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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 requires “includes a second hinge part disposed in the 1-2 region and a third part disposed in the 1-3 region” and should read “includes a second hinge part disposed in the 1-2 region and a third hinge part disposed in the 1-3 region.
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.
Claim 19, and claims 20-22, 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. Claim 19, which depends from claim 14 recites the limitations a first hinge part (claim 14), a second hinge part and a third hinge part in lines 1-2. However, the claim further requires a plurality of first hinge parts, a plurality of second hinge parts and a plurality of third hinge parts. It is unclear if the first, second and third hinge parts are single hinge parts or are comprises of a plurality of hinge parts. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the first, second and third hinge parts are to be interpreted as a plurality of first hinge parts, a plurality of second hinge parts and a plurality of third hinge parts (Instant Specificaiton, PGPUB, Paragraph [0114]).
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.
Claims 1 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0190936) in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0357052), Cai (CN 110518039) and Cao et al. (US 2021/0149448) which has an effective filing date of 03/17/2020.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a foldable display device capable of preventing an image distortion or transcription on a display screen at a folding part caused by deformation on the folding part (Paragraph [0002]). The display device includes a back cover including a folding part and a flat part (“an elastic member including a first region and a second region, wherein the first region is defined as a folding region, and the second region is defined as an unfolding region”) (Paragraph [0032]). As shown in figure 3, the back cover includes a width direction and a length direction in which one of ordinary skill in the art would identify the very center of the folding part is identified as a 1-1 region and a region just to the left or right of the 1-1 region in the folding part is a 1-2 region. The folding part includes an open pattern extending in the width direction (“wherein the first region includes a first pattern part extending in the first direction”) (Paragraph [0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art would consider the open patterns, which may include the patterns illustrated in figures 8a-8f, would have bridge portions extending in the length direction (“wherein the first region includes a bridge portion extending in the first pattern part in the second direction”) (Paragraphs [0067]-[0075]).
Lee is silent with respect to the open pattern in the folding part having a smaller number of bridge parts in the centermost region, being a 1-1 region, than in the region to the left and right of the centermost region, being a 1-2 region and a 1-3 region. Lee is additionally silent with respect to the patterns in the centermost region being of a greater length and width than the patterns to the left and right of the centermost region.
Kim teaches a foldable display device with improved reliability (Paragraph [0003]). The display device includes a display panel and a backplate which has at least two opening patterns in a folding region (Paragraph [0036]). The at least two opening patterns may be illustrated in figure 9a which shows that the openings increase in size in a direction towards the center of the folding region and, conversely, decrease in size away from the center region of the folding region (Paragraphs [0150]-[0156]). This pattern reduces the stress on the display device in the curvature-starting point resulting in a decrease in damages on the display panel (Paragraph [0156]).
Cai teaches a flexible display panel comprising a bending region located between two non-bending regions (Paragraph [0007]). The bending region includes bending adjustment patterns which are formed by openings such that the density of the increases away from the centerline of the bending region in order to avoid the problem of excessive bending during the bending process causing failure of the flexible display panel (Paragraph [0051]).
Cao teaches supporting structure which increases the impact resistance and the bending resistance of a flexible display panel (Paragraph [0006]). The supporting structure includes a bendable region which has an open-hole pattern and a fixed region which does not have the pattern (Paragraph [0045]-[0046]). As illustrated in figure 5, the open-hole pattern of the bendable region may be provided with adjusted open-hole areas such that the larger the holes, or holes having more area, the less rigid the region is, or more bendable, and vice-versa for a pattern with smaller holes which provides increased rigidity (Paragraphs [0066]-[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the open patterns of Lee with the pattern of Kim teaching the openings increasing towards the center of the folding region in order to reduce stress on the display device in the curvature-starting point resulting in a decrease in damages on the display panel and the density of the opening patterns increases away from the center region in order to prevent excessive bending causing failure of the display devices as taught by Cai. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the open patterns of Kim and Lee which reduces stress on the display such that the increase in sizes increases bending resistance and reduces rigidity as taught by Cao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would additionally recognize that the increase in area resulting in an increase in bending resistance as taught by Cao includes increases in both width and length as shown in figure 5 of Cao.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the increasing sizes at the center of the folding region and the increasing density of the smaller openings away from the center would result in a smaller number of bridge parts in the centermost region compared to the regions to the left and right of the centermost regions teaching the limitation of “wherein in the first region, the number of bridge parts in the 1-1 region is smaller than the number of bridge parts in the 1-2 region.”
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the display devices as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the increasing sizes at the center of the folding region and the increasing density of the smaller openings away from the center would result in a smaller number of bridge parts in the centermost region compared to the regions to the left and right of the centermost regions. Furthermore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art that the centermost region may have any suitable width and the increasing density away from the centermost region would include the number of bridge parts in the centermost region being 50% or less than the number of bridge parts in the region on the left or right of the centermost region.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the display devices as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the opening patterns may have a centermost region and regions to the left and/or right of the centermost regions, being the second and third patterns. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the centermost region may have any suitable width in the folding region, including having a width which is greater than the regions to the left and right of the centermost region.
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the display devices as discussed above with respect to claim 12. As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the centermost region may have any suitable width, including being between 0.75 to 0.9 mm.
Regarding claims 14-15, Lee teaches the display devices as discussed above with respect to claim 12. As discussed above, the centermost region is provided with openings increasing in size towards the centerline and increasing in density away from the centerline. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the three centermost openings would teach a first hinge part (“1-1 hinge part”), a second hinge part (“1-2 hinge part”), and a third hinge part (“1-3 hinge part”). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the centermost opening would have the greatest size, teaching the area of the 1-1 hinge part being different, specifically greater, than the 1-2 and 1-3 hinge parts.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the display devices as discussed above with respect to claim 14. As discussed above, the patterns are openings which opens the top end of the back cover.
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches the display devices as discussed above with respect to claim 14. As discussed above, the opening patterns may have a centermost region includes the first, second and third hinge parts and the regions to the left and right of the centermost regions are the second and third regions (“1-2 and 1-3 region”). Furthermore, the second and third regions include the openings as described above, which may be hinge parts, being the second and third hinge parts, respectively. Lastly, the regions may have any suitable width, including the first region being greater than the second and third regions.
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches the display devices as discussed above with respect to claim 17. As discussed above, the regions may have any suitable width, including the first region being greater than the second and third regions.
Regarding claims 19-20, Lee teaches the display devices as discussed above with respect to claim 14. Kim further teaches the spacing between the centermost openings being smaller than the spacing between the outermost openings in order to reduce stress (“the distance between the first hinge parts is smaller than the distance between the second hinge parts and the distance between the third hinge parts”) (Paragraphs [0143]-[0149]).
Regarding claims 21-22, Lee teaches the display devices as discussed above with respect to claim 19. As discussed above, Kim further teaches the spacing between the centermost openings being smaller than the spacing between the outermost openings in order to reduce stress (“the distance between the first hinge parts is smaller than the distance between the second hinge parts and the distance between the third hinge parts”) (Paragraphs [0143]-[0149]).
Furthermore, the opening patterns may have a centermost region includes the first, second and third hinge parts and the regions to the left and right of the centermost regions are the second and third regions (“1-2 and 1-3 region”). Furthermore, the second and third regions include the openings as described above, which may be hinge parts, being the second and third hinge parts, respectively. Lastly, the regions may have any suitable width, including the first region being greater than the second and third regions resulting in the area per unit area of the first hinge part is greater than the area per unit area of the second hinge part and the area per unit area of the third hinge part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see page 10, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the Objections and 35 U.S.C 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejections of 08/12/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 11-13, applicant argues that the combination of Lee, Kim and Cai fails to teach the amendment to claim 1 requiring the first region, defined as a folding region, to be divided into the multiple regions wherein the width and length of the patterns in the first region (1-1 region) are larger than those provided in the second and third regions (1-2 and 1-3 regions).
The examiner first notes that Lee teaches a center folding region as illustrated in figure 3 and the folding regions are provided with open patterns (See Rejection Above). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the folding region can be divided in various sections wherein the centermost region is the 1-1 region and the regions to the immediate left and right of the centermost region are the 1-2 and 1-3. As such, Lee teaches the divided folding region required by the claim.
The rejection further relies on Kim which teaches increasing the width of the opening pattern in order to reduce stress on the display. This is presented in figure 9A which illustrates increasing the width of the patterns as the openings progress towards the center of the region. Therefore, the examiner contends that the combination of Lee and Kim teaches the openings in the 1-1 region being larger than the openings in the 1-2 and 1-3 regions.
The examiner concedes in that none of the cited references leach the openings in the 1-1 region having a larger length than the 1-2 and 1-3 regions as required by the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in further view of Cao as discussed above.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783