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
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-19 and 21 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected as being vague and indefinite when the claim recites “the glass layer is locally thinned”, because it is not clear in which portion of the display the glass layer is thinned, it could be in rollable portion, non-rollable portion, or transition portion between rollable portion and non-rollable portion of the display.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2017/0060183, ‘183 hereafter) in view of Myoung (US 2020/0097047, of record, ‘047 hereafter) and chu et al (US 1019/0011954, ‘954 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11,18 and 21, ‘’183 discloses an electronic device comprising a housing (Fig. 5, item 12A and 12B, [0004]-[0005], [0012], [0040]); a display coupled to the housing, wherein the display has a rollable portion which naturally can be configured to be in an unrolled state, transition state and a rolled state (Fig.5, item 14 a flexible display can retracted into housing, [0040]-[0041]). The display comprises a pixel array having organic light emitting diodes being configured to display an image (Fig. 9, item 102, [0050]) and functional layer including transparent protective layer that overlaps the pixel array, wherein the image is viewable through the transparent protective layer with an inwardly facing surface that faces the pixel array and having an opposing outwardly facing surface, which naturally render the protective layer having an outward surface which receives a tensile stress from being rolled up or bent and an inward surface which receives a compressive stress from being rolled up or bent (Fig. 8, Fig. 9, item 104 or other layers as in Fig. 10, [0049]-[0054]). ‘183 also discloses that the protective layer in the rolled state has non-rollable portion that is planar (flat portion), rolled portion, naturally a bent portion adjacent to the rolled portion in the rolled state, and first and second edges; and the bent radius of bent portion being significantly larger that the bent radius of rolled portion (Fig. 5-Fig. 6 and Fig. 8, the layer between rolled state and flat state, naturally having an adjacent portion with a transition of bent angle from 0 of flat state to bent angle of the rolled state. In Fig. 5, the display portion in the housing 12B is planar even all other display portion is retracted into the housing 12A, the flexible display has two parallel edges in the rolling direction, Fig. 8). ‘183 does not specifically set forth that the rolled portion is rolled in an opposite direction to the bent portion. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘047 discloses a display device comprising a housing (Fig. 8, item 840, [0022])); a rollable display coupled to the housing which has unrolled state, transition state and a rolled state (Fig. 1 and Fig.8, item 110); and the display comprises rolled portion and a bent portion in the rolled state, wherein the rolled portion is rolled in a opposite direction to the bent portion (Fig. 1 and Fig. 8, display 110 rolled on the roller 120 and bent on the curved surface member 130, [0014], [0065]-[0091], one direction is clockwise and the other direction is counterclockwise, or vice versa viewing from the other end, satisfying the present claim 21) to reduce sustainable stress in one direction to the display panel and prevent the flatness of the display panel from deterioration ([0091]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply an bent portion having opposite bent direction to rolled portion of the display as taught by ‘047, to modify the display device of ‘183, in order to reduce sustainable stress and prevent the flatness of the display panel from deterioration. ‘183 does not expressly set forth that the glass layer being compressively stressed and tensile stress in rolled state; in the same filed of endeavor, ‘954 discloses a foldable (flexible) display ([0004], [0008], [0070]-[0099]) comprising a foldable glass element with primary surfaces having compressive stress (compressively stressed) to compensate the tensile stress from bending of the glass (Fig. 1 and 1B, item 50, [0008] [0009], [0075], 152]-[0156]) to render a device having improved transparency, stability and wear resistance and impact resistance ([0006]-[0007], [0162]-[0166] and Examples). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a glass layer as taught by ‘954, to modify the protective layer of ‘183, in order to render an flexible display having improved stability and wear resistance and impact resistance. ‘954 also discloses that the protective layer includes a polymer layer between glass layer and pixel array which includes a first polymer layer and second polymer layer (Fig. 1 and 1b, Layer 70 and 90), wherein the second layer (hardcoat layer ) can be harder and thinner than the first layer ([0081], thickness of the polymer layer 70 can be up to 200 microns, [0096]-[0097], thickness of hardcoat layer 90 can be 500 nm or less or 1 to 100 microns; hardcoat layer generally has higher hardness to provide scratch protection to inner polymer layer as well-known in the art).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 and 15-17 are allowable, and claims 7 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims 1 and 18 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for the allowance is that the prior art of record does not specifically disclose or fairly suggest an electronic device as recited in the present claims 1, 12 and 18, wherein the glass layer has different thickness regions as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/17/2026 have been fully considered and they are moot in view of new ground rejections as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 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 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights