Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/061,643

ELECTRONIC APPARATUS COMPRISING FLEXIBLE DISPLAY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 05, 2022
Examiner
HTUN, SAN A
Art Unit
2643
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
581 granted / 756 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
785
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
69.2%
+29.2% vs TC avg
§102
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§112
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 756 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Detailed Action 1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered. 2. In virtue of this communication, claims 1, 4-15, 17 and 18 are currently pending in this Office Action. Response to Arguments 3. In response to applicant’s arguments submitted on 12/08/2025, it’s to note that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The rationales applied the claim rejection are meant to address the applicant’s argument and see greater details in the claim rejection section set forth below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4. 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 of this title, 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. 5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 6. Claims 1, 4-8, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0324964 A1 in view of Myers Patent No.: US 10,602,623 B1 and Seo et al. Pub. No.: US 2014/0015743 A1. Claim 1 Yoo discloses an electronic device (an electronic device in fig. 1-31), comprising: a support plate (plate 211a in fig. 5-7 and par. 0109; see 311a, 313a in fig. 5 and 311b, 313b in fig. 6; alternatively, hinge structure 230 in fig. 2B, 400 in fig. 7-9 and par. 0132-0133); a flexible display (display 320 in fig. 5 and display 1030 in fig. 25A-C and par. 0269 & 0271 for flexible display) disposed at the support plate and forming a screen (display in par. 0071) including a flat part (display 1030 in fig. 25A is flat) and a curved part (a cured area of the display assembly in fig. 4A and see par. 0097 & 0197) extending from the flat part (fig. 25B, if P1 is flat, P2 may be in curved position; par. 0086, display assembly is formed to extend from the first housing through the hinge structure to the second housing and see par. 0097, form a flat surface on the side), wherein the flexible display comprises: PNG media_image1.png 776 502 media_image1.png Greyscale a first section (one of 232a-b in fig. 4A) disposed along the flat part and the curved part (par. 0097, 232a-b may be transformed to have curvatures corresponding to the curvature of the display assembly); and a second section (one of 232a-b in fig. 4A) bent and extending from the curved part of the first section and disposed between the first section and the support plate (par. 0097, 232a-b may be transformed to have curvatures corresponding to the curvature of the display assembly); and a display circuit (par. 0071, display would include a circuitry for a touchscreen as explained in par. 0108 & 0119, such an input device, an output device, digitizer panel) disposed in the second section and between the second section and the support plate (par. 0224 and par. 0183). Although Yoo does not explicitly disclose: “a plurality of pixels; and a display driving circuit; and a spacer disposed between the first section and the second section, and comprising a plurality of openings disposed along the curved part, wherein the plurality of openings define a lattice structure in a bending section of the spacer disposed along the curved part”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales. PNG media_image2.png 556 486 media_image2.png Greyscale Firstly, to address the claim feature “a plurality of pixels”, recall that Yoo explains display for including LCD, LED, OLED, touch screen (par. 0071) and the flexible display (par. 0269 & 0271). In display electronics, such LCD, LED or OLED display resolution are measured in terms of pixel. It means that display of Yoo could have inherently made up of pixels. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Myers teaches a flexible display formed on other flexible display pixel array structures (lines 1-5 of col. 4) and an active area display with an array of pixel for displaying images (lines 47-50 of col. 4). Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim feature “a display driving circuit”, recall that a display assembly and a flexible display of Yoo could have included a display driving circuit (320 in fig. 5-7 and main PCB 350a fig. 7 and par. 0105). The evidence could be seen in Myers. In particular, Myers teaches display having a pixel array including display driver circuitry (lines 45-50 of col. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an electronic device including flexible display of Yoo by providing flexible display structures as taught in Myers. Such a modification would have provided an electronic device having the arrays of pixel to include a display driver circuitry so that the arrays of pixel could have formed a flexible display in a compact way with desired features as suggested in lines 10-45 of col. 1 of Myers. Lastly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitations “wherein the plurality of openings define a lattice structure in a bending section of the spacer disposed along the curved part”, recall that Yoo discloses coupling holes, multiple holes, openings (par. 0111, 0133 & 0276) and a side surface surrounding part of the space between the third and fourth surfaces (par. 0079 and fig. 2A-C). In particular, Seo teaches a lattice pattern (fig. 8) having the band sensors (par. 0103) to form a flexible display in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction as configured (see par. 0105 and fig. 9-18). PNG media_image3.png 362 352 media_image3.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an electronic device including flexible display of Yoo in view of Myers by providing a flexible display with a lattice pattern as taught in Seo to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a mobile device with a flexible display to include lattice pattern so that the display could be deformed or shaped like a paper for user’s convenience as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Seo. Claim 4 Yoo, in view of Myers and Seo, discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the curved part has a smaller radius of curvature as a distance from the flat part increases (Yoo, see 220C are for curvatures in fig. 3C and par. 0094, see curved area of display in fig. 4A-B, 25B-C & 26B-C; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component; a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 CCPA 1955). Claim 5 Yoo, in view of Myers and Seo, discloses the electronic device of claim 4, wherein a width of the plurality of openings extending along the curved part is different based on the radius of curvature (Yoo, see 220C are for curvatures in fig. 3C and par. 0094, see curved area of display in fig. 4A-B, 25B-C & 26B-C; Myers, fig. 7; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component; a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 CCPA 1955). Claim 6 Yoo, in view of Myers and Seo, discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the display driving circuit overlaps the flat part, when viewed from above the screen (Yoo, see an electronic device from top view or side view at folding position in fig. 3C, 25C; Myers, display driver circuitry in lines 45-50 of col. 5; accordingly, the combined prior art would have rendered the claim obvious). Claim 7 Yoo, in view of Myers and Seo, discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the support plate is configured to slide out from a housing of the electronic device (hinge structure in fig. 8-9 and par. 0132; slide modules may be disposed in holes formed in the rail brackets 440 to move back and forth the lengthwise direction of the holes 441 in par. 0138), the flexible display further comprises a bendable section including a plurality of pixels (Myers, fig. 7-8, and see pixel array on flexible display in lines 1-5 of col. 4 and lines 45-50 of col. 5), extending from the first section at the opposite side of the second section (par. 0132-0133 of Yoo in view of fig. 7-9), and configured to be drawn out from an inner space of the housing during a slide-out of the support plate (par. 0138-0139 of Yoo), and the screen further comprises another curved part formed by the bendable section and positioned opposite to the curved part with the flat part interposed therebetween (Yoo, par. 0098, the display assembly is folded or the hinge structure is folded, the display disposed on a majority of the fond and/or rear surface of the electronic device, and see par. 0099 and fig. 4B; display assembly may be prevented or reduced from bending inward in par. 0194, 0197, 0262; fig. 7-8 of Myers; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 CCPA 1950). Claim 8 Yoo, in view of Myers and Seo, discloses the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the curved part and the another curved part are symmetrical to each other with the flat part interposed therebetween (Yoo, see fig. 3C & 25C for symmetrical to each other; fig. 7-8 of Myers; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to obtain the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale G). Claim 15 Yoo discloses an electronic device (an electronic device in fig. 1-31), comprising: PNG media_image4.png 378 512 media_image4.png Greyscale a housing (electronic device in fig. 1-31 having the first housing and the second housing; housing 210 in fig. 2A); a sliding plate (plate 211a in fig. 5-7 and par. 0109; see 311a, 313a in fig. 5 and 311b, 313b in fig. 6; alternatively, hinge structure 230 in fig. 2B & 400 in fig. 7-9 and par. 0132-0133) capable of sliding out from the housing (hinge structure in fig. 8-9 and par. 0132; slide modules may be disposed in holes formed in the rail brackets 440 to move back and forth the lengthwise direction of the holes 441 in par. 0138); PNG media_image5.png 172 274 media_image5.png Greyscale a flexible display (display 160 in fig. 1 and par. 0269 & 0271) configured to form a screen including a flat part (display 1030 in fig. 25A is flat), a first curved part (a top curved part in fig. 3C; a cured area of the display assembly in fig. 4A and see par. 0097 & 0197) extended from the flat part (fig. 25B, if P1 is flat, P2 may be in curved position; par. 0086, display assembly is formed to extend from the first housing through the hinge structure to the second housing and see par. 0097, form a flat surface on the side), and a second curved part (bottom curved part in fig. 3C) extended from the flat part so as to be positioned opposite to the first curved part with the flat part interposed therebetween (par. 0269, the flexible display assembly forming a curved surface as the hinge structure is folded), wherein the flexible display comprises: a first section (210a or two surfaces 201a & 202a in fig. 3c or 1021 in fig. 29) disposed along the flat part and the first curved part (201a or 202a disposed flat along 210a and curved part of 220C in fig. 3C), and disposed to overlap the sliding plate (201 or 202a overlaps with hinge in fig. 3C & 29 from top view or side view); PNG media_image6.png 474 500 media_image6.png Greyscale a bendable section (220c in fig. 3C and see dotted arrow section with labelled in fig. 29) extended from the first section (1st curve or bendable section extended form the first section labelled with dotted arrow section depicted in fig. 29), forming the second curved part (2nd curve depicted in fig. 29), and drawn out from an inner space of the housing during the slide-out (moving left or right in par. 0109, 0120, slide module movement in par. 0137-0138, 0142 & 0164); and a second section (202b or 201b in fig. 3C or 2nd curve section or 2021b in fig. 29) bent and extended from the first curved part of the first section to be disposed between the first section and the sliding plate (201b or 202b is between 220 C and 210b in fig. 3C; par. 0097, 232a-b may be transformed to have curvatures corresponding to the curvature of the display assembly); and a circuit (1030 in fig. 29; par. 0071, display would include a circuitry for a touchscreen as explained in par. 0108 & 0119, such an input device, an output device, digitizer panel) disposed in the second section and disposed between the second section and the sliding plate (as depicted in fig. 29, flexible circuit 1030 between second section and sliding cover; see par. 0183 & 0224); and wherein the first section extends between the bendable section and the second section (fig. 29 & 31). Although Yoo does not disclose: “a display driving circuit; and; and a support sheet disposed on the flexible display along the first section and the bendable section and extending between the first section and the second section, wherein the support sheet comprises a lattice structure including a plurality of openings formed along the first curved part corresponding to a part of the first section”, the claimed feature is considered obvious by the following rationales. Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim feature “a display driving circuit”, recall that a display assembly and a flexible display of Yoo could have included a display driving circuit (320 in fig. 5-7 and main PCB 350a fig. 7 and par. 0105). The evidence could be seen in Myers. In particular, Myers teaches display having a pixel array including display driver circuitry (lines 45-50 of col. 5). Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “a support sheet disposed on the flexible display along the first section and the bendable section and extending between the first section and the second section”, recall that Yoo discloses a flexible display and main PCB (320 & 350a in fig. 5-7 and par. 0105). In particular, Myers teaches display having a pixel array including display driver circuitry (lines 45-50 of col. 5), a sheet of polymer and/or other flexible display pixel array structures to be bent (lines 1-6 of col. 4) and the flexible display could be bent and could extend from one section to another section (see fig. 7-8 & 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an electronic device including flexible display of Yoo by providing flexible display structures as taught in Myers to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided an electronic device having the arrays of pixel to include a display driver circuitry so that the arrays of pixel could have formed a flexible display in a compact way with desired features as suggested in lines 10-45 of col. 1 of Myers. Lastly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “wherein the support sheet comprises a lattice structure including a plurality of openings formed along the first curved part corresponding to a part of the first section”, recall that Yoo discloses coupling holes, multiple holes, openings (par. 0111, 0133 & 0276) and a side surface surrounding part of the space between the third and fourth surfaces (par. 0079 and fig. 2A-C). In particular, Seo teaches a lattice pattern (fig. 8) having the band sensors (par. 0103) to form a flexible display in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction as configured (see par. 0105 and fig. 9-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an electronic device including flexible display of Yoo in view of Myers by providing a flexible display with a lattice pattern as taught in Seo to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a mobile device with a flexible display to include lattice pattern so that the display could be deformed or shaped like a paper for user’s convenience as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Seo. Claim 17 Yoo, in view of Myers and Seo, discloses the electronic device of claim 15, further comprising a spacer (Yoo, 1021a-1021b slide covers in fig. 29) disposed between the support sheet and the second section and including a material different from that of the support sheet (Yoo, a side surface 203 surrounding part of the space between the third surface 201B and the fourth surface 202b in par. 0079 and fig. 2A-C; Myers, a sheet of polymer in lines 1-3 of col. 4, and sheets of other polymer substrate materials in 40-45 of col. 5; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 CCPA 1950). Claim 18 Yoo discloses a display assembly (an electronic device in fig. 1-31), comprising: a flexible display (display 160 in fig. 1 and par. 0269 & 0271), wherein the flexible display comprises: a first section (one of 232a-b in fig. 4A) forming a screen (display 160 in fig. 1 and 220 in fig. 2-4) including a flat part and a curved part extended from the flat part (consider fig. 3C, the screen includes flat part and a curved part, see 201a-202a-2202c-2201c; par. 0097, 232a-b may be transformed to have curvatures corresponding to the curvature of the display assembly); and a second section (one of 232a-b in fig. 4A) bent and extended from the curved part of the first section to be disposed to partially overlap the first section (201b or 202b is between 220 C and 210b in fig. 3C; par. 0097, 232a-b may be transformed to have curvatures corresponding to the curvature of the display assembly; par. 0269, the flexible display assembly forming a curved surface as the hinge structure is folded), a display circuit disposed in the second section (as depicted in fig. 29, flexible circuit 1030 between second section and sliding cover; see par. 0183 & 0224); and a support (1034-1035 or 1030 main flexible circuit board in fig. 29), disposed at the flexible display along the first section (see fig. 29, flexible circuit board 1030 go along first slide cover) and comprises a plurality of openings (coupling holes in par. 0111, opening in par. 0276, see 220C are for curvatures in fig. 3C and par. 0094, see curved area of display in fig. 4A-B, 25B-C & 26B-C) disposed between the first section and the second section and disposed along the curved part (as depicted in fig. 29, flexible circuit 1030 between second section and sliding cover; see par. 0183 & 0224). Although Yoo does not disclose: “a plurality of pixels, a display driving circuit and a support sheet; wherein the support sheet comprises a lattice structure including a plurality of openings formed along the curved part of the first section”, the claimed limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales. Firstly, to address the claim feature “a plurality of pixels”, recall that Yoo explains display for including LCD, LED, OLED, touch screen (par. 0071) and the flexible display (par. 0269 & 0271). In display electronics, such LCD, LED or OLED display resolution are measured in terms of pixel. It means that display of Yoo could have inherently made up of pixels. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Myers teaches a flexible display formed on other flexible display pixel array structures (lines 1-5 of col. 4) and an active area display with an array of pixel for displaying images (lines 47-50 of col. 4). Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim features “a display driving circuit and a support sheet”, recall that Yoo discloses a display assembly and a flexible display (320 in fig. 5-7 and main PCB 350a fig. 7 and par. 0105). The evidence could be seen in Myers. In particular, Myers teaches display having a pixel array including display driver circuitry (lines 45-50 of col. 5) and a sheet of polymer and/or other flexible display pixel array structures to be bent (lines 1-6 of col. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an electronic device including flexible display of Yoo by providing flexible display structures as taught in Myers to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided an electronic device having the arrays of pixel to include a display driver circuitry so that the arrays of pixel could have formed a flexible display in a compact way with desired features as suggested in lines 10-45 of col. 1 of Myers. Lastly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “wherein the support sheet comprises a lattice structure including a plurality of openings formed along the first curved part corresponding to a part of the first section”, recall that Yoo discloses coupling holes, multiple holes, openings (par. 0111, 0133 & 0276) and a side surface surrounding part of the space between the third and fourth surfaces (par. 0079 and fig. 2A-C). In particular, Seo teaches a lattice pattern (fig. 8) having the band sensors (par. 0103) to form a flexible display in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction as configured (see par. 0105 and fig. 9-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an electronic device including flexible display of Yoo in view of Myers by providing a flexible display with a lattice pattern as taught in Seo to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a mobile device with a flexible display to include lattice pattern so that the display could be deformed or shaped like a paper for user’s convenience as suggested in par. 0007-0009 of Seo. Allowable Subject Matter 7. Claims 9-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Contact Information 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN A HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SAN HTUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2022
Application Filed
May 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 11, 2025
Interview Requested
Jul 24, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 06, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604192
FRAUD PREVENTION LEVERAGING WEBHOOKS TO OBTAIN THIRD PARTY FRAUD DATA IDENTIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593281
WIRELESS DEVICE FOR POWER SAVING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574061
SYSTEMS, APPARATUSES, AND METHODS FOR TRANSCEIVER FILTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574879
GRADUAL FREQUENCY ADJUSTMENT FOR DUAL-LOOP FREQUENCY CONTROL IN NON-TERRESTRIAL NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563552
Mapping Information for Integrated Access and Backhaul
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+22.9%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 756 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month