DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/26.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear how the width of the at least one flat area continuously decreases as it also “extends” from the flat area. The term extend in this context would appear to imply that the width dimension increases as it extends from the flat area. Therefore, claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11 are rejected as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the term width will be interpreted to mean the height of length of the layer in a vertical direction when looked at from the front in a plan view (i.e., consistent with w1 and w2 of Fig. 8 of the present specification).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2018/0364759, “Ahn”) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2019/0281692, “Jeon”).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn teaches an electronic display device comprising a flexible display (e.g., [0049], display 15a, and see Fig. 2, wherein the display is flexible, [0042]) and a cover window disposed on the flexible display (see Fig. 4, window member 153, [0052], [0068], may be glass) and wherein the glass member may comprise a bending area that has a curve or step cutout of the member, and extending from the flat areas, to facilitate bending ([0068], Fig. 4). Ahn additionally teaches that the thickness of the bending area may continuously decrease from the flat areas (see, e.g., Fig. 4). Ahn additionally teaches the inclusion of a buffer member between the display layer and the glass member (e.g., Fig. 4, layer 155, [0054]). Ahn fails to teach that the height (or width) of the glass layer decreases as the layer extends form the flat area to the bending area. However, such a construction is known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of folding display devices ([0003] – [0005]), Jeon teaches to include a cut-out portion along the height of layer in order to facilitate the inclusion of other components and improve bending while reducing stress in the layer ([0063] – [0064] and see Fig. 1). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included such a cut-out in the display device of Ahn in order to facilitate the inclusion of other components and improve bending while reducing stress in the layer ([0063] – [0064] and see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Ahn additionally teaches that the glass member may further comprise a first surface facing a buffer member and a flat second surface facing outward of the electronic device (Fig. 4, curved portion of layer 153 facing member 155 and flat surface of layer 153 facing the exterior of the device) and wherein the buffer member comprises a flat surface facing the display (e.g., Fig. 4, interface of layers 155, 151, [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Ahn teaches that it is known to modify the shape of the recessed portions so as to improve the bending of the layer, including to have multiple cut out regions, such as would satisfy the claimed language wherein a second recess is formed on an edge of the bending region ([0060], [0061], Fig. 6, having different recessed portions). Furthermore, because Ahn teaches that it is known to modify the shape of the recessed portions so as to improve the bending of the layer ([0060], [0061], Fig. 6) it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have adjusted the first recess in the shape of the second recess such as to extend continuously from the first recess. Furthermore, the modification of the shape of the cutouts would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing in order to improve the bending of the layer as a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 4, while Ahn fails to specifically teach that the length of the first recess in the thickness direction is the same as the length of the second recess in the width direction, Ahn teaches that it is known to modify the shape of the recessed portions so as to improve the bending of the layer ([0060], [0061], Fig. 6) and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have adjusted the first recess in the thickness direction to be the same as the length of the second recess in the width direction. Furthermore, the modification of the shape of the cutouts would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing in order to improve the bending of the layer as a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Ahn additionally teaches first and second housing to accommodate a flexible display and wherein the housings are connected by a hinge and wherein the bending area corresponds to the hinge area (e.g., Figs. 1, 5, [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Ahn additionally teaches an embodiment having first and second bending areas spaced apart and having three flat areas including one between the bending areas (see Fig. 10 wherein the display has two bending sections and three flat sections).
Regarding claim 8, Ahn additionally teaches the inclusion of layers on the outside of the window layer and including what may be considered a scattering prevention layer and a coating layer ([0103]).
Regarding claim 11, Ahn additionally teaches that the layer corresponding to the buffer member may comprise an adhesive layer (e.g., Fig. 4, layer 155, [0054], may be an optical adhesive).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Jeon as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Baek et al. (US 2019/0268455, “Baek”).
Regarding claim 7, Ahn fails to specifically teach a roller structure mounted so as to slidably guide a structure at a bending portion of a display. However, such structures are known in the art. For example, Baek teaches a foldable display capable of opening upon rotation about a shaft (see Figs. 5, 6E, 6F, [0092], [0093]) so as to flexibly open and shut while maintaining a sufficiently thin display (e.g., [0006] – [0008]). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing to have adopted such a suitable housing mechanism for the display device of Ahn so as to provide a flexible display having good thinness and that is foldable ([0006] – [0008]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Jeon as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Donovan et al. (US 2014/0065401, “Donovan”).
Regarding claim 9, while Ahn teaches that it is known to modify the shape of the recessed portions so as to improve the bending of the layer ([0060], [0061], Fig. 6) and to etch the glass so as to create bending portions (e.g., [0011]), Ahn fails to teach the material to use in order to create an etched thinner bending area. In the same field of endeavor glass articles (e.g., [0003]), Donovan teaches that it is known to use hydrofluoric acid to etch a glass article ([0033]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used hydrofluoric acid to have etched the groove in the glass article of Ahn as described by Donovan in order to effectively etch the groove (Donovan, [0033]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Jeon as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2019/0045038, “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 10, Ahn fails to specifically teach the thickness of the bending and flat area of the cover window member. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices ([0001]), Zhou teaches that a glass layer for use in a foldable display device may be on the range of from 50 to 400 micrometers ([0014]) and an area thinned to facilitate bending may be on the range of from 10 to 300 micrometers ([0014]). Thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have adopted thicknesses on these ranges in order to effectively provide a glass layer that is effective as a window and also provides bendability (Zhou, e.g., [0013] – [0016]). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782