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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 1, filed 10/07/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed 10/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10, 11, and 14, under 35 USC § 102 and claim(s) 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 under 35 USC § 103, have been considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 10/07/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/11/2025. Newly amended claims are examined below.
Applicants’ arguments, see Pages 9-10, filed 10/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue the claimed limitation "a reinforcement layer above the edge sealant and vertically overlapping the edge sealant" is not anticipated by Wu and “Wu fails to disclose that the first protection layer 150 is above the water-proof glue 180 and vertically overlapping the water-proof glue 180.” Examiner respectfully disagrees: Applicant doesn’t disclose a relationship as to which direction vertical is referring to (vertical to an optical axis direction, x, y, or z-axis, etc.). Therefore, broadest reasonable interpretation states Wu discloses the first protection layer 150 is above the water-proof glue 180 and vertically overlapping the water-proof glue 180 in Figure 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being (a)(2) by Wu (US 2016/0116817 A1), of record.
With respect to Claim 17, Wu discloses a flexible display device, comprising: a thin-film transistor (TFT) array substrate (148, Figure 2); a cover film (141, Figure 2); an electronic ink layer (143, Figure 2) located between the TFT array substrate (148, Figure 2) and the cover film (141, Figure 2); an edge sealant (180, Figure 1) surrounding the electronic ink layer (143, Figure 2); an electrode layer (142, Figure 2) located on the electronic ink layer (143, Figure 2); and a reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1) above the edge sealant (180, Figure 1) and vertically overlapping the edge sealant (180, Figure 1).
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.
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.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wu et al., (hereafter Wu) (US 2016/0116817 A1), of record, in further view of Li et al., (hereafter Li) (US 2023/0300994 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Wu teaches a flexible display device, comprising: a thin-film transistor (TFT) array substrate (148, Figure 2); a cover film (141, Figure 2); an electronic ink layer (143, Figure 2) located between the TFT array substrate (148, Figure 2) and the cover film (141, Figure 2); an edge sealant (180, Figure 1) located between the TFT array substrate (148, Figure 2) and the cover film (141, Figure 2), and surrounding the electronic ink layer (143, Figure 2), wherein the edge sealant (180, Figure 1) defines a packaging area (170, Figure 1) that vertically overlaps the edge sealant (180, Figure 1); an electrode layer (142, Figure 2) located on the electronic ink layer (143, Figure 2); and a reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1) disposed along the packaging area (170, Figure 1).
Wu fails to teach a display area; wherein the reinforcement layer surrounds the display area.
Wu teaches an electronic-ink display and Li teaches a display screen.
Li teaches a display area (102, Figure 1); wherein the reinforcement layer (103, Figure 1) surrounds (the reinforcement layer can cover the second surface of the display panel, ¶[0090]) the display area (102, Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wu having the flexible display with the teachings of Li having the reinforcement layer surrounds the display area for the purpose of reducing compression of display layer, ¶[0090].
With respect to Claim 2, Wu further teaches wherein the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1) is located on the cover film (141, Figure 2).
With respect to Claim 3, Wu further teaches wherein a material of the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1) is polyimide (PI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (¶[0026]), resin, or metal.
With respect to Claim 4, Wu further teaches wherein the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1) is located on a top surface of the electrode layer (142, Figure 2).
With respect to Claim 5, Wu further teaches a first optical adhesive (130, Figure 1) located on the electrode layer (142, Figure 2) and the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 7, Wu further teaches wherein the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1) is located between the electrode layer (142, Figure 2) and the edge sealant (180, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 10, Wu further teaches a first optical adhesive (130, Figure 1) located on the electrode layer (142, Figure 2); and a functional layer (160, Figure 1) located on the first optical adhesive (130, Figure 1), wherein the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1) is located between the functional layer (160, Figure 1) and the electrode layer (142, Figure 2).
With respect to Claim 11, Wu further teaches a first optical adhesive (130, Figure 1) located on the electrode layer (142, Figure 2); a functional layer (160, Figure 1) located on the first optical adhesive (130, Figure 1); and a second optical adhesive (second transparent glue layer, not shown; see ¶[0024]) located between the functional layer (160, Figure 1) and the cover film (141, Figure 2).
With respect to Claim 14, Wu further teaches wherein the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1) has an inner portion (interior of 150, Figure 1; see also ¶[0020]), and a thickness ¶[0024] of the inner portion (interior of 150, Figure 1; see also ¶[0020]) is gradually decreased (0.4 mm to 0.2 mm, see ¶[0020]) form the edge sealant (180, Figure 1) to the electronic ink layer (143, Figure 2) such that the inner portion (interior of 150, Figure 1; see also ¶[0020]) has an inclined surface (0.4 mm to 0.2 mm, see ¶[0020]).
Claims 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wu) (US 2016/0116817 A1) in view of Li (US 2023/0300994 A1), as applied to claim 5, above, and in further view of Chang et al., (Chang) (US 2016/0224069 A1)
With respect to Claim 6, Wu in view of Li teach the flexible display device of claim 5, the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1, of Wu), and the first optical adhesive (130, Figure 1, of Wu).
Wu in view of Li fail to teach wherein a Young's modulus of the reinforcement layer is greater than a Young's modulus of the first optical adhesive.
Chang teaches a bendable glass element (title and abstract) wherein the a Young's modulus (10 GPa, ¶[0064]) of the reinforcement layer (50, Figure 1) is greater than a Young's modulus (1 GPa, ¶[0064]) of the first optical adhesive (pressure-sensitive adhesive, ¶[0064]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wu in view of Li having the flexible display with the teachings of Chang having a Young's modulus of the reinforcement layer is greater than a Young's modulus of the first optical adhesive for the purpose of the reinforcement layer being puncture resistant (¶[0064]) and the adhesive layer not cracking (well-known in the art for higher Young's modulus of adhesives).
With respect to Claim 9, Wu in view of Li teach the flexible display device of claim 7 and the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1, of Wu).
Wu in view of Li fail to teach wherein a Young's modulus of the reinforcement layer is in a range from 10 GPa to 500 GPa.
Chang teaches a bendable glass element (title and abstract) wherein a Young's modulus (10 GPa, ¶[0064]) of the reinforcement layer (50, Figure 1) is in a range from 10 GPa to 500 GPa.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wu in view of Li having the flexible display with the teachings of Chang having a Young's modulus of the reinforcement layer is greater than a Young's modulus of the first optical adhesive for the purpose of the reinforcement layer being puncture resistant (¶[0064]).
Claims 8, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wu) (US 2016/0116817 A1) in view of Li (US 2023/0300994 A1), as applied to claims 7 and 1, above.
With respect to Claim 8, Wu in view of Li teach the flexible display device of claim 7 and the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1, of Wu).
Wu in view of Li disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the reinforcement layer has a plurality of segments that are separated from each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the reinforcement layer has a plurality of segments that are separated from each other, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of to block off the adhesive, (¶[0020]). A modified Wu discloses the reinforcement layer has a plurality of segments that are separated from each other and a portion of the edge sealant (180, Figure 1) extends to a position between the segments (¶[0020]). In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
With respect to Claim 15, Wu in view of Li teaches the flexible display device of claim 1 and a thickness of the reinforcement layer (150, Figure 1).
Wu in view of Li disclose the claimed invention except for a thickness of the reinforcement layer is in a range from 15 mm to100 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to have a thickness of the reinforcement layer is in a range from 15 mm to100 mm for the purpose of the prevention of overflow of adhesive, ¶[0020]. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to Claim 16, Wu in view of Li teach the flexible display device of claim 1, further comprising: a bottom protection layer (110, Figure 1).
Wu in view of Li disclose the claimed invention except for the duplication of an optical adhesive layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate an optical adhesive layer, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate an optical adhesive layer for the purpose of stability of the flexible display components. It would have been obvious to modify the flexible display device of Wu and have a third optical adhesive located between the bottom protection layer (110, Figure 1) and the TFT array substrate (148, Figure 2) for additional protection of the flexible display components.
Claims 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wu (US 2016/0116817 A1) in view of Li (US 2023/0300994 A1), as applied to claim 11, above, and in further view of Sato et al., (hereafter Sato) (US 2017/0355216 A1).
With respect to Claim 12, Wu in view of Li teach the flexible display device of claim 11, the packaging area (170, Figure 1, of Wu), and the cover film (141, Figure 2, of Wu) and the second optical adhesive (second transparent glue layer, not shown; see ¶[0024], of Wu).
Wu in view of Li fail to teach a decorative ink layer.
Sato teaches a luminescent sheet (title and abstract) with a decorative ink layer (recess filled with pigment, 3, Figure 10; see also ¶[0098]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wu having the flexible display with the teachings of Sato having the decorative ink layer for the purpose of user observation of colors.
With respect to Claim 13, Wu in view of Li teach the flexible display device of claim 12 and the second optical adhesive (second transparent glue layer, not shown; see ¶[0024], of Wu).
Wu in view of Li fail to teach wherein a Young's modulus of the decorative ink layer is greater than a Young's modulus of the second optical adhesive.
Sato teaches a luminescent sheet (title and abstract) with a decorative ink layer (recess filled with pigment, 3, Figure 10; see also ¶[0098]); wherein a Young's modulus of the decorative ink layer (200 GPa, ¶[0099]) is greater than a Young's modulus of the second optical adhesive (2 GPa, ¶[0099]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Wu in view of Li having the flexible display with the teachings of Sato having a Young's modulus of the decorative ink layer is greater than a Young's modulus of the second optical adhesive for the purpose of not stressing the inner component of the flexible display device, ¶[0099].
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 TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872