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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant amendment has been fully considered. The amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections, hence 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is withdrawn for claims 1-14.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 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. The office now relies on newly added references Park (US 20190207133 A1) and Dong (US 20210165454 A1) to reject the amended claim 1 and 14, and accordingly their corresponding dependent claims.
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 14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "…each of the plurality of second openings has a second width less than the first width" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this is interpretated as claim 14 requiring a plurality of second openings defined in the same support part, keeping it consistent with the specification and claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190207133 A1) in view of Dong (US 20210165454 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 1 (Currently amended), Park discloses a display device comprising:
a substrate (Park, Fig. 5, substrate SUB) including a first area (A1) including a display area (DA) and a non-display area (NDA), a second area which is a non-display area (Park, Fig. 5 and ¶ [0050], A2 is non display area), and a bending area which is a non- display area and disposed between the non-display area of the first area and the second area (BA is the area in which no image is displayed, thus is non-display area between NDA and A2);
and a support part which is disposed under the first area and the second area of the substrate (protection film PF1 disposed under substrate SUB in the first area A1 and second area A2) and in which a first opening is defined (opening portion OP1), wherein the first opening overlaps the bending area (OP1 overlaps bending area BA),
a light-emitting element disposed on the first area (Park, Fig. 1, pixels/light-emitting elements PX is disposed in display area DA of first area A1 (also PXL in Fig. 5));
a driver disposed on the second area (data driver DD is disposed on second area A2);
wherein the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area (BA is a non-display area, therefore the light-emitting element PX/PXL is not disposed on the bending area),
Park is silent regarding,
a plurality of second openings are defined in the same support part, and the plurality of second openings overlaps the first area, wherein the first opening has a first width and each of the plurality of second openings has a second width less than the first width.
However, Dong teaches, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0053] – [0057], a support substrate for a flexible display device having a bending area 10, a transition area 30 adjacent to the bending area, and a non-bending area 20, wherein the support substrate includes a plurality of first through holes 11 in bending area 10 and a plurality of second through holes 31 in the transition area 30. Dong teaches that the area ratio of the openings decreases from the bending area toward the non-bending area and the size of the through holes may be reduced by reducing length or width of the through holes. Dong further teaches that a hole length X1 of the first through holes in bending area 10 is greater than a hole length X2 of the second through holes in transition area 30. Thus, Dong teaches providing larger openings at the bending region and a plurality of smaller openings in an adjacent region of the same support substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protection/support film PF1 of Park to include a plurality of smaller second openings in the portion of PF1 underlying first area A1 adjacent to bending area BA, as taught by Dong, while retaining Park’s larger opening OP1 overlapping bending area BA. Dong teaches that progressively reducing the hallow area/opening size away from the bending region progressively increases rigidity, buffers bending stress, reduces stress concentration at the boundary between regions, and improves bending durability and reliability (Dong, ¶ [0054]).
Re: Claim 4 (Original), Park and Dong disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Park further discloses,
wherein the support part is directly attached to the substrate (Park, Fig 5, protective film PF1 is disposed directly beneath substrate SUB with no intervening layer between them).
Re: Claim 5 (Original), Park and Dong disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Park further discloses,
wherein the bending area is bent such that the second area is disposed under the first area (Park, Fig 5, the bending area BA is bent so that the second area A2 is disposed below the first area A1).
Re: Claim 7 (Original), Park and Dong disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Dong further discloses,
wherein the plurality of second openings is arranged in a first direction and extend in a second direction crossing the first direction (Dong teaches, in Fig. 1, each row of second through holes 31 extends in a first direction and a plurality of rows of 31 are arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction),
and wherein the support part includes a plurality of support bars separated from each other by the plurality of second openings (Dong forms the second through holes 31 through a continuous support substrate and identifies portions of the support substrate between adjacent through holes. Accordingly, the elongated portions of the support substrate remaining between adjacent rows of second through holes constitute a plurality of support bars separated from one another by the second openings. In the modified Park/Dong structure of claim 1, these support bars are disposed in the portion of the support part underlying and overlapping first area A1).
Claims 2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190207133 A1) in view of Dong (US 20210165454 A1) further in view of Shin (US 20200084897 A1).
Re: Claim 2 (Original), Park and Dong disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Both Park and Dong are silent regarding,
further comprising: a resin layer disposed in each of the plurality of second openings.
However, Shin teaches a resin layer disposed in each of the plurality of second openings (Shin, Fig 13A, ¶ 0212], back cover 110 having plurality of openings and a protective resin 1370 disposed on the back cover, wherein the protective resin 1370 fills the plurality of openings, including the plurality of second openings 112).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Shin’s protective resin in each of the plurality of second openings of the modified Park/Dong support part in order to provide a flatter support surface and reduce visibility of the opening pattern through the display panel, as taught by Shin in ¶ [0212].
Re: Claim 6 (Original), Park and Dong disclose all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Both Park are Dong are silent regarding,
wherein the first area is rolled and unrolled.
However, Shin teaches wherein the first area is rolled and unrolled (Shin teaches, in Figs. 1A- 1B and ¶ [0052], that the rollable display device including a flexible display panel and a roller, wherein the flexible display panel is wound around the roller when stored and is unwound from the roller for use).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the flexible first area A1 of the modified Park/Dong display to be rolled and unrolled, as taught by Shin, in order to permit compact storage of the display while allowing the display area to be extended for used.
Claims 3, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190207133 A1) in view of Dong (US 20210165454 A1) further in view of Shin (US 20200084897 A1) and further in view of Ha (US 20210036069 A1).
Re: Claim 3 (Original), Park, Dong and Shin disclose all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends.
Park, Dong and Shin are silent regarding,
wherein the resin layer includes a first surface facing the substrate and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the resin layer, wherein the support part includes a first surface facing the substrate and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the support part, and wherein the second surface of the resin layer is closer to the substrate than the second surface of the support part.
However, Ha teaches
wherein the resin layer includes a first surface facing the substrate and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the resin layer (Ha, Fig 9A, 9B, ¶¶ [0184]- [0187], Ha teaches resin FXM2 filling the support opening and coupling the lower surface of the display module DM (i.e, substate) to the fingerprint sensor FPS. Thus, the upper/first surface of the resin faces the substrate (DM/panel) and the opposite/lower surface faces the component (FPS) within opening OP2),
wherein the support part includes a first surface facing the substrate and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the support part (Ha, Fig 9A, ¶ [0150], support part BOSS is disposed adjacent to the lower surface of DM (its upper/first surface facing the substrate) and is bonded to the upper surface of the first rigid plate MTL1 on the opposite side (its lower/second surface)), and
wherein the second surface of the resin layer is closer to the substrate than the second surface of the support part (¶ [0185], FXM2 is disposed between DM and FPS, while FPS is disposed on MTL1 within opening OP2. BOSS is bonded to MTL1. Thus, the lower/second surface of FXM2 lies above the BOSS-MTL1 interface and is closer to DM than the support part's (BOSS) second surface).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the resin in the openings of the modified Park/Dong/Shin support part with the relative surface arrangement taught by Ha in order to accommodate an underlying component within the opening while maintaining attachment and support of the display module.
Re: Claim 9 (Original), Park and Dong disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Both Park and Dong are silent regarding,
wherein the support part includes a surface facing the substrate and including: a first partial surface adjacent to the first opening; and a second partial surface disposed around the first partial surface, and wherein the first partial surface is disposed at a different height from a height of the second partial surface.
However, Ha teaches wherein the support part includes a surface facing the substrate (Ha, Fig 11A, ¶ [0202], Ha teaches support member BOSS_1 disposed beneath the display module DM; its DM-facing top surface (including both the inner ledge and surrounding region) contacts the lower surface of DM)
and including: a first partial surface adjacent to the first opening (Fig 11A, ¶ [0155], Ha teaches that the support member includes its own opening OP2 and a component e.g., may be disposed within OP2- i.e., an opening in the support. In Fig 11A, the inner DM-facing ledge of the support BOSS_1 that borders the opening region is the first partial surface adjacent to the support's opening OP2);
and a second partial surface disposed around the first partial surface (Ha Fig 11A, Ha teaches an outer DM-facing region of the support that surrounds the inner ledge, i.e., second partial surface disposed around the first), and
wherein the first partial surface is disposed at a different height from a height of the second partial surface (Fig 11A shows a step/level difference on the support's DM-facing side: the inner ledge adjacent to the opening is lower than the outer surrounding region (two distinct levels). Thus, the first partial surface is at different height from the second partial surface).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt Ha's stepped DM-facing surface around the support opening in the modified Park/Dong support part in order to stably support the display module over to the opening and prevent or reduce deformation (Ha, ¶ [0198]).
Re: Claim 10 (Previously presented), Park, Dong and Ha disclose all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends.
Ha further teaches,
wherein the support part includes a first surface facing the substrate (Ha, Fig 7, Fig 11A, teaches the support's DM-facing top surface (BOT) faces/contacts the substrate (DM)) and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the support part (Fig 7, Ha teaches the opposite (bottom) surface of the support is bonded to the rigid plate beneath e.g., BDP/BIL/CP), and
wherein a gap between the first partial surface and the second surface of the support part is gradually decreased toward the first opening (Ha, Fig 7, ¶ [0155], Ha teaches a rigid-plate connection portion (CP) that is inclined upward towards the opening region. Because the support's bottom sits on this inclined CP, the perpendicular distance (thickness) between the first partial surface (inner DM-facing ledge adjacent to OP2) and the bottom surface of the support continuously (gradually) decreases as one moves towards the support opening -i.e., the gap is gradually decreased towards the first opening).
Re: Claim 11 (Original), Park, Dong and Ha disclose all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends.
Ha further teaches,
wherein the substrate contacts the first partial surface (Ha teaches that the support's DM-facing top surface (BOT) contacts the lower surface of the display module DM. In Fig 11A, the first partial surface is the inner top ledge of the support (BOSS_1) adjacent to the support opening OP2 on the DM-facing side. Because Ha states that the DM-facing top of the support (which includes both the inner ledge and the surrounding region) contacts the DM, it follows that the substrate contacts the first partial surface (the inner ledge)).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190207133 A1) in view of Dong (US 20210165454 A1) and further in view of Huang (US 20240015902 A1).
Re: Claim 8 (Original), Park and Dong disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Both Park and Dong are silent regarding,
wherein the plurality of second openings includes: a plurality of first sub-openings arranged in an hth row where h is a natural number; and a plurality of second sub-openings arranged in an (h+1)th row and staggered with respect to the plurality of first sub-openings.
However, Huang teaches
wherein the plurality of second openings includes: a plurality of first sub-openings arranged in an hth row where h is a natural number (Huang Fig 3-5, ¶ [0013], teaches first openings 11 each comprising of two first sub-openings 111, wherein the first sub-openings 111 are arranged in rows, the first sub-openings 111 in odd numbered rows are aligned with each other, and the first sub-openings 11 in even-numbered rows are aligned with each other);
and a plurality of second sub-openings arranged in an (h+1) th row and staggered with respect to the plurality of first sub-openings (Huang further teaches that the first sub-openings 111 in any two adjacent rows are distributed in a staggered manner; thus, the first sub-openings 111 in one row correspond to the claimed first sub-openings arranged in an hth row, and the first sub-openings 111 in an adjacent row corresponding to the claimed second sub-openings arranged in an (h+1)th row and staggered with respect to the first sub-openings).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt Huang’s staggered pattern in the Park/Dong support in order to achieve more uniform distribution of stress received by the support plate during bending, and prevent the stress from being concentrated in a certain place (Huang, ¶ [0049]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190207133 A1) in view of Dong (US 20210165454 A1) further in view of Park (US 20210280806 A1).
Re: Claim 12 (Original), Park and Dong disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Park and Dong are silent regarding
further comprising: an auxiliary adhesive layer disposed between the first area and the support part.
However Park’806 teaches
further comprising: an auxiliary adhesive layer disposed between the first area and the support part (Park, Fig 2B, Park teaches supporter PTL disposed below display module DM and seventh adhesive layer AL7 disposed between cushion layer CUL and supporter PTL. Thus, adhesive layer AL7 is disposed in the stack between the first-area portion of display module DM and supporter PTL.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an adhesive layer between the first area and the modified Park/Dong support part, as taught by Park’806, in order to attach and secure the support structure to the overlying display stack.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190207133 A1) in view of Dong (US 20210165454 A1) further in view of Park’806 (US 20210280806 A1) and further in view of Jung (US 20170084635 A1).
Re: Claim 13 (Original), Park, Dong and Park’806 disclose all the limitations of claim 12 on which this claim depends.
Park, Dong and Park’806 are silent regarding,
wherein the auxiliary adhesive layer includes amorphous silicon or aluminum oxide.
However, Jung teaches
wherein the auxiliary adhesive layer includes amorphous silicon or aluminum oxide (Jung, ¶ [0032]) the display device includes the adhesive layer 105 including aluminum oxide disposed on the base substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Jung’s taught aluminum oxide as the material for auxiliary adhesive layer of Park’806 in order to increase an adhesion strength between the supported display structure and the underlying support.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190207133 A1) in view of Dong (US 20210165454 A1) further in view of Sim (US 20210408445 A1).
Re: Independent Claim 14 (Currently amended), Park discloses an electronic device comprising a display device which provides an image (Park, Fig. 1, display apparatus 100), the display device comprising:
a substrate (Park, Fig. 5, substrate SUB) including a first area (A1) including a display area (DA) and a non- display area (NDA), a second area which is a non-display area (Park, Fig. 5 and ¶ [0050], A2 is non display area), and a bending area which is a non-display area and disposed between the non-display area of the first area and the second area (BA is the area in which no image is displayed, thus is non-display area between NDA and A2);
a pixel disposed on the first area (Park, Fig. 1, pixels/light-emitting elements PX is disposed in display area DA of first area A1);
a driver disposed on the second area (data driver DD is disposed on second area A2);
wherein the light-emitting element is not disposed on the bending area (BA is a non-display area, therefore the light-emitting element PX/PXL is not disposed on the bending area);
and
a support part which is disposed under the first area and the second area of the substrate (protection film PF1 disposed under substrate SUB in the first area A1 and second area A2) and in which a first opening overlapping the bending area is defined (opening portion OP1 overlaps bending area BA),
the support part including: a surface facing the substrate and including:
a first partial surface adjacent to the first opening; and a second partial surface around the first partial surface (Park, protection film PF1 includes a substrate facing surface surrounding opening OP1; the portion of the surface immediately bordering OP1 corresponds to the first partial surface, and the remaining surrounding portion of the surface corresponds to the second partial surface).
Park is silent regarding,
wherein the first opening has a first width and each of the plurality of second openings has a second width less than the first width.
However, Dong teaches, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0053] – [0057], a support substrate for a flexible display device having a bending area 10, a transition area 30 adjacent to the bending area, and a non-bending area 20, wherein the support substrate includes a plurality of first through holes 11 in bending area 10 and a plurality of second through holes 31 in the transition area 30. Dong teaches that the area ratio of the openings decreases from the bending area toward the non-bending area and the size of the through holes may be reduced by reducing length or width of the through holes. Dong further teaches that a hole length X1 of the first through holes in bending area 10 is greater than a hole length X2 of the second through holes in transition area 30. Thus, Dong teaches providing larger openings at the bending region and a plurality of smaller openings in an adjacent region of the same support substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protection/support film PF1 of Park to include a plurality of smaller second openings in the portion of PF1 underlying first area A1 adjacent to bending area BA, as taught by Dong, while retaining Park’s larger opening OP1 overlapping bending area BA. Dong teaches that progressively reducing the hallow area/opening size away from the bending region progressively increases rigidity, buffers bending stress, reduces stress concentration at the boundary between regions, and improves bending durability and reliability (Dong, ¶ [0054]).
Park is further silent regarding,
wherein the first partial surface of the support part is inclined with respect to the second partial surface around the first partial surface.
However, Sim teaches the first partial surface of the support part is inclined with respect to the second partial surface around the first partial surface (Sim, in ¶ [0018] and Fig. 16, teaches a top surface of the first support facing extension part may have a first inclined surface SLP1, and a top surface of the second support facing the second extension part may have a second inclined surface SLP2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sim’s inclination geometry to the first partial surface, i.e., the supporter's top surface adjacent to the opening of Dong's structure in order to reduce deformation of the folding area, which is the purpose of the inclined surface geometry of Sim (Sim, ¶ [0234]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-4149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:30am-7:30pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/BIPANA ADHIKARI DAWADI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights