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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 and 6-15 in the reply filed on September 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group II, drawn to a lamination system and lamination method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: At lines 6-7, "a extending direction" should be "an [[a]] extending direction. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 2 recites "at least a first planar portion, a second planar portion and a first curved portion." Similarly at line 8, the claim recites "at least a first straight support portion, a first cambered support portion and a second straight support portion" rendering unclear whether the term "at least" applies to only the first recited member in each group that begins with "all least" or to all members of the recited group. Furthermore, the phrase "the at least" is currently not being recited when the members are identified later in the claim, rendering antecedent basis unclear.
Also regarding claim 1, at lines 9-12, the claim currently recites "wherein modulus of the first cambered support portion is less than modulus of the first straight support portion, and the modulus of the first cambered support portion is less than modulus of the second straight support portion" rendering unclear as to the antecedent bases for the various recited moduli. It is suggested the claim be amended to recite "wherein a modulus of the first cambered support portion is less than a modulus of the first straight support portion, and the modulus of the first cambered support portion is less than a modulus of the second straight support portion."
Also regarding claim 1, at lines 13-19, the claim recites "one surface" of the display panel at line 13, and then at line 15 recites "the surface of the display panel . . . corresponding to the first curved portion," and at line 17 recites "the surface . . . corresponding to the second planar portion." By initially using the phrase "one surface" and then reciting "the surface" when further limiting what appears to be different surfaces or portions of surfaces of the "one surface," antecedent basis for the recited features is rendered unclear.
Regarding claim 2, at line 2 the claim recites "at least a first part, a second part and a third part," rendering unclear whether the term "at least" applies to only the first recited member in the group that begins with "all least" or to all members of the recited group. Furthermore, the phrase "the at least" is currently not currently being recited when the members are identified later in the claim, rendering antecedent basis unclear. Furthermore the claim recites "at least one third layer" at line 7, but then simply recites "the third layer" at line 9, also rendering antecedent basis unclear.
Also regarding claim 2, at lines 5 and 6, antecedent basis for "modulus of the first layer" and "modulus of the second layer" is unclear and should be preceded by the article "a." Also at the last line, "the modulus of the third layer" lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding the remaining claims 3-4 and 6-15, see the rejections in claims 1 and 2 above, each of these claims including recitations of claim limitations starting with the article "the" that were first identified using "at least one" in claims 1 and/or 2, resulting in either a lack of antecedent basis or rendering antecedent unclear.
Also regarding claim 9, at lines 5-6, the recitation of "wherein modulus of the second cambered support portion" renders antecedent basis unclear. The term modulus should be preceded by the article "a."
Also regarding claim 13, at the second to last line "wherein modulus" renders antecedent basis unclear and should be amended to recite "wherein a modulus."
Further regarding claim 13, at line 3, the claim recites a "fifth part" and further recites "wherein the fifth part forms the first cambered support portion." However, claim 2, from which claim 13 depends, recites "the second part forms the first cambered support portion" (line 3), rendering claim 13 unclear.
Regarding claim 14, at line 1, "wherein material" renders antecedent basis unclear and at line 2-3, "and material of the first cambered support" renders antecedent basis unclear, both of these elements requiring introduction by the article "a".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Oppo Guangdong Mobile Telecommunications Co., LTD, CN 211376055U (hereafter Oppo), made of record by Applicant and discussed with reference to the attached machine translation thereof.
Regarding claim 1, Oppo teaches a display unit 10, i.e., a display device (Figs. 2 and 3; paras [0002] and [0043]) that further includes a glass cover plate 110 (Figs. 4 and 9, paras [0007] and [0044]). With further reference to Fig. 9 and paras [0047]-[0048], the cover plate 110 further includes a first planar portion 111, a second planar portion 113 and a first curved portion 112 connected between the planar portions. Oppo further teaches the portions are integrally formed (para [0047]). The examiner notes the subjective nature of the claim term “smoothly” and that in the absence of quantification, such subjective terminology fails to exclude the prior art from consideration as such. Also as illustrated in Fig. 9, the second planar portion 113 is parallel to the first planar portion 111. Also as illustrated in Fig. 9, the portions 111, 112 and 113 defining a space. At para [0008], Oppo teaches that the glass cover cooperates with a packaging component to provide an accommodating space for a circuit board and camera module.
At Figs. 6-8, Oppo illustrates a display module 120, i.e., a display panel, in the accommodation space defined by the glass cover 110 (paras [0044]-[0045]).
With reference to Figs. 3 and 11-15, the device of Oppo further includes a support member 200, i.e., support plate, that abuts an inner surface of the display module 120 (para [0051]). The support plate 200 includes a first straight support portion 210, a second support portion 220 having an arc-shaped structure, i.e., cambered, and a third portion, i.e., a second straight support portion 230, the portions being connected in sequence (Fig. 11; para [0052]). Fig. 12 illustrates that the support member 200 includes two layers, described as sheets, one identified as a support body 201 and the other as a buffer body 202 (para [0053]). At para [0054], Oppos discloses the material of the support body 201 can be a metal sheet and the material of the buffer body 202 can be rubber. At para [0055], Oppo discloses a stainless steel support body 201 and a silicone buffer 202. Oppo teaches that the rigidity and hardness of the material of the support body 201 are greater than those of the material of the buffer body 202 (para [0053]), i.e., a modulus of the buffer body 202 is less than a modulus of the support body 201.
Fig. 12 further illustrates a gripping hole 2011 at the cambered portion 220 that allows part of the buffer body 202 to extend into the support body 201 (para [0054]). Thus, as illustrated in Fig. 12, because the buffer body 202 extends through the support body 201, the modulus of the illustrated cambered support portion 220 would necessarily be less than a modulus of the first straight support portion 210 that is illustrated in Fig. 12, and the modulus of the cambered support portion 220 would also necessarily be less than a modulus of the second straight support portion 230 that is illustrated in Fig. 12.
The examiner recognizes that Oppo teaches other planar portions of its device that also include holes 2011 with buffer body material extending therethrough. However, the claim language broadly recites "portion" without further limitation, thus the embodiment of Oppo illustrated in Fig. 12 that illustrates a first curved portion having buffer body material at a hole 2011 that extends through the stiffer support body 201 and planar portions that do not have a hole 2011 extending through the support body 201 is understood to meet the language of the claim.
As illustrated in Figs 14 and 15, the straight and cambered portions of the support plate of Oppo are in contact with the display module, i.e., display panel, at a surface located away from the cover plate 110 with the first and second straight portions of the support plate corresponding to the cover plate first and second planar portions and the cambered portion of the support plate corresponding to the first curved portion of the cover plate.
As to the requirement that the portions of the support plate are laminated to the display panel surface, the term "laminated" is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113. The structure implied by the term "laminated" is adherence between the materials. Oppo teaches that the silicone part fully adheres to the back of the screen (para [0055]), thus disclosing the structure implied by the term "laminated."
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the support plate of Oppo includes first and second layers, the buffer body 202, i.e., first layer, and the support body 201, i.e., the second layer (Figs. 11-12; paras [0052]-[0054]). As illustrated in Figs. 11 and 12, the buffer body 202, i.e., first layer includes a first part, a second part and a third part connected in sequence, wherein the second part forms the first cambered support portion.
The support body 201 includes a layer, i.e., a second layer, that is located on one side of the buffer body 202, i.e., first part that is away (i.e., not adjacent) from the display panel 120, and forms the second straight support portion with the first part, the buffer body 202, i.e., first layer is less rigid than the support body 201, i.e., second layer (para [0053]). Thus, a modulus of the first layer is necessarily less than a modulus of the second layer.
With further reference to Figs. 11 and 12, the support body 201 also includes a layer, i.e., a third layer, on one side of the third part of the buffer body 202 away from (i.e., not adjacent to) the display panel 120, and forming the first straight support portion with the third part. As discussed above, because Oppo teaches the buffer body 202 is not as rigid as the support body 201 (para [0053]), Oppo necessarily teaches that a modulus of the first layer is less than the modulus of the third layer.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, as illustrated in Fig. 12, the buffer body second part, i.e., curved or cambered portion includes a portion at 2011 that has a thickness greater than the thickness of the buffer body at either of the straight portions illustrated in Fig. 12. Because the thickness at 2011 extends through the support body 201, such thickness is equal to a sum of the thickness of the first part and a thickness of the second layer and also to a sum of the thickness of the third part and a thickness of the third layer.
Regarding claim 6, with reference to Fig. 9 of Oppo, the cover plate 110 first curved portion 112 is illustrated as extending along a first direction (i.e., into the illustration) and a width of the second planar portion 113 in a second direction is less than a width of the first planar portion 111 in the second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction.
Regarding claim 7, with reference to Fig. 15 of Oppo, the cover plate 11 and the support plate 200 are illustrated, the widths of portions the support plate 200 generally corresponding to the widths of portions of the cover plate 110. Thus, Fig. 15 illustrates a width of the first straight support plate portion in the second direction being less than a width of the second straight support plate portion in the second direction.
Regarding claim 8, with reference to Fig. 9 or Oppo, the cover plate 110 of Oppo includes a second curved portion 114 connected to the first planar portion 111 away from the first curved portion 112, wherein the second curved portion and the first curved portion are bent to a same surface of the first planar portion, and an orthographic projection of the second curved portion on a first datum plane is an arc, the first datum plane being perpendicular to an extending direction of the first curved portion (Fig. 9 and para [0048]). The examiner notes the subjective nature of the claim term “smoothly” and that in the absence of quantification, such subjective terminology fails to exclude the prior art from consideration as such.
Regarding claim 9, with reference to Figs. 11-12 and 14-15 of Oppo, the support plate 200 further comprises a second cambered support portion 240 connected to one side of the first straight support portion 210 away from the first cambered support portion 220, and laminated to the surface of the display panel 120 away from the cover plate 110, corresponding to the second curved portion 114 (para [0052]). As illustrated in Fig. 11 and also in Fig. 15, the second cambered support portion 240 also includes a hole that allows part of the buffer body 202 to extend into and through the support body 201 (paras [0052]-[0054]). Thus, as illustrated in Fig. 12, because the buffer body 202 extends through the support body 201, the modulus of the illustrated cambered support portion 240 would necessarily be less than a modulus of the first straight support portion 210 that is illustrated in Fig. 12, and the modulus of the cambered support portion 240 would also necessarily be less than a modulus of the second straight support portion 230 that is illustrated in Fig. 12.
The examiner recognizes that Oppo teaches other planar portions of its device that also include holes 2011 with buffer body material extending therethrough. However, the claim language broadly recites "portion" without further limitation, thus the embodiment of Oppo illustrated in Fig. 11 that illustrates the second curved portion having buffer body material at a hole 2011 that extends through the stiffer support body 201 and planar portions that do not have a hole 2011 extending through the support body 201 is understood to meet the language of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, with reference to Fig. 11 of Oppo, the support body 201 also includes a layer, i.e., a fourth layer (at arrow 240) connected to the third part (at arrow 210) that forms the second cambered support portion and a thickness of the fourth part is equal to a thickness of the second part.
Regarding claim 11, with reference to Fig. 9 of Oppo, the cover plate 110 may be described as having two curved portion 112 and 114 connected to either side of the first planar portion 111. Also as illustrated in Fig. 9, the second planar portion 113 may be understood as being connected to the curved portion 112 and also to the curved portion 114 via the cured portion 112 and the planar portion 111, with a gap formed between the planar portion 113 and the curved portion 114 as well as a gap being formed between the planar portion 111 and the planar portion 113. The examiner notes that the broad recitation of "connected" does not require direct engagement. The examiner notes the subjective nature of the claim term “smoothly” and that in the absence of quantification, such subjective terminology fails to exclude the prior art from consideration as such.
Regarding claim 12, with reference to Fig. 11 of Oppo, the support plate 200 includes two curved, i.e., cambered portions at arrow 220 and arrow 240 and being connected to the first straight support portion (arrow 210). The second straight support portion (arrow 230) may also be understood to be provided in two with one directly connected to the first cambered portion (arrow 220) and the other indirectly connected to the cambered portion 240 forming a gap with respect to the cambered portion 240 and also with respect to the planar portion at arrow 210. The examiner notes that the broad recitation of "connected" does not require direct engagement. The examiner notes the subjective nature of the claim term “smoothly” and that in the absence of quantification, such subjective terminology fails to exclude the prior art from consideration as such.
Regarding claim 13, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above, the support plate of Oppo includes first and second layers, the buffer body 202, i.e., first layer, and the support body 201, i.e., the second layer (Figs. 11-12; paras [0052]-[0054]). As illustrated in Figs. 11 and 12, the buffer body 202, i.e., first layer includes a first part, a second part and a third part connected in sequence, wherein the second part forms the first cambered support portion. Please see the Section 112 rejection of claim 13 above, the claim now reciting that both the second and the fifth part form the first cambered support portion, rendering impossible a further understanding of what is being claimed by such fifth part, a sixth part or a fourth layer.
In order to advance prosecution, the examiner directs Applicant to the rejection of claim 12, incorporated herein, and the Fig. 11 illustration of the second cambered support portion 240 also includes a hole that allows part of the buffer body 202, (i.e., fifth part?) to extend into and through the support body 201 (i.e., sixth part?) at the location of the hole in the cambered support portion 240 (paras [0052]-[0054]). Thus, as illustrated in Fig. 12, because the buffer body 202 extends through the support body 201, the modulus of the illustrated cambered support portion 240 would necessarily be less than a modulus of the first straight support portion 210 that is illustrated in Fig. 12, and the modulus of the cambered support portion 240 would also necessarily be less than a modulus of the second straight support portion 230 that is illustrated in Fig. 12.
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 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chueh et al., US 2021/0286408 (hereafter Chueh).
Regarding claim 14, please see the rejection of claim 1 above that discusses that at para [0054], Oppo discloses the material of the support body 201 can be a metal sheet and the material of the buffer body 202 can be rubber. At para [0055], Oppo discloses a stainless steel support body 201 and a silicone buffer 202. Thus Oppo teaches a material of the first straight support portion and the second straight support portion comprises stainless steel, and a material of the first cambered support portion comprises rubber or silicone. However, Oppo is silent as to foam.
Chueh is directed to a foldable display (Abstract) that further includes a bendable flexible supporting member 170 (Figs. 1, 3A, 3B and 4; paras [0026],[0034]- [0036]) made of an elastic material such as foam, silica gel or rubber for attachment to a flexible display 160, either through a thin film structure or directly to the display (para [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the buffer body 201 according to Oppo to be made from a foam as taught by Chueh a predictable, suitable alternative to rubber or silicone for the predictable purpose of adhering to a flexible display. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ha et al., US 2020/0251679 (hereafter Ha).
Regarding claim 15, Oppo teaches an optical adhesive 102, i.e., first adhesive layer adhered between the cover plate 110 and the display panel 120 (Figs. 6 and 7; para [0045]). However, Oppo is silent as to a protective layer between the display panel and the support plate; a second adhesive layer adhered between the display panel and the protective layer; and a third adhesive layer adhered between the protective layer and the support plate.
Ha is directed to a flexible display device including a display panel, a cover plate disposed over the display panel and a first adhesive layer between the display panel and the cover plate (Abstract). Ha further teaches that a protective film may be used to protect the display panel and that it is adhered using an adhesive layer (para [0103]). Ha further teaches using adhesive layers between various film components (see Fig. 4), such as functional layers located between the cover window CW and the display panel DB and also a base film BF and cushion layer CL located at a side of the display panel opposite the cover window (para [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the device of Oppo to further include a protection film for protecting the display panel of Oppo as taught by Ha and to further use adhesive layers for attaching the protection film to the display panel and also to the support plate of Oppo for the predictable advantage of protecting the display panel of Oppo and also as predictable means for adhering the various layers together as taught by Ha. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L SCHALLER whose telephone number is (408)918-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CYNTHIA L SCHALLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746