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 .
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, in the “Request for Continued Examination (RCE)” filed on 04/17/2026, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment of claim 1 in “Claims” filed on 04/17/2026 with the “Request for Continued Examination (RCE)” filed on 04/17/2026, have been acknowledged and entered by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-23 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 2-3, 14, and 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1, 4-13, and 15 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
1. The finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 in respect with the request for continued examination, in the “Request for Continued Examination (RCE)” filed on 08/09/2018, under 37 CFR 1.114
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 04/17/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following: Applicant's amendments of claim 1 necessitated the shift in new grounds of rejection detailed in sections below. The shift in grounds of rejection renders the Applicant's arguments moot.
Please see the analysis of rejection for claims below.
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1, 6-13, 15, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20200203641 A1; hereinafter Lee), in view of Cho et al. (US 20140374719 A1; hereinafter Cho), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0002+], and as cited below), comprising:
a flexible display device (100; Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3; see [0047]), including:
a display panel (110; Fig. 3; see [Abstract, 0025, 0045, 0047]) including an active area (101; Fig. 3; see [0047-0048]), a non-active area (102; Fig. 3; see [0048]), and a bending area (103; Fig. 3; see [0048]), the display panel (110; Fig. 3; see [Abstract, 0025, 0045, 0047]) having one edge that is bent in a rear direction, the one edge having a curvature (see Fig. 3);
a first back plate (302; Fig. 3; see [0078]) and a second back plate (306; Fig. 3; see [0078]) disposed on a rear surface of the display panel (110; Fig. 3; see [Abstract, 0025, 0045, 0047]);
a metal plate (304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) disposed on a rear surface of the first back plate (302; Fig. 3; see [0078]); and
(see below for “a coating layer disposed on”) an exposed rear edge of the metal plate (304; Fig. 3; see [0079]).
As noted above, Lee does not expressly disclose “a coating layer disposed on an exposed rear edge of an exposed rear edge of the metal plate”.
However, in the analogous art, Cho teaches an organic light emitting diode display device ([0003]), wherein (Fig. 5+; [0003+]) a photoresist layer (610; Fig. 16; [0081]) that comprises of an insulation material is on side surfaces and rear surface edges of the metal cap (600; Fig. 16; [0081]), where the metal cap (600; Fig. 16; [0081]) is over a protective layer (500; Fig. 16; [0066]) comprising of an adhesive material, and the photoresist layer (610; Fig. 16; [0081]) also covers a side edge of the protective layer (500; Fig. 16; [0066, 0080]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Cho’s insulative photoresist layer into Lee’s device, and thereby, modified Lee’s (by Cho) device will have a coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) disposed on an exposed rear edge of the metal plate (Lee 304; Fig. 3; see [0079]).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides an insulative photoresist layer on side surfaces and rear surface edges of the metal cap that provides insulative protection for the metal layer and can also help prevent an electrical short circuit between the metal cap and the pad portion (Cho [0081-0082]).
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches
wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) (see below for “is configured to increase reflectivity of”) the exposed rear edge of the metal plate (304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) (see below for “to improve optical recognition accuracy of”) the exposed rear edge of the metal plate (304; Fig. 3; see [0079]).
In regards to “wherein the coating layer is configured to increase reflectivity of the exposed rear edge of the metal plate to improve optical recognition accuracy of the exposed rear edge of the metal plate”, it is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of "i wherein the coating layer is configured to increase reflectivity of the exposed rear edge of the metal plate to improve optical recognition accuracy of the exposed rear edge of the metal plate” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. Furthermore, because the device of modified Lee (by Cho) has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Moreover, as per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches the structure of claim 1 as detailed above. Thus, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) is disposed on an edge surface of the metal plate (Lee 304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) in a quadrangular frame shape (in view of Cho; Fig. 16; [0081]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further comprising: an adhesive (Lee 303; Fig. 3; see [0073]) interposed between the metal plate (Lee 304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) and the first back plate (Lee 302; Fig. 3; see [0078]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 7.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the metal plate includes (Lee 304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) a cut-out area (Lee see Fig. 3; see area where layer 304 is shorter in length in the lateral direction when compared to layer 302) defined by a portion of side surfaces of the metal plate (Lee 304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) being removed.
In reference to the language in claim 8 referring to wherein the metal plate includes a cut-out area defined by a portion of side surfaces of the metal plate being removed (emphasis added), it is important to note that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly the limitation "the display module is configured to be torn along the dotted area when a force is applied thereto" is not patentable over prior art as the structure of the prior art cannot be differentiate from the structural limitation as claimed.
Therefore, in reference to the language in claim 8 referring to wherein the metal plate includes a cut-out area defined by a portion of side surfaces of the metal plate being removed, it is noted that modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all the structural elements in claim 8 according to the instant invention and that wherein the metal plate includes a cut-out area defined by a portion of side surfaces of the metal plate being removed does not affect the structure of the final device.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the cut-out area has a triangular shape, a quadrangular shape, a trapezoidal shape, or a semicircular shape (Lee see Fig. 3; see area where layer 304 is shorter in length in the lateral direction when compared to layer 302; quadrangular shape; in view of the shape of the cut-out area in [0245] and Figs. 8B and 11 of the instant invention).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the cut-out area (Lee see Fig. 3; see area where layer 304 is shorter in length in the lateral direction when compared to layer 302; quadrangular shape; in view of the shape of the cut-out area in [0245] and Figs. 8B and 11 of the instant invention is provided in a left end, a right end, an upper end, and a lower end of the flexible display device (100; Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3; see [0047]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 7.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) is disposed from the rear edge of the metal plate to side surfaces of the metal plate (Lee 304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) and the adhesive (Lee 303; Fig. 3; see [0079] in view of Cho 500; Fig. 16; [0066, 0080]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 7.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) is disposed from the rear edge of the metal plate to side surfaces of the metal plate (Lee 304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) and the adhesive (Lee 303; Fig. 3; see [0079] in view of Cho 500; Fig. 16; [0066, 0080]) and the rear surface of the first back plate (Lee 302; Fig. 3; see [0078]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 7.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) is disposed from the rear edge of the metal plate (Lee 304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) to side surfaces of the metal plate (Lee 304; Fig. 3; see [0079]) and the adhesive (Lee 303; Fig. 3; see [0079] in view of Cho 500; Fig. 16; [0066, 0080]), the rear surface of the first back plate (Lee 302; Fig. 3; see [0078]), and side surfaces of the first back plate (Lee 302; Fig. 3; see [0078]) and the display panel (110; Fig. 3; see [Abstract, 0025, 0045, 0047]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) is disposed in the non-active area (Lee 102; Fig. 3; see [0048] in view of Cho Fig. 16; [0081, 0061]) between the bending area (Lee 103; Fig. 3; see [0048] in view of Cho Fig. 16; [0081, 0061]) and the active area (Lee 101; Fig. 3; see [0047-0048] in view of Cho Fig. 16; [0081, 0061]) at the one edge, and is disposed in the non-active area (Lee 102; Fig. 3; see [0048] in view of Cho Fig. 16; [0081, 0061]) at a remaining edge.
Regarding claim 23, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) faces the second back plate (Lee 306; Fig. 3; see [0078]).
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20200203641 A1; hereinafter Lee), in view of Cho et al. (US 20140374719 A1; hereinafter Cho), in view of Tria et al. (US 20140366759 A1; hereinafter Tria).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) (see below for “includes engraved information”).
As noted above, modified Lee (by Cho) does not expressly disclose “wherein the coating layer includes engraved information”.
However, in the analogous art, Tria teaches patterned materials ([0002]), wherein ([0002+]) a non-relief image-forming back coat on the non-imaging side of the substrate that can be composed of a soft rubber or foam, or other compliant layer. In addition, this back coat can be reflective of relief image-forming radiation or transparent to it. If desired, the back coat can also be imaginable for example by laser-engraving to record specific information or metadata ([0112]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Tria’s back coat layer laser-engraved to record specific information or metadata into modified Lee (by Cho) device, and thereby, modified Lee’s (by Cho and Tria) device will have wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) includes engraved information (in view of Tria [0112]; back coat layer laser-engraved to record specific information or metadata).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a back coat that can also be imaginable for example by laser-engraving to record specific information or metadata (Tria [0112]).
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20200203641 A1; hereinafter Lee), in view of Cho et al. (US 20140374719 A1; hereinafter Cho), in view of Wu et al. (US 20180130825 A1; hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee (by Cho) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Lee (by Cho) further teaches wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) (see below for “is silicon monoxide (SiO)”).
As noted above, modified Lee (by Cho) does not expressly disclose “wherein the coating layer is silicon monoxide (SiO)”, though modified Lee (by Cho) does teach that the the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) comprises of insulative material.
However, in the analogous art, Wu teaches a pixel array ([0002]), wherein (Fig. 2+; [0002+]) a protective layer (420; Fig. 4A; [0034]) covers an SE electrode, where the protective layer (420; Fig. 4A; [0034]) comprises of silicon monoxide (SiO).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the insulative material of the coating layer modified Lee (by Cho) with the insulative material of Wu’s protective layer, and thereby, modified Lee’s (by Cho and Wu) device will have wherein the coating layer (in view of Cho 610; Fig. 16; [0081]) is silicon monoxide (SiO) (in view of Fig. 4A; [0034]; silicon monoxide (SiO)).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lee in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a protective layer comprising of silicon monoxide (Wu [0034]), that has strong insulative properties and will provide further insulation to the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights