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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2014/0049449).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a display device comprising:
a first area (A1, figs. 2-3 and paragraph 0071), a second area (A2, figs. 2-3 and paragraph 0071), and a bending area (BA, figs. 2-3 and paragraph 0071);
a first substrate that is disposed at least in the first area where a display layer is disposed, and is rigid (100 in A1 area with display DA, figs. 2-3 and paragraph 0071, note: flexible substrate 100 is only flexible in bending area BA and is rigid in both display areas of A1 and A2 as a result of forming display units 110 and 120 thereon);
a second substrate that is disposed in the first substrate, is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area, and is bendable (100 portion from A1 area through BA and into A2 area and is bendable only in the BA area for reasons mentioned above, figs. 2-3 and paragraph 0071);
an organic material layer that is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area (107, figs. 4, 7 and paragraphs 0065-0066);
an encapsulation layer that is disposed on the display layer (210, fig. 7 and paragraph 0081); and
a signal line that extends from the display layer and is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area (L, figs. 3-4,7 and paragraphs 0051-0052, 0081),
wherein the first substrate is spaced apart from the second area (figs. 2-3,7), and
the encapsulation layer (210, fig. 7) disposed on a portion of the organic material layer (107, fig. 7), which is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area, in a direction away from the second substrate (BA, fig. 7 and paragraph 0081).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 9287329) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0049449).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display device comprising:
a first area (active area, figs. 3A-B), a second area (secondary active area, figs.3B, 5), and a bending area (bend allowance section, figs. 3A-B, 5);
a first substrate that is disposed at least in the first area where a display layer is disposed, and is rigid (108, figs. 3-4 and Col. 8);
a second substrate that is disposed on the first substrate, is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area, and is bendable (106, figs. 3-4 and Col. 8);
an organic material layer that is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area (132, figs. 18A-B and Col. 39);
an encapsulation layer that is disposed on the display layer (104, fig. 4); and
a signal line that extends from the display layer and is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area (fig. 3B),
wherein the first substrate is spaced apart from the second area (fig. 4).
Lee does not disclose wherein the encapsulation layer disposed on a portion of the organic material layer, which is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area, in a direction away from the second substrate. Lee’s encapsulation layer is only on the display layer and not the bending area. Park discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1 as mentioned in the above 102 rejection. Park also explicitly discloses an embodiment wherein the encapsulation (210, fig. 2) is only on the display layer (110, fig. 2) and not on the bending area (BA, fig. 2), in addition to an embodiment wherein the encapsulation layer (210, fig. 7) is on the display layer (110, fig. 7) and the bending area (BA, fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lee’s disclosure to include the encapsulation on the bending area since Park explicitly discloses that such would add additional protection to the lines in the bending area against external factors (paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 2, Lee further discloses wherein the second substrate is disposed over the first area, the bending area, and the second area (106, fig. 4), and
the display device further comprises a barrier layer disposed on the second substrate in the first area (126, figs. 9A-B).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses wherein the first substrate (108, fig. 4) overlaps at least a part of the second substrate (106, fig. 4) disposed in the second area, and
the second substrate (106, fig. 4) disposed in the second area is connected to the first substrate (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Lee further discloses a protection layer that is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area (128, figs. 7A-B).
Claims 4, 8, 9, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 9287329) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0049449) in further view of Choi et al. (US 2018/0013095).
Regarding claims 4, 8 and 9, Lee in view of Park discloses the device of claim 1 as mentioned above. Lee in view of Park does not disclose wherein the first substrate has side edge modifications of protrusions, depressions (claim 4), or an inclined shape (claim 8) resulting in 30-500 micrometers of edge variance (claim 9). However, edge modifications adjacent to the bend area were well known in the art at the time of filing for the purpose of facilitating the bending radius to reduce cracking. To illustrate such known teachings see Choi (figures 5-10 and paragraphs 0051-0057). Therefore, it would be deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Park discloses the display device of claim 1, as mentioned above. Lee in view of Park does not explicitly disclose wherein a glass residual layer is disposed on a rear surface of the second substrate in at least a part of the bending area and the second area. However, Lee does disclose a discontinuous glass supporting substrate (108, figs. 3-4 and Col. 8) for which the bending area is therebetween. Examiner takes official notice that a known practice for achieving such would be to etch a continuous glass supporting substrate where the bending portion is desired, thus resulting in a glass residual layer on a surface of the bending area.
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses a display device comprising:
a first area (active area, figs. 3A-B), a second area (secondary active area, figs.3B, 5), and a bending area (bend allowance section, figs. 3A-B, 5);
a first substrate that is disposed at least in the first area where a display layer is disposed, and is rigid (108, figs. 3-4 and Col. 8);
a second substrate that is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area, and has flexibility (106, figs. 3-4 and Col. 8);
an organic material layer that is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area (132, figs. 18A-B and Col. 39);
an encapsulation layer that is disposed on the display layer (104, fig. 4); and
a signal line that extends from the display layer and is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area (fig. 3B),
Lee does not disclose wherein the encapsulation layer disposed on a portion of the organic material layer, which is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area, in a direction away from the second substrate. Lee’s encapsulation layer is only on the display layer and not the bending area. Park discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1 as mentioned in the above 102 rejection. Park also explicitly discloses an embodiment wherein the encapsulation (210, fig. 2) is only on the display layer (110, fig. 2) and not on the bending area (BA, fig. 2), in addition to an embodiment wherein the encapsulation layer (210, fig. 7) is on the display layer (110, fig. 7) and the bending area (BA, fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lee’s disclosure to include the encapsulation on the bending area since Park explicitly discloses that such would add additional protection to the lines in the bending area against external factors (paragraph 0082).
Lee in view of Park does not disclose wherein an end of the first substrate has a shape that is tapered toward the bending area. However, edge modifications adjacent to the bend area were well known in the art at the time of filing for the purpose of facilitating the bending radius to reduce cracking. To illustrate such known teachings see Choi (figures 5-10 and paragraphs 0051-0057). Therefore, it would be deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Park does not explicitly disclose wherein a glass residual layer is disposed on a rear surface of the second substrate in at least a part of the bending area and the second area. However, Lee in view of Park does disclose a discontinuous glass supporting substrate (108, figs. 3-4 and Col. 8) for which the bending area is therebetween. Examiner takes official notice that a known practice for achieving such would be to etch a continuous glass supporting substrate where the bending portion is desired, thus resulting in a glass residual layer on a surface of the bending area.
Regarding claim 20, Lee further discloses a protection layer that is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area (128, figs. 7A-B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
Regarding claim 15, there is no teaching or suggestion in the art of record disclosing the combination of limitations of claim 15, wherein the second substrate comprises a carbonized region that is disposed at least in the bending area and at least a part of the second area, and wherein the second substrate is disposed over the first area, the bending area, and the second area. Therefore, independent claim 15 is deemed allowable.
Claims 5-7, 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.
Regarding claim 5, there is no teaching or suggestion in the art of record disclosing the display device of claim 1, wherein the second substrate comprises a carbonized region that is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area.
Claims 6-7 depend on claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claim 1 to include the limitation, “the encapsulation layer disposed on a portion of the organic material layer, which is disposed at least in the bending area and the second area, in a direction away from the second substrate” and argues that Lee does not disclose such features. Examiner agrees that Lee does not disclose such features. However, as mentioned in the above rejections, Park explicitly discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1. Furthermore, Park explicitly teaches both embodiments wherein the bending area does not have the additional encapsulation layer (similar to Lee’s disclosure) and an embodiment wherein the encapsulation layer is also over the bending area for additional protection of the signal lines in the bending area. As such, Park’s teachings render such modifications to Lee’s structure obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, to clarify, the status of claim 12 is still withdrawn and the amendment to claim 15 was sufficient to make claim 15 allowable in view of the prior art of record.
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 DOUGLAS M MENZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/DOUGLAS M MENZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897 3/30/26