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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated December 19, 2025 was submitted on March 17, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21 and 22 were amended. Claims 5 and 16 were previously canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-22 are currently pending. Claims 17-22 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments to claims 1, 2, 9, 13 and 14 have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 1-4 and 6-15 (pp. 3-5of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-15 (pp. 6-17 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore also been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppo Guangdong (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 211376055 U, made of record by applicant, machine translation cited below) in view of Wang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0205317 A1).
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.
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."
Oppo does not specifically disclose that a length direction of the display panel is a first direction, wherein the first straight support portion, the first cambered support portion, and the second straight support portion all extend along the first direction, and a length of the first straight support portion, a length of the first cambered support portion, and a length of the second straight support portion in the first direction are each greater than or equal to a length of the display panel in the first direction 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. Wang, however, discloses a support structure for a display panel (Abstract of Wang) wherein the support structure has a bending area with a reduced modulus compared to adjoining non-bending regions ([0056] of Wang). According to Wang, by reducing the modulus of the support in the bending area, the local extensibility of the support in the bending area can be improved thereby dispersing the local stress in the bending area and improving the bending performance of the structure (Abstract, [0056] of Wang). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the supporting body of Oppo with a reduced modulus in the cambered region where the support is bent. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the local extensibility of the support in the bending area thereby dispersing the local stress and improving the bending performance of the structure as taught by Wang (Abstract, [0056] of Wang).
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]).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppo in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chueh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0286408, cited in previous Office Action).
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 in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ha et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0251679, cited in previous Office Action).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the references cited in the previous Office Action fail to teach or suggest a support member having the modulus differences recited in claim 1 (pp. 16-17 of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Wang reference to address this limitation.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights