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
Status of Claims
Applicant's addition of claim 23 in “Claims - 12/03/2025” with “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject - 12/03/2025”, have been acknowledged 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This office action considers claims 1-23 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 2-3, 14, and 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1, 4-13, 15, and 23 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments “Remarks - 12/03/2025 - Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” with the “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject” filed on 12/03/2025, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following:
Examiner respectively disagrees with Applicant’s arguments see i) Forbes does not teach or suggest "The teachings of Lee and Cho are in conflict with each other with respect to the metal layer such that there is no motivation to combine the references and arrive at the features of claim 1. In Lee, the metal layer is under the display for EMI shielding. In Cho, the metal layer is at the top of the stack for sealing. Lee considers the problem of sealing to be solved by the cover window 146 and similar structures at the top of its stack. Thus, one of skill in the art would have no reason to include the metal cap 600 of Cho into Lee to improve sealing. Moreover, adding a metal cap 600 at the top of the stack in Lee based on motivation from Cho would disregard Lee's express teaching to include the metal layer under the display panel for EMI shielding. On the other hand, adding only the photoresist layer 610 from Cho to the metal layer of Lee would disregard Cho's express teaching to locate the metal cap 600 and photoresist layer 610 at the top of the layer stack for sealing. In either case, there is no motivation for the combination", iii) “Still further, Cho states that the photoresist layer 610 is provided to prevent deterioration of the image quality caused by electrical short circuits. Cho, [0095]. Lee teaches that the metal layer is included for EMI shielding and provides no suggestion that adding an additional layer, such as photoresist layer 610 from Cho, would improve the EMI shielding effect of the metal layer. Or, in other words, there is no motivation for further modifying the metal layer of Lee to include a photoresist layer when there is no expected benefit to EMI shielding disclosed in either reference. Instead, Cho includes the photoresist layer 610 for a different purpose and at a different location in the stack that would lead one of skill in the art away from such a modification”, iv) “In any event, neither reference contemplates the reason for including the coating layer on the metal layer that is provided in the present disclosure. The metal plate 168 of the present disclosure is disposed on the rear side of the display panel and serves primarily for rear-side protection, mechanical reinforcement, heat dissipation, or grounding. The metal plate 168 does not perform sealing or short-circuit-prevention functions. As discussed above, the specific limitations of claim 1 require that the back plates be on a rear surface of the display panel and the metal plate be on a rear surface of the first back plate. Thus, both the technical purpose and positional context of the metal plate 168 fundamentally differ from those of the metal cap 600 of Cho and Lee is silent regarding any coating on the metal layer and only contemplates EMI shielding. As a result, the rejection is based on improper hindsight reasoning using teachings only found in Applicant's disclosure, which cannot sustain a rejection under Section 103” (remarks on pages 6-8) because of the following:
In regards to i), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that “Thus, one of skill in the art would have no reason to include the metal cap 600 of Cho into Lee to improve sealing” as the Examiner did not incorporate the metal cap 600 of Cho into the Lee’s device. On page 5 of the “Non-Final Rejection” filed on 10/16/2025 the Examiner states the following “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”. Also on page 5 of the “Non-Final Rejection” filed on 10/16/2025 the Examiner states the following “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”. Thus, the Examiner’s main motivation to incorporate the insulative photoresist layer was to provide insulative protection to a metal layer within a display device.
In regards to ii), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that “Lee teaches that the metal layer is included for EMI shielding and provides no suggestion that adding an additional layer, such as photoresist layer 610 from Cho, would improve the EMI shielding effect of the metal layer. Or, in other words, there is no motivation for further modifying the metal layer of Lee to include a photoresist layer when there is no expected benefit to EMI shielding disclosed in either reference. Instead, Cho includes the photoresist layer 610 for a different purpose and at a different location in the stack that would lead one of skill in the art away from such a modification". On page 5 of the “Non-Final Rejection” filed on 10/16/2025 the Examiner states the following “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”. Thus, the Examiner’s main motivation to incorporate the insulative photoresist layer was to provide insulative protection to a metal layer within a display device.
In regards to iii), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that “Lee teaches that the metal layer is included for EMI shielding and provides no suggestion that adding an additional layer, such as photoresist layer 610 from Cho, would improve the EMI shielding effect of the metal layer. Or, in other words, there is no motivation for further modifying the metal layer of Lee to include a photoresist layer when there is no expected benefit to EMI shielding disclosed in either reference. Instead, Cho includes the photoresist layer 610 for a different purpose and at a different location in the stack that would lead one of skill in the art away from such a modification". On page 5 of the “Non-Final Rejection” filed on 10/16/2025 the Examiner states the following “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”. Thus, the Examiner’s main motivation to incorporate the insulative photoresist layer was to provide insulative protection to a metal layer within a display device.
In regards to iv), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that “Thus, one of skill in the art would have no reason to include the metal cap 600 of Cho into Lee to improve sealing” as the Examiner did not incorporate the metal cap 600 of Cho into the Lee’s device. On page 5 of the “Non-Final Rejection” filed on 10/16/2025 the Examiner states the following “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”. Also on page 5 of the “Non-Final Rejection” filed on 10/16/2025 the Examiner states the following “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”. Thus, the Examiner’s main motivation to incorporate the insulative photoresist layer was to provide insulative protection to a metal layer within a display device.
In regards to iv), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that “Thus, both the technical purpose and positional context of the metal plate 168 fundamentally differ from those of the metal cap 600 of Cho and Lee is silent regarding any coating on the metal layer and only contemplates EMI shielding. As a result, the rejection is based on improper hindsight reasoning using teachings only found in Applicant's disclosure, which cannot sustain a rejection under Section 103”. As stated on page 5 of the “Non-Final Rejection” filed on 10/16/2025 the Examiner states the following “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”. Thus, the Examiner’s main motivation to incorporate the insulative photoresist layer was to provide insulative protection to a metal layer within a display device.
As Applicant's other arguments, for dependent claims, are based on the patentability of the claim 1, no further response is put forward.
Please see the rejection of 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).
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]).
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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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