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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on10/22/2025. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the drawings, the specification and the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract.
A) Regarding the drawings, applicant has submitted a replacement sheet contained figures 1-2;
B)Regarding the specification, applicant has added headlines to the specification and made changes to paragraphs [0003], [0005], [0013]-[0014], [0022]-[0023], [0035], [0055], [0071]-[0072], [0077] and [0093]; and
C) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1-3, 6-8 and 18 and canceled claim 17.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the drawings, the specification and the claims as provided I the amendment of10/22/2025, and applicant's arguments provided in the Remarks/Arguments, pages 1-4, of the mentioned amendment, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has canceled claim 17 and has not added any claim into the application, thus the pending claims are now claims 1-16 and 18-20 in which claims 1-3, 6-8, 12-16 and 18 are examined in the present office action, and claims 4-5, 9-11 and 19-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Inventions.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 4-5, 9-11 and 19-20 will be rejoined if the linking claim 6 is later found as an allowable claim.
B) Regarding the objection to drawings as set forth in the office action of 08/07/2025, the amendment to the drawings as provided in the amendment of 10/22/2025, and applicant’s arguments provided in the Remarks/Arguments, page 1, of the mentioned amendment, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objection to drawings as set forth in the mentioned office action.
C) Regarding the objection to specification as set forth in the office action of 08/07/2025, the amendment to the specification as provided in the amendment of 10/22/2025, and applicant’s arguments provided in the Remarks/Arguments, pages 1-2, of the mentioned amendment, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objection to specification as set forth in the mentioned office action.
D) Regarding Claim Interpretation as set forth in the office action of 08/07/2025, because applicant has not amended the claims and applicant’s statement provided in the Remarks/Arguments, page 2, of the mentioned amendment, have been fully considered but are not sufficient to overcome the Claim Interpretation. Thus, the Claim Interpretation is repeated in the present office action.
Note that since the features of claim 17 are now added to claims 1 and claim 6 in the amendment of 10/22/2025, thus the Claim Interpretation is modified in the present office action.
E) Regarding the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-8 and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as set forth in the office action of 08/07/2025, the amendment to the claims as provided in the amendment of 10/22/2025, and applicant’s arguments provided in the Remarks/Arguments, pages 2-3, of the mentioned amendment, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-8 and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the mentioned office action.
However, the amended claims are subjected to new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as provided in the present office action.
F) Regarding the rejections of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph as set forth in the office action of 08/07/2025, the amendment to the claim as provided in the amendment of 10/22/2025, and applicant’s arguments provided in the Remarks/Arguments, page 3, of the mentioned amendment, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, as set forth in the mentioned office action.
G) Regarding the rejection of claims 6, 8, 12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pang et al (Chinese reference No. CN 113583582), the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (Chinese reference No. CN 113583582) in view of Nagahara et al (US Publication No. 2019/0094419), and the rejection of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (Chinese reference No. CN 113583582) in view of Kamada (US Publication No. 2010/0208165) as set forth in the office action of 08/07/2025, the amendment to the claims as provided in the amendment of 10/22/2025, and applicant’s arguments provided in the Remarks/Arguments, pages 3-4, of the mentioned amendment, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The replacement sheet contained figures 1-2 was received on 10/22/2025.
As a result of the changes to the drawings, the application now contains a total of five sheets of figures 1-9 which include four sheets of figures 3-9 as filed on 07/24/2022 and one replacement sheet contained figures 1-2 as filed on 10/22/2025. The mentioned total of five sheets of figures 1-9 are now approved by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification which was amended by the amendment of 10/22/2205 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“a display module” and “a hollow-out structure” as recited in each of claims 1 and 6; and
“a grid hollow-out structure”, “a bar hollow-out structure” and “a hole hollow-out structure” as recited in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 6-8, 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by the features thereof “the back plate … to each other” (lines 13-20).
First, the feature thereof “the back plate” (line 13) lacks a proper antecedent basis; and
Second, the mentioned features make the claim indefinite because it is unclear about the structure of the flexile display device as recited in the claim. In particular, it is unclear about the structural relationship(s) among the so-called “the back plate” and other components such as the display module and the light enhancement layer.
b) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reasons as set forth in elements a) above.
c) The remaining claim is dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherits the deficiency thereof.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6, 8, 12, 14-16 and 18, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (Chinese reference No. CN 113583582, of record) in view of Kamada (US Publication No. 2010/0208165, of record) and Yeo et al (US Patent No. 7,278,775).
Pang et al discloses a flexible display device.
a) Regarding present claim 6, the flexible display device as described in pages 8-18 and shown in figs. 1-7, comprises the following features:
a1) a flexible display device (100) comprises a bendable region (203) and two flat regions (201, 202) wherein each flat regions (201, 202) is disposed at one side of the bendable region (203), see paragraphs [0070]-[0073] and figs. 1-3;
a2) a display module (21) disposed at least in the bendable region, see figs. 3-4;
a3) a light enhancement layer (22) disposed on one surface of the display module (21) wherein the light enhancement layer (22) comprises a hardened layer (3) and an antireflective layer (4), hereafter, AR layer, which AR layer is disposed on a surface of the hardened layer (3) which surface is away from the display module (21), see paragraph [0089] and figs. 4-5;
a4) the AR layer is made up by layer(s) having low refractive index in a range of 1.2 – 1.6 and layer(s) having high refractive index in a range of 1.5 – 2.1, and the hardened layer having a refractive index in a range of 1.4 – 1.6, see paragraphs [0097], [0103] and [0108], thus an AR layer with a layer of low refractive layer of 1.4 and a layer of high refractive index of 1.5 and a hardened layer having refractive index of 1.6 are selected then the refractive layer of the hardened layer (3) is greater than the refractive index of the AR layer; and
a5) an adhesive layer or a back plate (2) for supporting the flexible display module, see fig. 5, for example.
The only feature missing from the flexible display device provided by Pang et al, Pang et al does not disclose that the adhesive layer or the back plate (2) comprises a plurality of hollow-out structures in the bendable region wherein the hollow-out structures are arranged in parallel rows with any two adjacent rows are spaced apart by a predetermined distance and staggered relative to each other.
However, an adhesive layer is set as a hollow-out structure is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the optical device provided by Kamada. See Embodiment 2 in paragraphs [0130]-[0150] and fig. 2 which discloses an adhesive layer (60) having a plurality of hollow-out structures (74). Regarding the arrangements of the hollow-out structures missing from the layer provided by Kamada, it is noted that a support layer having a plurality of hollow-out structures in the bendable region wherein the hollow-out structures are arranged in parallel rows with any two adjacent rows are spaced apart by a predetermined distance and staggered relative to each other is known/suggested by Yeo et al, see column 9 and figs. 3-5, for example. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify the flexible display device having a back plate (adhesive layer) (2) by using an adhesive layer having a plurality of hollow-out structures in the bendable region wherein the hollow-out structures are arranged in parallel rows with any two adjacent rows are spaced apart by a predetermined distance and staggered relative to each other as suggested by Kamada and Yeo et al to adjust the light distribution to meet a particular application.
b) Regarding present claim 8, the thickness of the hardened layer is in a range of 0.1 – 3 µm, see paragraph [0089] and the thickness of the AR layer is in a range of 100 – 300 nm, see paragraph [0093].
c) Regarding present claim 12, because the flexible display device as provided by Pang et al has the same structure as that recited in present claim 6 thus the flexible display device of Pang et al has the similar optical functions in the range as claimed. Applicant should note that the present claim 12 does not recite any structure of the flexible display device except the display having a display module and a light enhancement layer constituted by an AR layer and a hardened layer with refractive index of the hardened layer greater than that of the AR layer, see its base claim 6 on lines 4-10, and such a structure is disclosed in the flexible display device provided by Pang et al.
d) Regarding present claims 14 and 16, the flexible display device (3, 4) is disposed on a second buffer layer (11) and a back plate (2) wherein the second buffer layer is made by a black thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer, see paragraphs [0084]-[0086] and fig. 6, for example.
e) Regarding present claim 15, the material of the back plate (2), i.e., the adhesive layer (2), is acrylic/acrylate material which is understood by one skill in the art as a general from of a polyacrylonitrile-based or polyurethane-based carbon fiber.
f) Regarding present claim 18, the plurality of hollow-out structures as provided by Yeo et al in the combined product comprises a grid/bar hollow-out structure.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 12-16 and 18, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (Chinese reference No. CN 113583582, of record) in view of Nagahara et al (US Publication No. 2019/0094419, of record), Kamada (US Publication No. 2010/0208165, of record) and Yeo et al (US Patent No. 7,278,775).
Pang et al discloses a flexible display device.
a) Regarding present claims 1, 6 and 13, the flexible display device as described in pages 8-18 and shown in figs. 1-7, for example, comprises the following features:
a1) a display module (20) comprises a bendable region (203) and two flat regions (201, 202) wherein each flat regions (201, 202) is disposed at one side of the bendable region (203), see paragraphs [0070]-[0073] and figs. 1-3;
a2) a display module (21) disposed at least in the bendable region, see figs. 3-4;
a3) a light enhancement layer (22) disposed on one surface of the display module wherein the light enhancement layer (22) comprises a hardened layer (3) and an antireflective layer, hereafter, AR layer, which AR layer is disposed on a surface of the hardened layer (3) which surface is away from the display module, see paragraph [0089] and figs. 4-5;
a4) the AR layer is made up by layer(s) having low refractive index in a range of 1.2 – 1.6 and layer(s) having high refractive index in a range of 1.5 – 2.1, and the hardened layer having a refractive index in a range of 1.4 – 1.6, see paragraphs [0097], [0103] and [0108], thus an AR layer with a layer of low refractive layer of 1.4 and a layer of high refractive index of 1.5 and a hardened layer having refractive index of 1.6 are selected then the refractive layer of the hardened layer (3) exceed the refractive index of the low refractive layer(s) of the AR layer; and
a5) an adhesive layer or a back plate (2) for supporting the flexible display module, see fig. 5, for example; and
a5) an adhesive layer or a back plate (2) for supporting the flexible display module, see fig. 5, for example.
While Pang et al does not disclose that the difference in refractive indexes of the hardened layer and the AR layer is 0.2 as recited in claim 1, and the material of the hardened layer is polyethylene terephthalate as recited in present claim 13.
However, an optical element having a plurality of layers in which a hardened layer is used to protect other layers of the element wherein an AR layer is formed on a hardened layer and the hardened layer is made by polyethylene terephthalate is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the optical element provided by Nagahara et al, see paragraphs [0031]-[0037] and fig. 1, for example. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flexible display device provided by Pang et al by using polyethylene terephthalate material to make the hardened layer as suggested by Nagahara et al to meet a particular application.
As a result of the use of polyethylene terephthalate material for the harden layer in the combined product then the refractive layer of the hardened layer (3) exceed the refractive index of the low and high refractive layer(s) of the AR layer.
The only feature missing from the flexible display device provided by Pang et al in the combined product is that Pang et al does not disclose that the adhesive layer or the back plate (2) comprises a plurality of hollow-out structures in the bendable region wherein the hollow-out structures are arranged in parallel rows with any two adjacent rows are spaced apart by a predetermined distance and staggered relative to each other.
However, an adhesive layer is set as a hollow-out structure is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the optical device provided by Kamada. See Embodiment 2 in paragraphs [0130]-[0150] and fig. 2 which discloses an adhesive layer (60) having a plurality of hollow-out structures (74). Regarding the arrangements of the hollow-out structures missing from the layer provided by Kamada, it is noted that a support layer having a plurality of hollow-out structures in the bendable region wherein the hollow-out structures are arranged in parallel rows with any two adjacent rows are spaced apart by a predetermined distance and staggered relative to each other is known/suggested by Yeo et al, see column 9 and figs. 3-5, for example. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify the flexible display device having a back plate (adhesive layer) (2) by using an adhesive layer having a plurality of hollow-out structures in the bendable region wherein the hollow-out structures are arranged in parallel rows with any two adjacent rows are spaced apart by a predetermined distance and staggered relative to each other as suggested by Kamada and Yeo et al to adjust the light distribution to meet a particular application.
b) Regarding the range governing the refractive indexes of the AR layer and the hardened layer as recited in present claims 2 and 7, it is noted that the AR layer is made up by layer(s) having low refractive index in a range of 1.2 – 1.6 and layer(s) having high refractive index in a range of 1.5 – 2.1, and the hardened layer having a refractive index in a range of 1.4 – 1.6 as provided in the flexible display device provided by Pang et al, see paragraphs [0097], [0103] and [0108], and the material of the hardened layer is polyethylene terephthalate material as provided by Nagahara et al, thus the combined product provided by Pang et al and Nagahara et al meets the ranges governing the refractive indexes of the AR layer and the hardened layer as recited in present claims 2 and 7. Applicant should note that it has been held in the Courts that a discovery an optimum value or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
c) Regarding present claims 3 and 8, the thickness of the hardened layer is in a range of 0.1 – 3 µm, see paragraph [0089] and the thickness of the AR layer is in a range of 100 – 300 nm is disclosed by Pang et al as can be seen in paragraph [0093] of the Pang et al reference.
d) Regarding present claim 12, because the flexible display device as provided by Pang et al has the same structure as that recited in present claim 6 thus the flexible display device of Pang et al has the similar optical functions in the range as claimed. Applicant should note that the present claim 12 does not recite any structure of the flexible display device except the display having a display module and a light enhancement layer constituted by an AR layer and a hardened layer with refractive index of the hardened layer greater than that of the AR layer, see its base claim 6 on lines 4-10, and such a structure is disclosed in the flexible display device provided by Pang et al.
e) Regarding present claims 14 and 16, the flexible display device (3, 4) is disposed on a second buffer layer (11) and the back plate (2) wherein the second buffer layer is made by a black thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer, see paragraphs [0084]-[0086] and fig. 6, for example.
f) Regarding present claim 15, the material of the back plate (2), i.e., the adhesive layer (2), is acrylic/acrylate material which is understood by one skill in the art as a general from of a polyacrylonitrile-based or polyurethane-based carbon fiber.
g) Regarding present claim 18, the plurality of hollow-out structures as provided by Yeo et al in the combined product comprises a grid/bar hollow-out structure.
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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872