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
Withdrawn Rejections
.The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-4, 8 -16, 20 over Kishimoto in view of Nam and Seo, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed on June 16, 2026.
The objections to claims 5-7, 17-19 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed on June 16, 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9-16, 18-20 are allowed.
The closest prior art of record, Kishimoto, fails to fairly teach or suggest, even in view of Nam and Seo, the specific combination of structural features in which the display layer 200 (Fig. 2 of Kishimoto) further includes an auxiliary region extending from a first side of the first region FA in the second direction, where the display device 20 (Fig. 2 of Kishimoto) further includes a roller surrounded by at least a part of the auxiliary region, a position of a bending portion of the auxiliary region being moved in the second direction by movement of the roller, and the display device 20 is configured to be switched between a first state and a second state, in which: in the first state, the auxiliary region overlaps the first region FA in the third direction, and in the second state, the auxiliary region does not overlap the first region FA in the third direction. None of the references cited above teach a roller, let alone one that is in the presently claimed configuration of said specific combination of structural features.
New Objection/Rejections
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 12 should be rewritten as:
- - a first adhesive member [[510]] disposed between the display layer and the first lower film.- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 2019/0252485) in view of Nam (US 2015/0147532) and Seo (US 20150055287).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kishimoto teaches a display device (apparatus 20 [0051], Fig. 2 shown above) comprising:
a display layer (panel 200 [0051]) including:
a first region (flexible area FA [0053]) including a display area (display unit may be located in the flexible area FA [0053]);
a second region (non-flexible area NFA [0053]) spaced apart from the first region FA in a first direction perpendicular to a second direction (Fig. 2);
a first lower film (first protective film 100a [0051]) disposed on a bottom surface of the display layer 200 (Fig. 2) and overlapping the first region FA in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction;
a second lower film (second protective film 100b [0051]) disposed on the bottom surface of the display layer 200 (Fig. 2), overlapping the second region NFA in the third direction, and spaced apart from the first lower film 100a (Fig. 2);
a first adhesive member (120a [0051]) disposed between the display layer 200 and the first lower film 100a, and having a first thickness (Fig. 2); and
a second adhesive member (120b [0051]) disposed between the display layer 200 and the second lower film 100b (Fig. 2), and having a second thickness smaller than the first thickness (less than [0061]).
Kishimoto fails to teach a third region between the first region FA and the second region NFA, where the third region is bent.
However, Kishimoto teaches that the display device is a flexible display device (apparatus [0007]) where a middle region of the first region FA can easily bend ([0005]) to curve the flexible display device into a curved one, or to fold the flexible display device into a folded one, where the bent middle region of the first region FA then becomes a third region between the leftmost portion of the first region FA and the second region NFA in Fig. 2.
Nam teaches that a flexible display device ([0005]) includes a flexible region containing a middle region (folding area FA [0031], Fig. 1B shown below) which easily bends to curve the flexible display device into a curved one, or to fold the flexible display device into a folded one ([0005]), for the purpose of providing the desired design functionality.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided a third region that is bent, between the first region FA and the second region NFA of the display layer 200 of the display device 20 of Kishimoto, to form a curved or folded flexible display device, in order to obtain the desired design functionality, as taught by Nam.
Kishimoto, as modified by Nam, fails to teach a support member disposed on the bottom surface of the display layer 200 of Kishimoto (Fig. 2), let alone a support member that includes a joint portion and a flat portion, each overlapping the first lower film 100a, and hence the first adhesive member 120a having the first thickness that is larger than the second thickness of the second adhesive member 120b that is associated with the second lower film 100b (120b … thickness less than of adhesive layer 120a [0061], Fig. 2 shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kishimoto teaches that the display device is a flexible display device (apparatus [0007]) where a middle region of the first region FA can easily bend ([005]) to curve the flexible display device into a curved one, or to fold the flexible display device into a folded one, where the bent middle region of the first region FA then becomes a third region between the leftmost portion of the first region FA and the second region NFA in Fig. 2 shown above.
Seo teaches that a support member ((first body 1 + second body 2 + hinge unit 3), Fig. 2 [0070] shown below) is disposed on a bottom surface of a display layer (flexible display element 4 [0070]), which includes a joint portion (hinge unit 3 [0070]) and a flat portion (first body 1 + second body 2 [0070]), each overlapping the display layer 4 (Fig. 2 shown below), for the purpose of providing the desired combination of support and foldability ([0070]).
PNG
media_image3.png
188
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have disposed a support member including a joint portion and a flat portion, on the bottom surface of the display layer of the display device of Kishimoto, as modified by Nam, the joint portion and the flat portion each overlapping the display layer, and hence the first lower film that is disposed on the bottom surface of the display layer, and the first adhesive member associated with the first lower film, and having the first thickness that is larger than the second thickness of the second adhesive member that is associated with the second lower film, in order to obtain the desired combination of support and foldability, as taught by Seo.
Regarding claim 2, Kishimoto teaches that a storage modulus of the first adhesive member 120a is smaller (first storage modulus may be less [0062]) than a storage modulus of the second adhesive member 120b (second storage modulus [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Kishimoto teaches that the first adhesive member 120a and the second adhesive member 120b include a same material (silicone, urethane, acryl, or natural rubber [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Kishimoto teaches that the first lower film 100a and the second lower film 100b include a same material (any one material [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Kishimoto teaches that the display device 20 further comprises a printed circuit board (500 [0053]) disposed on a top surface of the second region NFA in the third direction, wherein the printed circuit board 500 partially overlaps the second adhesive member 120b in the third direction (Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-4, 8-16, 20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in Kishimoto there is no teaching or suggestion of the benefit of using the thicker adhesive for the support member which includes the joint portion and the flat portion, to help reduce tensile stress associated with the sliding operation, and that in Seo, there is no suggestion of a need to use a pair of differently thick adhesives.
Applicant is respectfully apprised that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In the instant case, Kishimoto is the primary reference which teaches the pair of differently thick adhesives, as described above, for the purpose of providing the desired pair of differently flexible/rigid properties ([0061]). Seo is the secondary reference which teaches the support member which includes the joint portion and the flat portion, for the purpose of providing the desired combination of support and foldability, and hence the motivation to modify Kishimoto.
Applicant argues using the entire laminate structure of Fig. 2A of Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant is respectfully apprised that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., the manner in which the support member 1400 is disposed on the bottom of the display layer 110 and including a joint portion 1410 and a flat portion 1420 each overlapping the first lower film 210, such that the support member 1400 is fixed to the structure of [10] using the thicker 510 of the two adhesive members 510 and 520, where the entire structure 10 of Fig. 2A of Applicant’s disclosure has the folded laminate shape) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular work week between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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 Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center 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.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
