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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 20 February 2026 of Applicant’s amendments in which claims 1 and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20210175462A1) in view of Allan et al. (US20230309368A1) and Bang (KR20180079096A) (English translation enclosed).
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches in Figs. 6-8 and 13 a display device comprising:
a display panel (110) including a front face portion (upper portion of 110 directly beneath 162) that is an area where an image is displayed (intended use), a bendable portion (portion of 110 having U-shaped bend) extending from the front face portion (upper portion of 110 directly beneath 162), and a pad (lower portion of 110 to the left of U-shaped bend) extending from the bendable portion (portion of 110 having U-shaped bend) and disposed below the front face portion (upper portion of 110 directly beneath 162) {¶0173}; and
a cushion plate (171, 172) disposed between the front face portion (upper portion of 110 directly beneath 162) and the pad (lower portion of 110 to the left of U-shaped bend) {¶0190},
wherein the cushion plate (171, 172) includes a porous substrate (172, e.g., air bubbles, foam) and an adhesive member (171) disposed on the porous substrate (172), wherein an upper surface of the adhesive member (171) has a flat shape {¶0192},
wherein the upper surface of the adhesive member (171) is disposed below the display panel (110) {Figs. 8, 13}.
Shin does not expressly teach wherein the upper surface of the adhesive member that faces the display panel has a flat shape.
However, Shin illustrates in Figs. 6-8 and 13 the upper surface of the adhesive member (171) that faces the display panel has a flat shape, but does not expressly disclose such in the specification.
In an analogous art, Allan teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0202] a surface (265) of an adhesive member (261) that faces a display panel (307) has a flat shape {the orientation of Allan’s Fig. 3 may be rotated such that the surface is an upper surface}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device based on the teachings of Allan – such that the upper surface of Shin’s adhesive member that faces the display panel has a flat shape – so as to increase the surface area of the adhesive layer being adhered and thereby increase the bonding force of adherence. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., surface, adhesive, display panel, flat shape) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Allan) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Shin as modified by Allan does not teach:
wherein the adhesive member further includes a flat portion and a plurality of fine protrusions protruding from the flat portion, the plurality of fine protrusions being disposed on a bottom surface opposite to the upper surface of the adhesive member, and
wherein the plurality of fine protrusions are in contact with an upper surface of the porous substrate.
In an analogous art, Bang teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0043] and [0046] an adhesive member (110) includes a flat portion (212) and a plurality of fine protrusions (314) protruding from the flat portion (212), the plurality of fine protrusions (314) being disposed on a bottom surface (lower surface) opposite to an upper surface (upper surface) of the adhesive member (110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan based on the teachings of Bang – such that Shin’s adhesive member further includes a flat portion and a plurality of fine protrusions protruding from the flat portion, the plurality of fine protrusions being disposed on a bottom surface opposite to the upper surface of the adhesive member – to act as a passage for discharging air bubbles or the like. Bang ¶0037. A consequence of this modification is that Bang’s plurality of fine protrusions (314) are in contact with an upper surface of Shin’s porous substrate (172).
Regarding claim 3, Shin as modified by Allan and Bang teaches the display device of claim 1, and Shin further teaches wherein the upper surface of the porous substrate (172) has irregularities (implicit because foam/air bubbles has/have irregularities).
Shin does not teach the plurality of fine protrusions are disposed to correspond to the irregularities of the porous substrate.
However, a consequence of the modification discussed with respect to claim 1 is that the plurality of Bang’s fine protrusions (114) are disposed to correspond to (e.g., face/be parallel to) the irregularities (implicit because foam/air bubbles has/have irregularities) of Shin’s porous substrate (172). And the motivation for this modification is identified with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Shin as modified by Allan and Bang teaches the display device of claim 1, but Shin does not teach wherein a size of the plurality of fine protrusions is in a range from 3 to 5 µm, and a pitch of the plurality of fine protrusions is in a range from 13 to 15 µm.
Bang teaches in paragraph [0037]: (1) [t]he size of the concave portion 113 and the convex portion 114 can be changed according to the design, (2) the concave portion 113 and the convex portion 114 are required to have a size enough to discharge bubbles, and (3) [i]t is important that the concave portion 113 and the convex portion 114 are maintained in a proper size since foreign materials from the outside can penetrate when the pattern of the embossed structure remains excessively after the bonding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan and Bang based on the further teachings of Bang so as to discover the optimal or workable ranges of size and pitch for Bang’s fine protrusions that achieve a balance between discharging bubbles and the penetration of foreign-matter – such that a size of the plurality of fine protrusions is in a range from 3 to 5 µm and a pitch of the plurality of fine protrusions is in a range from 13 to 15 µm – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Shin as modified by Allan and Bang teaches the display device of claim 1, but Shin does not teach wherein the plurality of fine protrusions have a circular shape, a square shape, or a rectangular shape.
Bang teaches in Fig. 4 the plurality of fine protrusions has a rectangular shape. This feature is a consequence of the modification identified with respect to claim 1 and the motivation for such is identified with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Shin as modified by Allan and Bang teaches the display device of claim 1, and Shin further teaches further comprising an embossed layer disposed on top of the adhesive member (171) {¶0191, adhesive 171 may have an embossing pattern to improve air bubbles or waterproof function when the adhesive 171 is attached onto the rear surface of the first back plate 101 a}.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Allan and Bang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20200211920A1).
Regarding claim 6, Shin as modified by Allan and Bang teaches the display device of claim 1, but Shin does not teach wherein the porous substrate contains a conductive metal and a plurality of pores located inside the conductive metal.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches in Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph [0032] a porous substrate (20) contains a conductive metal and a plurality of pores (PO) located inside the conductive metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan and Bang based on the teachings of Lee – such that the porous substrate contains a conductive metal and a plurality of pores located inside the conductive metal – to rigidly attach the metal layer … to the … adhesive layer [so] … the metal layer … may not be delaminated (or, dislodged) from the … adhesive layer … and the adhesive … may increase in structural stability. Lee ¶0024.
Regarding claim 7, Shin as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee teaches the display device of claim 6, but Shin does not teach wherein the adhesive member is further disposed within a plurality of pores disposed in an upper portion of the porous substrate.
Lee teaches in Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph [0032] an adhesive member (40) is further disposed within a plurality of pores (PO) disposed in an upper portion of a porous substrate (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee based on the further teachings of Lee – such that the adhesive member is further disposed within a plurality of pores disposed in an upper portion of the porous substrate – to rigidly attach the metal layer … to the … adhesive layer [so] … the metal layer … may not be delaminated (or, dislodged) from the … adhesive layer … and the adhesive … may increase in structural stability. Lee ¶0024.
Claim(s) 15-18, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Allan, Bang, and Lee.
Regarding claim 15, Shin teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel (110) having a first portion (upper portion of 110 directly beneath 162) including a pixel array (Fig. 1; ¶0057; array of P) for displaying (intended use) an image and a second portion (lower portion of 110 to the left of U-shaped bend) including a driving circuit (¶0097; 165) for driving (intended use) the pixel array (Fig. 1; array of P), wherein a third portion (portion of 110 having U-shaped bend) of the display panel (110) is bent such that the second portion (lower portion of 110 to the left of U-shaped bend) is disposed under the first portion (upper portion of 110 directly beneath 162) {¶0173}; and
a cushion plate (171, 172) disposed between a back surface of the first portion (upper portion of 110 directly beneath 162) of the display panel (110) and a back surface of the second portion (lower portion of 110 to the left of U-shaped bend) of the display panel (110) {¶0190},
wherein the cushion plate (171, 172) includes:
a porous substrate (172) formed with a plurality of pores (e.g., air bubbles, foam) {¶0192}, and
an adhesive member (171) including an adhesive component (component of 171) on the porous substrate (172), the adhesive member (171) closer to the display panel (110) than is the porous substrate (172) {¶0190; also, see Examiner’s Note below},
wherein the adhesive member (171) includes a upper surface and a bottom surface opposite to the upper surface {Figs. 8, 13},
wherein the upper surface of the adhesive member (171) disposed below the display panel (110) {Figs. 8, 13}.
Shin does not teach wherein the upper surface of the adhesive member that faces the display panel has a flat shape.
However, Shin illustrates in Figs. 6-8 and 13 the upper surface of the adhesive member (171) that faces the display panel has a flat shape, but does not expressly disclose such in the specification.
In an analogous art, Allan teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0202] a surface (265) of an adhesive member (261) that faces a display panel (307) has a flat shape {the orientation of Allan’s Fig. 3 may be rotated such that the surface is an upper surface}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device based on the teachings of Allan – such that the upper surface of Shin’s adhesive member that faces the display panel has a flat shape – so as to increase the surface area of the adhesive layer being adhered and thereby increase the bonding force of adherence. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., surface, adhesive, display panel, flat shape) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Allan) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Shin as modified by Allan does not teach:
wherein the bottom surface of the adhesive member includes a flat portion and a plurality of fine protrusions protruding from the flat portion, and
wherein the plurality of fine protrusions are in contact with the upper surface of the porous substrate.
Bang teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0043] and [0046] a bottom surface of an adhesive member (110) includes a flat portion (212) and a plurality of fine protrusions (314) protruding from the flat portion (212). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan based on the teachings of Bang – such that the bottom surface of Shin’s adhesive member includes a flat portion and a plurality of fine protrusions protruding from the flat portion – to act as a passage for discharging air bubbles or the like. Bang ¶0037. A consequence of this modification is that Bang’s plurality of fine protrusions (314) are in contact with the upper surface of Shin’s porous substrate (172).
Shin as modified by Allan and Bang does not teach wherein a surface roughness of an upper surface of the adhesive member is lower than a surface roughness of an upper surface of the porous substrate.
Lee teaches in Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph [0032] a surface roughness of an upper surface of the porous substrate (20) is comparatively great, e.g., with respect to the roughness of an adhesive member (50) {see Figs. 4 and 5; also, see Examiner’s Note below }. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan and Bang based on the teachings of Lee – such that a surface roughness of Shin’s porous substrate is great – to: (1) rigidly attach the metal layer … to the … adhesive layer [so] … the metal layer … may not be delaminated (or, dislodged) from the … adhesive layer … and the adhesive … may increase in structural stability. Lee ¶0024.
Bang teaches in paragraph [0037]: (1) [t]he size of the concave portion 113 and the convex portion 114 [of an adhesive member 115] can be changed according to the design, (2) the concave portion 113 and the convex portion 114 are required to have a size enough to discharge bubbles, and (3) [i]t is important that the concave portion 113 and the convex portion 114 are maintained in a proper size since foreign materials from the outside can penetrate when the pattern of the embossed structure remains excessively after the bonding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee based on the further teachings of Bang so as to discover the optimal or workable ranges of roughness for an upper surface of each of an adhesive member and a porous substrate satisfying the conditions of items (1) through (3) of the preceding sentence and the condition identified in the preceding paragraph – such that a surface roughness of the upper surface of the adhesive member is lower than a surface roughness of the upper surface of the porous substrate – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Examiner’s Note: “The Examiner is authorized to make a finding of relative dimensions that are, as here, clearly depicted in a drawing.” Ex parte Wright, 091818 USPTAB, 2017-001093 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 2018).
Regarding claim 16, Shin as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee teaches the display device of claim 15, but Shin does not teach wherein the upper surface of the porous substrate is formed with a plurality of concave and convex portions, and wherein the plurality of protrusions of the adhesive member disposed within one or more of the concave portions of the upper surface of the porous substrate.
Lee teaches in Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph [0032] an upper surface of the porous substrate (20) is formed with a plurality of concave and convex portions (e.g., created by POs), and wherein the plurality of protrusions (40 within POs, 40 and 50 are same material) of the adhesive member (50) are disposed within one or more of the concave portions (POs) of the upper surface of the porous substrate (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee based on the further teachings of Lee – such that the upper surface of the porous substrate is formed with a plurality of concave and convex portions, and wherein the plurality of protrusions of the adhesive member disposed within one or more of the concave portions of the upper surface of the porous substrate – to: (1) rigidly attach the metal layer … to the … adhesive layer [so] … the metal layer … may not be delaminated (or, dislodged) from the … adhesive layer … and the adhesive … may increase in structural stability. Lee ¶0024.
Regarding claim 17, Shin as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee teaches the display device of claim 15, and Shin further teaches wherein
the upper surface of the adhesive member (171) is formed with one or more embossed patterns {¶0191, adhesive 171 may have an embossing pattern}; or
the display device further includes an embossed layer disposed on the adhesive member formed with one or more embossed patterns {unselected alternative}.
Regarding claim 18, Shin as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee teaches the display device of claim 17, but Shin does not teach wherein the adhesive member is formed with a plurality of protrusions extending towards the porous substrate, and wherein a size and pitch of the one or more embossed patterns is larger than a size and pitch of the plurality of protrusions.
Lee teaches in Figs. 4 and 5 and paragraph [0032] an adhesive member (50) is formed with a plurality of protrusions (40, 40 and 50 are same material) extending towards the porous substrate (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee based on the further teachings of Lee – such that the adhesive member is formed with a plurality of protrusions extending towards the porous substrate – to: (1) rigidly attach the metal layer … to the … adhesive layer [so] … the metal layer … may not be delaminated (or, dislodged) from the … adhesive layer … and the adhesive … may increase in structural stability. Lee ¶0024.
Bang teaches in paragraph [0037]: (1) [t]he size of the concave portion 113 and the convex portion 114 [of an adhesive member 115] can be changed according to the design, (2) the concave portion 113 and the convex portion 114 are required to have a size enough to discharge bubbles, and (3) [i]t is important that the concave portion 113 and the convex portion 114 are maintained in a proper size since foreign materials from the outside can penetrate when the pattern of the embossed structure remains excessively after the bonding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee based on the further teachings of Bang so as to discover the optimal or workable ranges of size and pitch for Bang’s plurality of protrusions that achieve a balance between discharging bubbles and the penetration of foreign-matter – such that a size and pitch of the one or more embossed patterns is larger than a size and pitch of the plurality of protrusions – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 21, Shin as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee teaches the display device of claim 15, and Shin further teaches
wherein the adhesive member (171) of the cushion plate (171, 172) is in direct contact with a back plate (101a) disposed below the display panel (110) {¶0183}.
Regarding claim 22, Shin as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee teaches the display device of claim 15, but Shin does not teach wherein the adhesive member is formed of at least one of acrylic, silicone, epoxy, or urethane-based materials.
However, Shin teaches in paragraph [0199] an adhesive formed of acrylic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s display device as modified by Allan, Bang, and Lee based on the further teachings of Shin – such that the adhesive member is formed of at least one of acrylic, silicone, epoxy, or urethane-based materials – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yun et al. (US20210201711A1) teaches a flexible display device may include a display panel, including a display area, a non-display area and a bending area, bent in a rear direction so that one edge of the display panel has a predetermined curvature, a first back plate and a second back plate, disposed on a rear surface of the display panel, a cushion tape disposed on a rear surface of the first back plate, and a fixing tape, disposed between the cushion tape and the second back plate, made of an adhesive layer in the bending area. Accordingly, there is an effect of improving the quality of the flexible display device by reducing the peeling defect of the bending area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights