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 Arguments
Applicant's argument on page 10 with respect to improper rejection under 102(a)(1) has been considered, and is persuasive. Examiner acknowledges typographical error referenced in the header. The correct reference should be cited under 102(a)(2). See correction below. Examiner further acknowledges applicant’s right to assert the common ownership exception under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(c) to preclude use of the Kim reference US Patent 11,557,230 as prior art. The Office hereby notes that a statement to formally preclude Kim should begin on a separate sheet, must not be directed to other matters (37 CFR 1.4(c)) and signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Therefore, the previous rejection under 102(a)(2) using Kim has been maintained, pending Applicant's claim to common ownership statement is properly filed.
Applicant’s remarks on pages 11-15, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to independent claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot, because the new ground of rejection incorporates a new interpretation of the claims that rely on the same combination of prior art, and is considered to teach the newly amended language specifically challenged. Examiner has clarified and/or expanded some pertinent parts of the amended claims, such as the display areas and hole(s). Note, newly presented amendment to independent claims 1 and 20 are not sufficient in overcoming Kim in its current form. Claims 3-4, 8 and 10-11 depend either indirectly or directly from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for at least the same reason. Please see revised rejection of these claims below.
Upon further consideration, however, arguments on page 16-17 toward dependent claims 12-18 were considered and are persuasive. Kim does not teach features of the functional layer(s) and the third hole in the manner claimed and is found to contain allowable subject matter identified below. The previous rejection for these claims have been withdrawn.
Likewise, independent claim 19 contains similar language including particular placement of the functional layers and third hole aforementioned, that is distinct from Kim, in combination with the newly amended language. The previous rejection for this claim has also been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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}(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim 11,557,230.
Regarding claim 1. Kim discloses a display device (Figs 1A-7), comprising: a display panel (1000, Fig 1A) comprising a folding area (1000A2, Fig 1A) and a non-folding area (1000A1 or 1000A3, Fig 1A) disposed adjacent to the folding area (see Fig 1A); and a first support plate (800 and/or including 600, 700, Figs 2) disposed on a lower portion of the display panel (as depicted in Fig 2), wherein the non-folding area comprises: a first display area (100SA3, Fig 4); and a second display area (100SA1 including 100SA2, Fig 4) disposed adjacent to the first display area (see Fig 4) and having a higher light transmittance than the first display area (100SA1 including 100SA2 considered to have higher light transmittance through larger hole of at least 101H compared to hole corresponding to 100SA3, see Fig 5), wherein each of the first display area and the second display area displays an image (col 7 lines 39-43), wherein a first hole (103H, Fig 5) overlapping the second display area displaying the image (see Figs 4, 5) is defined in the first support plate in the non-folding area (see Fig 5), and a size of the first hole is larger than a size of the second display area in displaying the image (at 103H1, for example, Fig 8) in a plan view (see Fig 5 with respect to Fig 8).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein an edge of the first hole is disposed more outward than an edge of the second display area (see Figs 4-6).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein a plurality of openings (611, Fig 2) are defined in a folding plate (600, Fig 2) of the first support plate (610, Fig 2) overlapping the folding area (1000A2, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the display device of claim 5, further comprising: a cover layer (630, Fig 2) disposed on a lower portion of the folding plate (Fig 2), wherein the cover layer covers the openings (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, further comprising: a barrier layer (520, Fig 6) disposed between the display panel and the first support plate (as depicted Fig 6); and a plurality of adhesive layers (such as 510 or 540, for example, Fig 6) respectively disposed between the display panel and the barrier layer (as depicted Fig 6), and between the barrier layer and the first support plate (as depicted in Fig 6), wherein a second hole (101H2, Fig 6) is defined in the barrier layer and the adhesive layers (Fig 6), wherein a size of the second hole is larger than the size of the second display area in the plan view (see Fig 6).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the display device of claim 7, wherein the size of the second hole is larger than the size of the first hole in the plan view (at least 101H is larger than 103H, Fig 5).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses an electronic device (Title), comprising: a display device (Figs 1A-7) in which a first transmissive area (360, 362, Figs 4, 6) through which an optical signal passes is defined (signal coming off 2100U, Fig 6); an electro-optical device (2100, Fig 6) disposed below the display device (Fig 4), overlapping the first transmissive area (Fig 6), and configured to receive the optical signal (col 6 lines 25-27); and a case (1000NA, Fig 1A) configured to accommodate the display device and the electro-optical device (Fig 1A), wherein the display device comprises: a display panel (1000, Fig 1A) comprising a folding area (1000A2, Fig 1A) and a non-folding area (1000A1 or 1000A3, Fig 1A) disposed adjacent to the folding area (Fig 1A); and a first support plate (800 and/or including 600, 700, Figs 2) disposed on a lower portion of the display panel (as depicted in Fig 2), wherein the non-folding area comprises: a first display area (100SA3, Fig 4); and a second display area (100SA1 including 100SA2, Fig 4) disposed adjacent to the first display area (see Fig 4) and having a higher light transmittance than the first display area(100SA1 including 100SA2 considered to have higher light transmittance through larger hole of at least 101H compared to hole of 100SA3, see Fig 5), wherein each of the first display area and the second display area displays an image (col 7 lines 39-43) wherein a first hole (103H, Fig 5) overlapping the second display area displaying the image (see Figs 4, 5) is defined in the first support plate In the non-folding area (see Fig 5), and a size of the first hole is larger than a size of the second display area in displaying the image (at 103H1, Fig 8) in a plan view (see Fig 5 with respect to Fig 8).
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 11,557,230.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the display device of claim 2, except wherein a distance between the edge of the first hole and the edge of the second display area is about 0.2 to about 0.7 times a distance between a center of the second display area and the edge of the second display area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a distance between the edge of the first hole and the edge of the second display area at a certain range, as claimed, in order to have a desired spatial layout for the device, thereby optimizing component dimensions that develop favorable spatial disposition, and, also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 11,557,230 in view of Lee 2020/0303677.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, except wherein the first display area comprises a plurality of first pixels, and the second display area comprises: a plurality of second pixels; and a plurality of transmissive portions disposed around each of the second pixels, wherein the first display area does not comprise the transmissive portions.
Lee, however teaches wherein a first display area (OA, Fig 7) comprises a plurality of first pixels (OA includes camera module of sensor which inherently comprise pixels, par 0075), and the second display area (DA, Fig 7) comprises: a plurality of second pixels (P, Fig 7); and a plurality of transmissive portions
(spacing/portions separating P - not labeled, Fig 7) disposed around each of the second pixels (as depicted Fig 7), wherein the first display area does not comprise the transmissive portions (OA portion is fully occupied by component and does not include spacing or separation, Fig 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the first and second display areas of Kim to include pixels and transmissive portions as claimed, and, as taught by Lee, in order to allow for stackable light
emitting units capable of minimizing unwanted occurrence where light emitting elements having a common layer emit light due to leakage current, such a modification would realize improved efficiency and lifespan characteristics.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 11,557,230 in view of Kim 2021/0068276 (hereinafter, Kim II).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the display device of claim 7, wherein an adhesive layer among the plurality of adhesive layers is disposed between the first support plate and the barrier layer (at least 510 considered between barrier plate and first support plate, Fig 6).
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly teaching that the adhesive layer overlaps the non-folding area and does not overlap the folding area.
Kim II however teaches an adhesive layer (123, Fig 6B) that overlaps a non-folding area (area outside 'FR', Fig 6B) and does not overlap a folding area (see Fig 6D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the adhesive layer of Kim to not overlap of the folding region, as taught by Kim II, in order to prevent the pattern from openings of the support plate from being transferred to a surface of the display panel when the folding area is folded and unfolded repeatedly, thereby improving reliability.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 11,557,230 in view of Woo 11,432,410.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the display device of claim 7, except wherein the size of the second hole is about the same as the size of the first hole in the plan view.
Woo however teaches wherein the size of a second hole (at w3, Fig 8) is about the same as the size of a first hole (157h1, Fig 8) in the plan view (Fig 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first/second hole of Kim about the same size in a plan view, as taught by Woo, in order to accommodate depending on the shape of a component/camera sensor module, the size or shape of the holes may be varied depending on purpose or utility,
thereby improving functionality.
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the display device of claim 7, except wherein the size of the second hole is smaller than the size of the first hole in the plan view.
Woo however teaches wherein the size of a second hole (at W22, Fig 3) is smaller than the size of the first hole (at W21, Fig 3) in the plan view (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second hole of Kim to be smaller than size of first hole in a plan view, as taught by Woo, in order to accommodate depending on the shape of a component/camera sensor module, the size or shape of the holes may be varied depending on purpose or
utility, thereby improving functionality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The dependent claims listed below, in combination with the remaining elements of the independent claim(s) from which they directly/indirectly depend, are not taught, or adequately suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 12. The display device of claim 7, further comprising: a plurality of functional layers disposed on a lower portion of the first support plate, wherein a third hole is defined in the functional layers, wherein a size of the third hole is larger than the size of the second display area in the plan view. *Claims 13-18 depend directly from claim 12 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reason.
Claim 19 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter– Upon further consideration, amended claim 19 now includes or adequately recites the allowable subject matter, i.e., A display device, comprising: a display panel comprising a folding area and a non-folding area disposed adjacent to the folding area; a first support plate disposed on a lower portion of the display panel; a first functional layer disposed between the display panel and the first support plate; and a second functional layer disposed on a lower portion of the first support plate, wherein the non-folding area comprises: a first display area; and a second display area disposed adjacent to the first display area and having a higher light transmittance than the first display area, wherein each of the first display area and the second display area displays an image, wherein a first hole overlapping the second display area is displaying the image defined in the first support plate, a second hole overlapping the second display area is defined in the first functional layer, and a third hole overlapping the second display area is defined in the second functional layer, and in a plan view, a size of each of the first, second, and third holes is larger than a size of the second display area displaying the image, and the size of the first hole is different from the size of each of the second and third holes. These limitations, in combination with the remaining elements, are not taught or adequately suggested in the prior art of record, nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the prior art to address said deficiencies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO 892.
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 RASHEN E MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-8852. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/RASHEN E MORRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841