal to 0.1 mm”.
Claim 6: “wherein an arc length of the first bending portion is greater than or equal to 0.188 mm and less than or equal to 0.235 mm”.
Claim 7: “wherein an arc length of the second bending portion is greater than or equal to 0.235 mm and less than or equal to 0.285 mm”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0295283) referred to as Lee283, and Jo et al. (US 2018/0097199), both of record, and Won (US 2020/0328375) newly cited.
(Re Claim 1) Lee283 teaches a display panel, comprising: an array substrate (SUB; Fig. 7B) comprising a display portion (area of SUB underneath POL; Fig. 7B), a bending portion (area of SUB underneath BPL; Fig. 7B), and a bonding portion (area of SUB above FP; Fig. 4 and 7B), the bending portion being connected to a side of the display portion (Fig. 7B) and the bending portion being connected between the display portion and the bonding portion (Fig. 7B); a functional film layer (POL+ENC+DP-OLED; Fig. 7B) arranged at a side of the display portion;
a protective layer (BPL; Fig. 7B and 8) covering the bending portion, the protective layer and the functional film layer being located at a same side of the array substrate (Fig. 8), and the protective layer comprising: a first bending portion (portion of BPL inside of WT2+bent portion of BPL between line 1 and 2; Fig. 7B) arranged adjacent to the functional film layer at a third position (left edge of BPL; Fig. 8); and a second bending portion (arc portion of BPL between line 2 and 3; Fig. 7B markup) connected to a side of the first bending portion away from the functional film layer, the second bending portion comprising a second position (second position is on line 3; Fig. 7B markup) away from the first bending portion, wherein: the first bending portion comprises a first position (first position is on line 2; Fig. 7B markup) connected with the second bending portion; after the display panel is bent, a distance between the second position and the functional film layer in a first direction (left to right as seen in Fig. 7B) is largest in the protective layer (Fig. 7B markup), and the first direction is perpendicular to an interface between the display portion and the bending portion (Fig. 7B); and after the display panel is bent, a difference between a maximum thickness of the first bending portion and a minimum thickness of the second bending portion is less than or equal to 0.05 mm (uniform thickness; Fig. 7B and 8, ¶123).
Lee283 does not been shown to explicitly teach a display panel comprising:
a functional film layer comprising a touch control layer;
a first bending portion arranged adjacent to and in contact with the touch control layer at a third position;
a cover plate is located at one side of the functional film layer away from the array substrate;
wherein before the display panel is bent, an average thickness of the first bending portion in a second direction is smaller than an average thickness of the second bending portion in the second direction, and at the first position, a thickness of the first bending portion in the second direction is smaller than a thickness of the second bending portion in the second direction, and wherein the second direction is perpendicular to a plane where the display portion is located.
Won teaches forming a functional film layer (ATL+190+TSP+PLA+POL; Fig. 2) on top of an array substrate (100; Fig. 2) comprising a touch control layer (TSP; ¶57).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use the arrangement of parts for the functional film layer of Lee283, as taught by Won, to provide for accessible user interaction through the touch control layer of Won.
Jo teaches forming a protective layer (132; Fig. 16) having a first bending portion arranged adjacent to and in contact with a functional film layer (110; Fig. 16) at a third position.
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to dispose the protective layer BPL of Lee283 such that it is adjacent to and in contact with the touch control layer of modified Lee283 (that is, from Won, the touch control layer TSP in the functional film layer stack ATL+190+TSP+PLA+POL; Won: Fig. 2), in the manner taught by Jo, in order to reduce moisture infiltration by eliminating a gap between the functional film layer and the protective layer (Jo: ¶178). The third position is then the uppermost point of contact between the protective layer and the filter layer.
Therefore, the first bending portion is the portion of protective layer BPL now covering region WT1+the portion of BPL inside of WT2+the bent portion of BPL between line 1 and 2, as seen in the Fig. 7B markup from Lee283.
Jo additionally teaches placing a cover plate (114; Fig. on top of a functional film layer (110; Fig. 18E, ¶206).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to add a cover on top of the functional film layer of Lee283 as taught by Jo to prevent damage to the functional film layer and provide support for the overall structure.
Claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, all claim limitations describing the display panel after it is bent need not be formed by a process “wherein before the display panel is bent, an average thickness of the first bending portion in a second direction is smaller than an average thickness of the second bending portion in the second direction, and at the first position, a thickness of the first bending portion in the second direction is smaller than a thickness of the second bending portion in the second direction, and wherein the second direction is perpendicular to a plane where the display portion is located”. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 2) Modified Lee283 teaches display panel according to claim 1, wherein the maximum thickness of the first bending portion is greater than or equal to 0.13 mm and less than or equal to 0.15 mm (0.05 mm + 0.095= 0.145 mm; Fig. 17, ¶¶193, 201), and the minimum thickness of the second bending portion is greater than or equal to 0.08 mm and less than or equal to 0.1 mm (0.095 mm; ¶¶193, 201)).
(Re Claim 8) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein: the bonding portion is parallel to the display portion (Fig. 7B). after the display panel is bent in the second direction, a distance between the second position and the bonding portion is greater than a distance between the second position and the display portion, and the second direction is perpendicular to a plane where the display portion is located (Fig. 7B).
However, modified Lee283 does not explicitly teach the display panel wherein in the second direction, a distance between the bonding portion and the display portion is 0.3-0.7 mm.
Jo teaches a radius of curvature of 0.2 mm (¶54).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use the radius of curvature taught by Jo according to a desired stress in the bending portion. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With a radius of curvature of 0.2 mm, modified Lee283 teaches a distance between the bonding and display portion of 0.4 mm.
(Re Claim 11) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein after the display panel is bent:
in a bending direction of the protective layer, a thickness of the first bending portion at the third position is greater than a thickness of the first bending portion at the first position (Jo: gradually moves from a maximum thickness value contacting the functional film layer to less than maximum value; Fig. 16) and a thickness of the second bending portion at the first position is greater than a thickness of the second bending portion at the second position (Jo: Fig. 16 demonstrates that the thickness of the protective layer 132 monotonically decreases from the functional film 110 at least until the midpoint of 102b).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0295283) referred to as Lee283, and Jo et al. (US 2018/0097199), both of record, and Won (US 2020/0328375) newly cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2018/0027651) of record.
(Re Claim 6) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the display panel wherein an arc length of the first bending portion is greater than or equal to 0.188 mm and less than or equal to 0.235 mm.
Jo teaches a radius of curvature of 0.5 mm (¶54).
Lim teaches that a thickness for an array substrate (100; Fig. 34) is 15 µm (¶22), and a thickness for wiring (200; Fig. 34) on an array substrate is 5 µm (¶25).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use the disclosed values for the radius of curvature, array substrate thickness, and wiring thickness (for the wiring layer DP-CL of Lee283; Fig. 7B, ¶99), when forming the display panel of modified Lee283. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Additionally, from the Fig. 7B markup, the angle between the dashed vertical line and line 2 is 0.1 rad, and the angle between lines 2 and 3 is 0.5 rad.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious then to have an arc length of the first bending portion of 0.202 mm (0.1 mm from WT1 + 0.14 mm from WT2 + 0.52*0.1 mm from the bent portion; Lee283: ¶126), which is within the claimed range.
(Re Claim 7) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel according to claim 6, wherein an arc length of the second bending portion is greater than or equal to 0.235 mm and less than or equal to 0.285 mm (0.52*0.5 mm = 0.26 mm).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0295283) referred to as Lee283, and Jo et al. (US 2018/0097199), both of record, and Won (US 2020/0328375) newly cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Namkung et al. (US 2016/0329520) and Jin et al. (US 2021/0118336) both of record.
(Re Claim 12) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the protective layer further comprises: a third bending portion (between lines 3 and 4; Fig. 7B markup) comprising a fourth position (on line 4; Fig. 7B markup) and being connected to a side of the second bending portion away from the first bending portion at the second position (Fig. 7B markup).
Modified Lee283 does not explicitly teach the display panel wherein after the display panel is bent, in a bending direction of the protective layer, a thickness of the third bending portion at the second position is less than a thickness of the third bending portion at the fourth position.
Jin teaches forming a protective layer (SNL; Fig. 15) thinner in a bending region (BA; Fig. 15) than in nonbending areas (FA1 and FA2).
Jo teaches a difference between a maximum thickness of a first bending portion and a minimum thickness of the second bending portion between 0 µm and 50 µm (Fig. 17).
Namkung teaches that forming a protective layer having a thickness less than 10 µm is ineffective and forming the thickness greater than 200 µm results in reduced flexibility.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the protective layer BPL of modified Lee283 having a concave thickness distribution in the bending region (BA; Fig. 7B), as taught by Jin (Fig. 15), in order to increase the flexibility of the protective layer in the bending region.
This results in the thickness of the third bending portion at the second position being less than a thickness of the third bending portion at the fourth position.
Furthermore, as the thickness of a protective layer is balanced between being too thin to reduce stress and too thick to allow for adequate bending and taught by Namkung, and Jo teaches that a difference between a maximum thickness of the first being portion and a minimum thickness of a second bending portion is between 0 µm and 50 µm allows for reduced failure rates, the claimed difference between the maximum thickness of the first bending portion and the minimum thickness of the second bending portion would have been obvious to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation in pursuit of increasing the flexibility of the bending region of modified Lee283. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claims 21 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0295283) referred to as Lee283, and Jo et al. (US 2018/0097199), both of record, and Won (US 2020/0328375) newly cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (US 2022/0181576) of record.
(Re Claim 21) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel of claim 1, further comprising: a chip (IC in FP; ¶78) bonded to the bonding portion, the chip and the functional film layer being located at the same side of the array substrate (Fig. 7B); a first bottom film (PF1; Fig. 7B) at a side of the display portion away from the functional film layer; and a second bottom film (PF2; Fig. 7B) at a side of the bonding portion away from the chip, wherein after the display panel is bent, in the first direction, the first position is between the first bottom film and the second position (Fig. 7B markup), and between the second bottom film and the second position (Fig. 7B markup). Modified Lee283 does not explicitly teach the display panel wherein after the display panel is bent, a distance between the first position and the first bottom film in the first direction is less than a distance between the first position and the second bottom film in the first direction.
Cha teaches a distance between a first position (Fig. 3, corresponding to the same angle as shown in the Fig. 7B markup between line 1 and 2 of Lee283) and a first bottom film (210; Fig. 3) in a first direction (left to right on the page of Fig. 3) is less than a distance between the first position and a second bottom film (220; Fig. 3).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to space the second bottom film PF2 further from the region BA of Fig. 7B in the first direction of modified Lee283 than the first bottom film PF1, as taught by Cha, in order to account for a greater strength or rigidity of the second bottom film PF2 supplementing the rigidity of the array substrate SUB of modified Lee283, a strength that would interfere with the bending portion being able to bend (Cha: ¶104).
(Re Claim 4) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel according to claim 21, wherein after the display panel is bent, a distance between an edge of the first bottom film facing the first position and an edge of the second bottom film facing the first position in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0 mm and less than or equal to 0.2 mm (as the distance between the right edge of the functional film layer of modified Lee283 and the region BA can be less than 0.2 mm (WT1+WT2 is 0.15 mm; Lee283: 10 µm + 140 µm; ¶¶139, 141), and Cha teaches the second bottom film 220 is between a functional film layer (140; Fig. 3) and a bending region (BND; Fig. 3)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0295283) referred to as Lee283, Jo et al. (US 2018/0097199), and Cha et al. (US 2022/0181576), all of record, and Won (US 2020/0328375) newly cited as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2018/0027651) of record.
(Re Claim 5) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel according to claim 4, but does not explicitly teach the display panel wherein: the distance between the first position and the first bottom film in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.125 mm and less than or equal to 0.225 mm; and the distance between the first position and the second bottom film in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.125 mm and less than or equal to 0.425 mm.
Jo teaches a radius of curvature of 0.5 mm (¶54).
Lim teaches that a thickness for an array substrate (100; Fig. 34) is 15 µm (¶22), and a thickness for wiring (200; Fig. 34) on an array substrate is 5 µm (¶25).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use the disclosed values for the radius of curvature, array substrate thickness, and wiring thickness (for the wiring layer DP-CL of Lee283; Fig. 7B, ¶99), when forming the display panel of modified Lee283. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Additionally, from the Fig. 7B markup, the angle between lines 1 and 2 is π/10 rad.
Using the aforementioned thickness and angle values, a distance between the first position and the first bottom film in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.125 mm and less than or equal to 0.225 mm (0.52*sin(π/10) = 0.1610 mm); and
a distance between the first position and the second bottom film in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.125 mm and less than or equal to 0.425 mm (due to the width of WT1 and the offset form the right edge of the first bottom film introduced through Cha above, the distance is between 0.1610 mm and 0.1710 mm).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0295283) referred to as Lee283, Jo et al. (US 2018/0097199), and Cha et al. (US 2022/0181576), all of record, and Won (US 2020/0328375) newly cited, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2019/0165332) of record.
(Re Claim 9) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel according to claim 21, but does not explicitly teach the display panel wherein the display panel further comprises: a heat dissipation layer at a side of the first bottom film away from the display portion; and an adhesive layer between the second bottom film and the heat dissipation layer.
Kwon teaches placing a heat dissipation layer (protective film 600-1; Fig. 4B, ¶¶92, 108 discusses a protective film 600, of which 600-1 is an alternative embodiment) between two parts of a bottom film (500-1; Fig. 4B), and fixing the heat dissipation layer to the bottom film using an adhesive layer (OC7; Fig. 4B) at a side away from a display portion of a substrate (400-1).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to include a heat dissipation layer at a side of a first bottom film (PF1; Fig. 7B) of Lee283 away from the display portion, as taught by Kwon, in order to cool the display panel having the OLEDs of modified Lee283, and include an adhesive layer between the second bottom film (PF2; Fig. 7B) and the heat dissipation layer, as taught by Kwon, choosing to do so because adhesives achieve good contact between materials, which keeps out moisture and other possible contaminants.
(Re Claim 10) Modified Lee283 teaches the display panel according to claim 9, wherein after the display panel is bent, a distance between the heat dissipation layer and the first position in the first direction is smaller than a distance between the adhesive layer and the first position in the first direction (including the heat dissipation layer 600-1 of Kwon results in the adhesive layer OC7 being set back from the bending portion, resulting in the claimed distance relationship; Lee283: Fig. 7B markup).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16, and 18-19 are allowable.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 14, 16, and 18-19 are allowable for at least the reasons of “the protective layer comprises a first bending portion adjacent to and in contact with the touch control layer of the functional film layer…bending the bending portion so that the bonding portion is at a side of the display portion away from a display side thereof…wherein before the bending portion is bent, an average thickness of the first bending portion in a second direction is smaller than an average thickness of the second bending portion in the second direction, and at the first position, a thickness of the first bending portion in the second direction is smaller than a thickness of the second bending portion in the second direction, and wherein the second direction is perpendicular to a plane where the display portion is located” as set forth in the claimed combination. These features of the fabrication method of a display panel of claim 14 are not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art known to the Examiner. Claims 16 and 18-19 depend from claim 14 and are allowable for at least these reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new rejection.
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 Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 EST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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 A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898