DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In response to an Office action mailed on 04/17/2025 (“04/17/2025 OA”), the Applicant amended independent claim 1 in a reply filed on 07/16/2025 (“07/16/2025 Reply”). Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 have substantively changed the scope of claim 1 and its dependent claims.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn.
Currently, claims 1-12 are examined as below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks regarding claim 11 have overcome the drawings objections as set forth under line item number 1 in the 04/17/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention have overcome the specification objections as set forth under line item number 2 in the 04/17/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 11 have overcome the 112(b) rejections as set forth under line item number 3 in the 04/17/2025 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 have overcome the prior-art rejections as set forth under line item numbers 4-6 in the 04/17/2025 OA.
New references are introduced. New grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), 103 and 112(b) are provided as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0352809 A1 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim in Figs. 1 and 13-15 teaches a supporting member 11/12/14/16 (Fig. 14 & ¶ 90, a collection of plate 11, holes 12, first resin layer 14 and second resin layer 16) for a flexible display module 20 (Figs. 1, 13-15 & ¶ 95, display unit 20 including the display panel 10 and elements 11, 13, 14 and 16), comprising a substrate 11 of a metal material (¶ 54 & ¶ 67, plate 11 includes a metal material), a first planarization layer 16 (¶ 90, second resin layer 16) and a second planarization layer 14 (¶ 90, first resin layer 14), wherein the substrate 11 is provided with a plurality of through holes 12 (Fig. 14 & ¶ 90, holes 12) running through a first surface (Fig. 14, upper surface) and a second surface (Fig. 14, lower surface) of the substrate 11 which are opposite to each other (Fig. 14), the first planarization layer 16 is provided on the first surface (i.e., upper surface), and the second planarization layer 14 is provided on the second surface (i.e., lower surface) and filled in the plurality of through holes 12 (Fig. 14 & ¶ 90, a portion of the first resin layer 14 is filled in the holes 12);
wherein the first planarization layer 16 is provided towards a display side (Figs. 13-14, upper side) of the flexible display module 20 (Figs. 1 & 13-14), and the second planarization layer 14 is provided away from the display side of the flexible display module 20 (Figs. 1 & 13-14).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in Fig. 14 further teaches an elastic modulus of the first planarization layer 16 is 1 GPa to 10 GPa (¶ 93, the layer 16 is formed or urethane, which has a Young’s modulus value of 1 GPa to 1.5 GPa1, which anticipates the claimed range of 1 GPa to 10 GPa).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in Figs. 1 and 13-15 further teaches a flexible display module 20 (Figs. 1, 13-15 & ¶ 95, display unit 20 including the display panel 10 and elements 11, 13, 14 and 16), comprising a supporting structure layer 11/12/14/16 (Fig. 14 & ¶ 90, a collection of plate 11, holes 12, first resin layer 14 and second resin layer 16) and a display structure layer 10 (Fig. 14 & ¶ 92, display panel 10) provided on the supporting structure layer 11/12/14/16, wherein the supporting structure layer 11/12/14/16 comprises the supporting member 11/12/14/16 of the flexible display module 20 according to claim 1, the first planarization layer 16 is provided towards the display structure layer 10 (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in Fig. 14 further teaches the display structure layer 10 is provided on the first planarization layer 16, and the display structure layer 10 and the supporting member 11/12/14/16 are attached to each other by an adhesive layer 13 (Fig. 14 & ¶ 92, adhesive layer 13).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in Fig. 14 further teaches the supporting structure layer 11/12/14/16 further comprises a support film 13 (Fig. 14 & ¶ 92, adhesive layer 13 that would support the display panel 10) provided on a side of the supporting member 11/12/14/16 facing the display structure layer 10, the support film 13 is provided on the first planarization layer 16 (Fig. 14), and the display structure layer 10 is provided on the support film 13 (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in Figs. 1 and 13-15 further teaches a display device 100 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 45, display device 100), comprising the flexible display module 20 (Figs. 1, 13-15 & ¶ 95) according to claim 8.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2015/0282336 A1 to Jung et al. (“Jung”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in Fig. 14 teaches the first planarization layer 16.
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose a material of the first planarization layer comprises polyimide.
Jung recognizes a need for providing a flexible display panel that may be utilized in a folded or curved state in various applications (¶ 5 & ¶ 20). Jung satisfies the need by providing a supporting member 200 (Fig. 6 & ¶ 19, cushion pad 200 supports a display panel 100) including a planarization layer 230 (Fig. 6 & ¶ 39, elastic layer 230), which comprises polyimide (¶ 43).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyimide taught by Jung for the first planarization layer taught by Kim, so as to provide a flexible display panel that may be utilized in a folded or curved state in various applications (Jung: ¶ 5 & ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in Fig. 14 teaches the second planarization layer 14.
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose the second planarization layer comprises any one or more of silica gel, acrylic.
Jung recognizes a need for providing a flexible display panel that may be utilized in a folded or curved state in various applications (¶ 5 & ¶ 20). Jung satisfies the need by providing a supporting member 200 (Fig. 6 & ¶ 19, cushion pad 200 supports a display panel 100) including a planarization layer 230 (Fig. 6 & ¶ 39, elastic layer 230), which comprises acrylic (¶ 43).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the acrylic taught by Jung for the second planarization layer taught by Kim, so as to provide a flexible display panel that may be utilized in a folded or curved state in various applications (Jung: ¶ 5 & ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in Fig. 14 teaches the display structure layer 10, which is a display panel (¶ 92).
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose the display structure layer comprises a flexible base substrate, and a driving structure layer, a light-emitting structure layer and an encapsulation structure layer sequentially provided on the flexible base substrate, the light-emitting structure layer comprises a plurality of Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) devices, and the driving structure layer comprises pixel driving circuits configured to drive the OLED devices to emit light.
Jung recognizes a need for providing a flexible display panel that may be utilized in a folded or curved state in various applications (¶ 5 & ¶ 20). Jung satisfies the need by providing a flexible display structure layer 100 (Figs. 2-3 & ¶ 20, organic light emitting panel 100 is a flexible display panel) comprises a flexible base substrate 110 (¶ 20, flexible substrate 110), and a driving structure layer 130 (¶ 20, driver circuit 130), a light-emitting structure layer 140 (¶ 20, organic light emitting diode (OLED) 140) and an encapsulation structure layer 150 (¶ 20, thin film encapsulation layer 150) sequentially provided on the flexible base substrate 110, the light-emitting structure layer 140 comprises a plurality of Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) devices (Figs. 2-3 & ¶ 20 disclose multiple OLEDs 140), and the driving structure layer 130 comprises pixel driving circuits (Figs. 2-3 & ¶ 23-¶ 25, thin film transistors (TFTs) 10, 20 drive the OLEDs 140 of pixels) configured to drive the OLED devices 140 to emit light (¶ 23).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display structure layer taught by Kim with the display panel structure taught by Jung, so as to provide a flexible display panel that may be utilized in a folded or curved state in various applications (Jung: ¶ 5 & ¶ 20).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2016/0064685 A1 to Kim et al. (“Kim685”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in Fig. 14 teaches the substrate 11 includes a metal material (¶ 54 & ¶ 67). Kim further teaches the substrate 11 is a plate (¶ 90).
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose a material of the substrate comprises any one or more of a nickel-iron alloy, a copper-zinc alloy.
Kim685 recognizes a need for a supporting layer to have a relatively high resilience or a relatively high elasticity (¶ 71). Kim 685 satisfies the need by providing a material a substrate 140 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 71, supporting layer/plate 140) comprising any one or more of a nickel-iron alloy, a copper-zinc alloy (¶ 71).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the alloy taught by Kim685 for the substrate taught by Kim, so as to provide a supporting layer having a relatively high resilience or a relatively high elasticity (Kim685: ¶ 71).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Kim does not explicitly disclose the first planarization layer has a thickness of 10 µm to 30 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness of the first planarization layer within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 6, Kim does not explicitly disclose the substrate has a thickness of 50 µm to 300 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness of the substrate within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
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 MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. 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.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0203642 A1 by Kim et al. discloses in paragraphs 150 and 176 that urethane has a Young’s modulus value of 1 GPa to 1.5 GPa..