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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2018/0090699 A1, hereinafter, “Shin”).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a display apparatus (see Shin, FIG. 11) comprising:
a substrate (740, FIG. 11) including a first area (upper 740, FIG. 11), a second area (lower 740, FIG. 11), and a third area (curved 740, FIG. 11), the first area facing a first direction (up, FIG. 11), the second area extending from the first area and facing a second direction (down, FIG. 11) different from the first direction (up), and the third area disposed between the first area and the second area (FIG. 11);
a display element (810, FIG. 11) arranged in the first area (upper 740); and
a bending-protecting layer (830, FIG. 11) arranged in the third area (curved 740), the bending-protecting layer (830) is disposed outside of the first area (upper 740);
wherein a thickness of the substrate in the third area (curved 740) is less than a thickness of the substrate in the first area (upper 740, FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a pad portion (840, FIG. 11) arranged in the second area (lower 740); and a connection wiring (820, FIG. 11) arranged in the third area (curved 740), the connection wiring (820) electrically connecting the display element (810) to the pad portion (840, FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 5, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 4, wherein a stress neutral plane (NP, ¶ [0086]) in the third area (curved 740) is arranged between a surface of the substrate (740) and the connection wiring (820, FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substrate (in order to meet the limitation, the substrate is 740+730) includes a first base layer (740) and a second base layer (730) stacked on the first base layer (740, FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 6, wherein a thickness of the first base layer in the third area (curved 740) is less than a thickness of the first base layer in the first area (upper 740, FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 8, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 7, wherein the thickness of the first base layer in the third area (curved 740) is less than a thickness of the first base layer in the second area (lower 740, FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 6, further comprising a barrier layer (730, in order to meet the limitation, the substrate is 860+730+740, FIG. 11) disposed between the first base layer (740) and the second base layer (860).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2018/0090699 A1, hereinafter, “Shin”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jang et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2018/0123060 A1, hereinafter, “Jang”).
Regarding claim 2, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 1.
Shin is silent regarding that an inner radius of the third area is in a range of about 0.17 mm to about 0.19 mm.
Jang, however, discloses a display apparatus (see Jang, FIG. 4), comprising an inner radius in a range of about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm (¶ [0055])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form an inner radius of Shin’s third area in a range of about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm, as taught by Jang, in order to form a flexible substrate display. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form an inner radius of Shin’s third area in a range of about 0.17 mm to about 0.19 mm, since when the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2018/0090699 A1, hereinafter, “Shin”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Arita et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2018/0284564 A1, hereinafter, “Arita”).
Regarding claim 3, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 1.
Shin is silent regarding that a thickness of the bending-protecting layer is in a range of about 0.04 mm to about 0.1 mm.
Arita, however, disclose that a thickness of a bending-protecting layer is less than 0.4 mm (¶ [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form a thickness of Shin’s bending-protecting layer less than 0.4 mm, in order to reduce the stress (¶ [0041]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form a thickness of Shin’s bending-protecting layer is in a range of about 0.04 mm to about 0.1 mm, since when the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2018/0090699 A1, hereinafter, “Shin”), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 6.
Shin fails to explicitly disclose that a relational equation between a modulus of the bending-protecting layer and a thickness of the first base layer in the third area is equal to y=62x-70, wherein x is the thickness of the first base layer in the third area and y is the modulus of the bending-protecting layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a relational equation between a modulus of the bending-protecting layer and a thickness of the first base layer in the third area is equal to y=62x-70, wherein x is the thickness of the first base layer in the third area and y is the modulus of the bending-protecting layer, since when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Shin discloses the display apparatus of claim 9.
Shin fails to explicitly disclose that a modulus of the bending-protecting layer is greater than 62x-70 and less than 1.4*(62x-70).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have that a modulus of the bending-protecting layer is greater than 62x-70 and less than 1.4*(62x-70), since when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIA L. CROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-3273. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5:30 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/XIA L CROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights