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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 28-29, 31-44 and 46 are currently pending. Claims 31 has been amended and claim 30 has been cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/09/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 44 is not marked as amended but there appears to be a strike-through of the period ending the claim. As each claim is required to end in a period, it is suggested to remove the strike-through. 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 28-29, 31-44, and 46 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.
Claims 31-37, 40, 42, and 43 recite “each second portion of the at least one second portion…” however, claim 31 sets forth that there are at least two second portions. It is unclear if only one of the two second portions requires the subsequent limitations or if “each” is referring to two and thus the at least two second portions are being referred to.
Claims 28-29, 38-39, 41, 44, and 46 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 31.
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.
Claims 31, 28, 33-34, 37-40, and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee et al. (US 2015/0201487) in view of Hu et al. (US 2019/00047900).
Regarding claim 31 and 30, Kee discloses a flexible display device comprising a plurality of first portions (e.g., OSM and DP) arranged as a stack in a direction of a thickness of the foldable apparatus and comprising a first neutral plane (Fig. 5-7); at least one second portion (AM) positioned between corresponding adjacent pairs of first portions and comprising a second neutral plane (Fig. 5B, 7, 0070). As applicant has not defined a “portion” the adhesive member (AM) of Kee can be divided such that it comprises at least two second portions in the thickness direction as claimed.
The AM comprising a maximum Young’s modulus from 1/1000000 to about 1/1000 of that of the DP of OSM (0063), overlapping the claimed rage from about 500 time to about 500,000 times less than a minimum young’s modulus of the corresponding adjacent pair of first portions.
Kee teaches the OSM including a window member which may be a glass substrate (0082) and adjacent the second portion (AM) (Fig. 7).
While Kee teaches the OSM including multiple layers (0079), Kee does not teach wherein one of the plurality of first portions exhibits a pencil hardness of 8H or more or wherein a maximum Young’s modulus of a first portion of the plurality of first portions is from about 40 GPa to about 80 GPa.
Hu, in the analogous field of displays (0002), teaches a cover window having an elastic modulus from about 20 GPa to about 140 GPa, overlapping the claimed young’s modulus from about 40 to about 80 GPa. The cover window further having a pencil hardness of greater than or equal to 8H (0056).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the window member of Kee to have an elastic modulus of about 20 to about 140 GPa and pencil hardness greater than 8H, as taught by Hu, to provide strength and puncture resistance to the device (0056 and 0078)
Regarding claim 28, as applicant has not defined a “portion” each adhesive member (AM) of Kee can be divided such that it comprises at least five second portions as claimed.
Regarding claim 29, Kee teaches an adhesive thickness from about 20 micrometers to about 100 micrometers (0072), overlapping the claimed thickness from about 10 micrometers to about 250 micrometers.
Regarding claim 32, as Kee teaches bending the display device as one-piece (0068), the bend force would be equal to or 1 times a total bend force, overlapping the claimed 0.5 times to about 1 times the total bend force.
Regarding claim 33, Kee teaches the adhesive member (AM) having an elastic modulus of about 0.01 to about 1 MPa (0060), overlapping the claimed 0.5 MPa or less.
Regarding claim 34, Kee does not disclose a Poisson’s ratio for the adhesive member.
Hu, in the analogous field of flexible display devices (0002), discloses a foldable module comprising an adhesive having a Poisson’s ratio from about 0.1 to about 0.5 (0054), overlapping the claimed Poisson’s ratio of about 0.49 or more.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the adhesive member of Kee to have a Poisson’s ratio of about 0.1 to about 0.5, as taught by Hu, to provide improved mechanical reliability of the device (0094).
Regarding claim 37, Kee teaches the number of adhesive members is one less than a number of DP/OSM layers (Fig. 5B, 7).
Regarding claims 38 and 39, As applicant has not defined “sub-portions, any portion of the DP/OSM layers may be viewed as including two or more sub-portions and as the first portion of Kee is the DP or OSM the “sub-portions” of the layers comprise different materials (0036, 0038). Furthermore, the layers may be viewed as including additional sub-portions including the one first sub-portion being positioned between the another first sub-portion and the additional first sub-portion as claimed as the “portions” may be selected such that they meet the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 40, as there is not frame of reference for where the “sub-portions” are, the DP or OSM layers may be portioned such that the one second portion is adjacent and in contact with at least one first portion but not the another first sub-portion.
Regarding claim 42, Kee teaches the adhesive member comprising a pressure sensitive adhesive (0037).
Regarding claim 43, Kee teaches the adhesive including silicon-based polymer or urethan-based polymer (0037).
Regarding claim 44, Hu teaches the cover element comprising borosilicate glass (0063) and having a thickness of about 25 to 200 µm (0019), overlapping the claimed thickness from about 10 µm to about 200 µm.
Regarding the overlapping ranges in claims 31, 29, 32-33 and 44, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee in view of Hu as applied to claim 31 above and further in view of Breedlove et al. (US 2018/0061893).
Regarding claims 35 and 36, Kee in view of Hu disclose the limitations of claim 31 as discussed above. Kee do not teach a flexural rigidity (i.e., the product of the Young's modulus of the material and a cube of the thickness of the material divided by 12 times the quantity of 1 minus a square of the Poisson's ratio of the material) of the DP or OSM is 1,000 times or more or about 4,000 times to about 40,000 times more than the AM.
Breedlove, in the analogous field of flexible display devices (0001), teaches flexural stiffness according to equation (4) (0031-0034). Breedlove teaches setting the stiffnesses in the layers of the display device in order to maximize durability in bending of the device (0024).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to adjust the flexural rigidity of the first portions of Kee, as taught by Breedlove, to maximize bending durability. It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee in view of Hu as applied to claim 31 above and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0005077).
Regarding claim 41, Kee discloses the limitations of claim 31 as discussed above. Kee does not disclose wherein a magnitude of a difference between an index of refraction of the at least one second portion and the index of refraction of an adjacent first portion is about 0.1 or less.
Kim, in the analogous field of flexible display devices (0047), discloses bonding material (e.g., adhesive) which matches the adjacent layer (0104), thus teaching a magnitude of different of index of refraction of 0.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the first and second portions of Kee to have matching index of refraction, as taught by Kim, to suppress reflections (0104).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kee in view of Hu as applied to claim 31 above and further in view of Matthews (US 2014/0240108).
Regarding claim 46, Kee in view of Hu disclose the limitations of claim 31 as discussed above. Kee further teaches wherein at least one portion of the cover substrate would comprise a portion of the flexible display with the cover substrate disposed over the display (0079). Kee does not expressly teach the display device comprising a housing and electrical components such as a controller and memory.
Matthews, in the analogous field of portable electronic devices, teaches a device comprising a housing with front, back and sides surfaces, a controller and memory within the housing (0037, Fig. 1-2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the display of Kee to be a part of the product as taught by Matthews, for use in a mobile phone device (0037).
Response to Arguments
Applicants amendments filed 09/09/2025 have been entered. Due to the amendments new claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been made.
Applicant’s arguments over Kee have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kee does not depict the adhesive member having a neutral plane and that when the device is bent neutral planes NP10 and NP20 are formed in the display panel and outer member, citing to paragraph 0070 of Kee.
Paragraph 0070 of Kee further teaches that a neutral plane may occur in the adhesive member AM, thus is it maintained that the adhesive member of Kee comprises a second neutral plane. As applicant has not defined “a portion” the adhesive member may be divided such that there are at least two “second portions” in the thickness direction which comprise a second neutral plane.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781