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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 20, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0319201), in view of Seo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0091446).
Regarding claim 1, Goh et al. teaches a display device (Figs. 3-4 and 15) comprising: a substrate (Fig. 4, 100, ¶ [0064]) including a display area (Fig. 4, DA, ¶ [0057]), a pad area (Fig. 4, PA, ¶ [0058]), and a bending area (Fig. 4, BA, ¶ [0058]), wherein the bending area is positioned between the display area and the pad area (Figs. 3 and 4), the bending area is bent from the display area (Fig. 3), and the bending area is divided into a first area (Fig. 15, portions containing OP2i, ¶¶ [0135] – [0137]) and a second area (Fig. 15, portions surrounding OP2i, ¶¶ [0135] – [0137]) surrounding the first area; a protection film (Fig. 4, 500, ¶ [0105]) disposed on the substrate to overlap the display area [and the] the pad area, wherein an opening overlapping the first area (Figs. 4 and 15) is defined in the protection film.
Goh et al. fails to teach wherein the protection film overlaps the second area of the bending area or a reinforcing agent disposed on the substrate in the opening of the protection film, wherein a portion of the protection film overlapping the second area of the bending area surrounds the reinforcing agent.
Goh et al. teaches that the opening OP2i in 151 is sized such that “the infiltration of external impurities into connecting wires in the bending area BA can be prevented or reduced” (¶ [0137]). Likewise, this same advantage of preventing impurities reaching the connecting wires in the bending area would be obtained by making the opening in the protective film 500 to be the same shape as the opening in 151. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the openings in 151 and 500 the same shape, in order to prevent impurities from reaching the connecting wires in the bending area. Once this modification is made, Goh et al. teaches wherein the protection film overlaps the second area of the bending area, since the protection film would be in the second area of the bending area as the opening in protection film would have the same shape as that illustrated in Fig. 15.
Seo et al. teaches using a reinforcing agent (Fig. 2, 232, ¶ [0087]) disposed in the opening of a substrate (Fig. 2, 201, ¶ [0034]). Seo et al. teaches that one would add the reinforcing agent in this location to support the substrate as it is bent (e.g., Fig. 4, 207/208, ¶ [0087]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the reinforcing agent of Seo et al. to the protection film of Goh et al., in order to support the protection film as it is bent, as in Fig. 3 of Goh et al. Once one adds this reinforcing agent to the protection film, Goh et al. as modified by Seo et al. teaches the reinforcing agent (Seo et al. Fig. 2, 232, ¶ [0087]) disposed on the substrate (Goh et al. Fig. 4, 100, ¶ [0064], would be contacting substrate 100 inside the opening in 500 once added) in the opening of the protection film. Further, once this modification is made, the modified device of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teaches wherein a portion of the protection film overlapping the second area of the bending area surrounds the reinforcing agent, since the opening OP2i of Fig. 15 of Goh et al., which is what the modified opening in 500 of Goh et al. would look like, is filled with the reinforcing agent.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device wherein the opening (Goh et al. Fig. 4) is defined through the protection film (Goh et al. Fig. 4, 500, ¶ [0105]).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device wherein the opening (Goh et al. Fig. 4) does not overlap the second area (Fig. 15, portions surrounding OP2i, ¶¶ [0135] – [0137], as modified in discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device wherein the reinforcing agent (Seo et al. Fig. 2, 232, ¶ [0087], once added) overlaps the first area (Fig. 15, portions containing OP2i, ¶¶ [0135] – [0137], as modified in discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device wherein the reinforcing agent (Seo et al. Fig. 2, 232, ¶ [0087], once added) does not overlap the second area (Fig. 15, portions surrounding OP2i, ¶¶ [0135] – [0137], as modified in discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device further comprising: a display panel (Fig. 1, “panel” comprised of a plurality of pixels, ¶ [0057]) disposed on a first surface (Fig. 4, top surface) of the substrate (Fig. 4, 100, ¶ [0064]) and overlapping the display area (Figs. 1 & 4, DA, ¶ [0057]); and a pad part (Fig. 4, PP, ¶ [0058]) disposed on the first surface of the substrate and overlapping the pad area (Fig. 4, PA, ¶ [0058]), and wherein the protection film (Fig. 4, 500, ¶ [0105]) is disposed on a second surface (Fig. 4, bottom surface) of the substrate (Fig. 4, 100, ¶ [0064]) opposite to the first surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device further comprising: a line (Fig. 4, 233, ¶ [0071]) connected between the display panel (Fig. 1, “panel” comprised of a plurality of pixels, ¶ [0057]) and the pad part (Fig. 4, PP, ¶ [0058]), wherein the line overlaps the first area (Fig. 15, portions containing OP2i, ¶¶ [0135] – [0137], as modified in discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device wherein the display panel includes: a transistor (Fig. 4, 200, ¶ [0058]) electrically connected (¶ [0107) to the pad part (Fig. 4, PP, ¶ [0058]); a first electrode (Fig. 4, 310, ¶ [0088]) disposed on the transistor and connected to the transistor; an organic emission layer (Fig. 4, 320, ¶ [0088]) disposed on the first electrode; a second electrode (Fig. 4, 330, ¶ [0088]) disposed on the organic emission layer; and an encapsulation layer (Fig. 4, 400, ¶ [0057]) disposed on the second electrode and including an inorganic layer (Fig. 4, 410, ¶ [0096]) and an organic layer (Fig. 4, 420, ¶ [0096]).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device wherein the reinforcing agent (Seo et al. Fig. 2, 232, ¶ [0087], once added) has a rectangular shape (Goh et al., Fig. 15) with rounded corners (Goh et al., Fig. 15, though the corners are illustrated as perfect right angles, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there would necessarily be some amount of rounding of the corners when the shape is formed, and Applicant has not given a degree of rounding to meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device wherein the reinforcing agent (Seo et al. Fig. 2, 232, ¶ [0087], once added) is disposed along a curvature of a curved side (Goh et al. Figs. 3 and 4, though not illustrated directly, once the reinforcing agent is added into the gap in protection film 500, it will directly contact the substrate, which becomes curved once it is bent, thus is disposed along a “curved side” of the bending area) of the bending area (Fig. 4, BA, ¶ [0058]).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach a display device wherein the reinforcing agent (Seo et al. Fig. 2, 232, ¶ [0087], once added) includes a first reinforcing agent and a second reinforcing agent spaced apart from the first reinforcing agent (Goh et al. Fig. 16, since it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose the embodiment of Fig. 16 instead of the embodiment of Fig. 15, in order to further reduce bending stress on the wires ¶ [0140]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0319201) and Seo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0091446), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Jeong et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0355799).
Regarding claim 12, Goh et al. and Seo et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the reinforcing agent comprises a resin. Jeong et al. shows that it was known to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a resin (e.g., Fig. 4, 175, ¶ [0056]) as a reinforcing agent (see ¶ [0057], discussing the use of 175 to reduce tensile stress) in a bending area (Fig. 4, BA, ¶ [0021]) of a flexible display device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a resin for the reinforcing agent of the device resulting from the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0319201) and Seo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0091446), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cho et al. (Korean Pub. No. 20150053084).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. fail to teach a display device wherein the protection film (Fig. 4, 500, ¶ [0105]) includes: a base layer; and an adhesive layer disposed between the substrate (Fig. 4, 100, ¶ [0064]) and the base layer, wherein the adhesive layer adheres the base layer to the substrate (Fig. 4, 100, ¶ [0064]). Goh et al. does not get into the granular details of its protection film, as these details are not important to its invention. However, in order for the protection film to adhere to the substrate, there would need to be some form of adhesive between the protection film and the substrate, to hold it together. Cho et al. teaches that it was known in the display device arts to comprise a protection film (Fig. 3, 116, p.4 of attached translation) of a base layer (Fig. 3, 115, p.4 of attached translation) and an adhesive layer (Fig. 3, 114, p.4 of attached translation) disposed between a substrate (Fig. 3, 101, p.4 of attached translation) and the base layer, wherein the adhesive layer adheres the base layer to the substrate (Fig. 3, adhered through intervening elements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to comprise the protection film of Goh et al. of the base layer and adhesive layer of Cho et al., in order to adhere the protection film to the substrate properly.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Cho et al. would teach a display device wherein the opening (Cho et al. Fig. 4) is defined through the base layer and the adhesive layer (once it is understood/modified that the protection layer 500 of Cho et al. comprises the base and adhesive layers, this would be taught).
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, and related arguments filed October 20, 2026, have been fully considered, and they are insufficient and unpersuasive to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant first argues that Goh et al. “merely discloses the protective film 500 may be disposed to generally cover the rear surface of the flexible substrate 100, but may not be disposed in the bending area BA . . . while being silent as to a portion of the protective film 500 overlaps a portion of the bending area BA to surround a reinforcing agent disposed in the opening of the protection film. Applicant respectfully notes that the second opening OP2i shown in Fig. 15 is not an opening in the protective film 500 but merely an opening formed in the third organic insulating layer 151 as shown in Figs. 7-13.” This is unpersuasive because Applicant appears to misunderstand Examiner’s rationale. As explained above, Examiner has conceded that Goh et al. is silent as to the exact shape of the opening in protective film 500, and has argued that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the opening in protective film 500 to be the same as the opening in film 151. Once this modification is made, and then further modified with the reinforcing agent of Seo et al., the device resulting from the proposed modifications and combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. teach all the claim limitations, as detailed above.
Applicant argues further that “Seo [et al.] does not cure the deficiencies” of Goh et al., since Seo et al. teaches that “a support material 232 configured to support substrate 201 may be further arranged in a portion of the interval d in between first substrate portion 207 and second substrate portion 208 of the substrate 201 under the bending material 231, while being silent as to the a reinforcing agent disposed on the substrate in the opening of the protection film, wherein a portion of the protection film overlapping the second area of the bending area surrounds the reinforcing agent.” This is unpersuasive because Applicant's arguments against the references individually cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As described above, it is the combined teachings of Goh et al. and Seo et al. that teach Applicant’s claimed invention. Once one places the reinforcing agent of Seo et al. into the modified opening in the protection film of Goh et al., it would be disposed in a manner required by the claims, as detailed above.
The remaining arguments stem from the two arguments made above, and are therefore likewise unpersuasive.
Accordingly, these rejections are maintained.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN B GAUTHIER whose telephone number is (571)270-0373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30a-4:30p.
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, Joseph Thomas, can be reached on (571)272-8004. 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.
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights