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’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 10/28/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 10-18 are withdrawn and claims 1-19 are pending.
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, 6-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 2020/0235339 A1) in view of Jeon (US 2020/0119291 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a display device (display apparatus; paragraph [0051]) comprising:
a display panel (substrate; Fig. 12 #100; paragraph [0051]) including a first region (first area 1A and second area 2A outside of bent area BA; paragraph [0050]) and a bendable second region connected to the first region (bent area BA; paragraph [0050]);
a supporting member supporting the display panel (protective film; Fig. 12 #170; paragraph [0051]) and defining a plurality of opening regions therein overlapping the second region (plurality of openings corresponding to bent area; Fig. 12; paragraph [0114]) and a plurality of non-opening regions between the opening regions (portions of protective film between the openings; Fig. 12; paragraph [0114]), the non-opening regions overlapping the second region (portions of protective film between the openings corresponding to bent area; Fig. 12; paragraph [0114]); and
a connecting member disposed between the display panel and the supporting member (adhesive layer; Fig. 12 #180; paragraph [0051]) and including first portions overlapping the plurality of opening regions of the supporting member (portions of adhesive layer having a thickness t1 corresponding to the plurality of openings; Fig. 12; paragraph [0115]) and second portions overlapping the non-opening regions of the supporting member (portions of adhesive layer having a thickness t2 between the plurality of openings; Fig. 12; paragraph [0115]), wherein.
Han does not disclose the display device comprising the first portions of the connecting member have a lower adhesive property than the second portions.
However, Jeon discloses a foldable display device comprising a display module comprising a reinforcing member provided in the same layer as a first adhesion portion and a second adhesion portion and disposed between a display module and the first and second protection plates (Fig. 3 “SA”; paragraph [0079]), wherein the reinforcing member is disposed in the folding area FA (first portion; paragraph [0078]), and wherein the first portions of the connecting member have a lower adhesive property than the second portions (the reinforcing member is cured by ultraviolet light removing its adhesive property; paragraph [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Han to include the technique of curing the portion of the reinforcing member by ultraviolet light to remove the adhesive property for the exposed portions of the adhesive layer because doing so would easy folding of the display module and the reinforcing member along the folding axis.
Regarding claim 4, Han discloses the display device of claim 1 as noted above.
Han does not disclose the display device comprising the second region of the display panel being a rollable region.
However, Jeon discloses a foldable display device comprising a folding area (Fig. 3 “FA”; paragraph [0071]) and the second region of the display panel being a rollable region (display device being a rollable or stretchable display device; paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Han to include the rollable configuration of the display device of Jeon for the display device of Han because doing so provides an additional configuration for which the display device can be modified.
Regarding claim 6, Han discloses the display device of claim 1 as noted above.
Han does not disclose the display device comprising an additional supporting layer overlapping the second region and disposed under the supporting member.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to duplicate the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area in order to provide an additional supporting layer overlapping the second region and disposed under the supporting layer.
It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced". Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would be obvious to duplicate the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area since the mere duplication of the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area would produce a known and unexpected result which would be additional support and protection for a display panel.
Regarding claim 7, Han discloses the display device of claim 1 as noted above.
Han does not disclose the display device comprising the additional supporting layer overlapping the non-opening portions of the supporting member.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to duplicate the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area in order to provide an additional supporting layer overlapping the non-opening portions of the supporting member.
It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced". Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would be obvious to duplicate the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area since the mere duplication of the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area would produce a known and unexpected result which would be additional support and protection for a display panel.
Regarding claim 8, Han discloses the display device of claim 1 as noted above.
Han does not disclose the display device comprising the additional supporting layer not overlapping the plurality of opening portions of the supporting member.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to duplicate the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area in order to provide an additional supporting layer not overlapping the plurality of opening portions of the supporting member.
It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced". Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would be obvious to duplicate the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area since the mere duplication of the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area would produce a known and unexpected result which would be additional support and protection for a display panel.
Regarding claim 19, Han discloses the display device of claim 1 as noted above.
Han does not disclose the display device comprising the first portions of the connecting member having no adhesive property.
However, Jeon discloses a foldable display device comprising a display module comprising a reinforcing member provided in the same layer as a first adhesion portion and a second adhesion portion and disposed between a display module and the first and second protection plates (Fig. 3 “SA”; paragraph [0079]), wherein the reinforcing member is disposed in the folding area FA (first portion; paragraph [0078]), and wherein the first portions of the connecting member having no adhesive property (the reinforcing member is cured by ultraviolet light removing its adhesive property; paragraph [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Han to include the technique of curing the portion of the reinforcing member by ultraviolet light to remove the adhesive property for the exposed portions of the adhesive layer because doing so would easy folding of the display module and the reinforcing member along the folding axis.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 2020/0235339 A1) in view of Jeon (US 2020/0119291 A1) in further view of Kim et al (CN 112242497 A).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Kim et al (CN 112242497 A).
Regarding claim 2, Han and Jeon disclose the display device of claim 1 as noted above.
Han and Jeon do not disclose the foldable display device comprising the second portion of the connecting member including a photo-initiator, an oligomer and a monomer.
However, Kim ‘497 discloses a display device comprising a second portion of the connecting member including a photo-initiator, an oligomer and a monomer (a semi-curing adhesive layer comprising an adhesive layer comprising a rubber-based resin comprising styrene, an oligomer and a photoinitiator; pgs. 2 and 4 of Kim translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Han and Jeon to include the adhesive composition of Kim ‘497 for the adhesive layer of Han because having the required adhesive composition provides strong adhesive property (pg. 2 of Kim translation).
Regarding claim 3, Han, Jeon and Kim disclose the display device of claim 2 as noted above.
Han does not disclose the display device comprising the first portion of the connecting member being photopolymerized by ultraviolet rays to become the polymer.
However, Jeon discloses a foldable display device comprising a display module comprising a reinforcing member provided in the same layer as a first adhesion portion and a second adhesion portion and disposed between a display module and the first and second protection plates (Fig. 3 “SA”; paragraph [0079]), wherein the reinforcing member is disposed in the folding area FA (first portion; paragraph [0078]), and wherein the first portions of the connecting member are photopolymerized by ultraviolet rays to become the polymer (the reinforcing member is cured by ultraviolet light removing its adhesive property; paragraph [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Han to include the technique of curing the portion of the reinforcing member by ultraviolet light to remove the adhesive property for the exposed portions of the adhesive layer because doing so would easy folding of the display module and the reinforcing member along the folding axis.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (Us 2020/0235339 A1) in view of Jeon (US 2020/0119291 A1) in further view of Song (US 2018/0150108 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Han and Jeon disclose the display device of claim 1 as noted above.
Han and Jeon do not disclose the display device comprising the supporting member blocking light.
However, Song discloses a foldable display device comprising the supporting member blocking light (back cover #1000 comprising a material of high rigidity such as metal; paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Han to substitute the material of the protective film of Han for the metal of the back cover of Song because having a back cover of a high rigidity material such as metal provides protection for a display panel (paragraph [0007] of Song).
Regarding claim 9, Han and Jeon disclose the display device of claim 8 as noted above.
Han does not disclose the display device comprising an additional supporting layer overlapping the second region and disposed under the supporting member.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to duplicate the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area in order to provide an additional supporting layer overlapping the second region and disposed under the supporting layer.
It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced". Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would be obvious to duplicate the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area since the mere duplication of the protective film of Han having a plurality of openings in the bent area would produce a known and unexpected result which would be additional support and protection for a display panel.
Han and Jeon do not disclose the display device comprising the additional supporting member blocking light.
However, Song discloses a foldable display device comprising the additional supporting member blocking light (back cover #1000 comprising a material of high rigidity such as metal; paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device of Han to substitute the material of the protective film of Han for the metal of the back cover of Song because having a back cover of a high rigidity material such as metal provides protection for a display panel (paragraph [0007] of Song).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argue that Jeon and Kim do not disclose the second portions overlapping the non-opening portions of the supporting member and wherein the first portions of the connecting member have a lower adhesive property than the second portions.
This argument is moot as Jeon and Kim do not disclose the second portions overlapping the non-opening portions of the supporting member and wherein the first portions of the connecting member have a lower adhesive property than the second portions. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Kim ‘497 fails to supply that which Jeon and Kim lack.
This argument is not persuasive as Kim is a teaching reference used to teach an adhesive layer comprising a rubber-based resin comprising styrene, an oligomer and a photoinitiator.
However, note that while Kim does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kim is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely an adhesive layer comprising a rubber-based resin comprising styrene, an oligomer and a photoinitiator, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785