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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 16th, 2023, October 22nd, 2024, and November 26th, 2025 have been received. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Rejections
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230383152 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sim teaches a display apparatus, comprising:
a transistor part (pixel circuit PC taught in [0216], wherein the pixel circuit PC at least includes transistors T1 to T7) over a substrate (Fig. 25; second support member SB2);
a light emitting part ([0216] teaches light emitting device OLED connected to the pixel circuit PC within the display module DM. Also see Fig. 26. [0215] – [0216] discloses Fig. 26 to be a circuit diagram of the pixel PX) over the transistor part (Fig. 26);
one or more cover members (Fig. 25; cover window CW) over the light emitting part (Fig. 25 shows the cover window CW over the display module DM); and
one or more first adhesives (Fig. 25; first adhesive layer 111) disposed between the one or more cover members ([0190]),
wherein a transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is less than about 97% (Sim teaches in [0145] that the cover window CW, which includes the first adhesive has a transmittance equal to about 90%).
Further regarding the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives, Kim discloses a similar structure (e.g., Fig. 5) wherein the protective layer adhesive layer AP-P (similar to Sim’s adhesive layer 111) is explicitly disclosed to have a high transmittance of about 90% ([0173] and Table 1). Thus, examiner asserts that the transmittance taught by Sim for the cover window may also be understood as the transmittance of Sim’s first adhesive.
Therefore, a transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is less than about 97% would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, from at least [0173] and Table 1 of Kim because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Sim’s cover member to include a first adhesive wherein a transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is less than about 97%, as disclosed by Kim, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Sim’s cover member to include a first adhesive wherein a transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is less than about 97%, as disclosed by Kim, is expressly provided by Kim, wherein they disclose an analogous display apparatus structure with an explicit teaching of the transmittance of the first adhesive ([0173] and Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Sim’s cover member to include a first adhesive wherein a transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is less than about 97%, as disclosed by Kim, with the motivation of allowing light to transmit through the upper layers of the device. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of adhesives with high transparency.
Claims 2 – 3, 5, 8 – 9, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230383152 A1) and Nam et al. (US 20220174828 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Sim, further in view of Kim, teach the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
one or more plates (Fig. 25; plate PT) including a display area (Figs. 24 – 25; plate PT at the folding area FA) and a hole area (Figs. 24 – 25; through hole TH of the plate PT at a periphery of the display area. [0213]) disposed on or at a periphery of the display area (Fig. 24; first area A1, taught in [0213] to correspond to the through hole TH); and
one or more second adhesives (Fig. 25; adhesive layer 114 or 115. [0213] teaches the through hole TH penetrating through the second protecting member PL2 to the adhesive layer 114) disposed at the hole area,
wherein the one or more first adhesives are disposed between the one or more cover members in the display area (Fig. 25), and …
However, Sim remains silent regarding the display apparatus:
… wherein the one or more second adhesives have different transmittance from those of the one or more first adhesives.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nam teaches adhesive layer AP1 and AP2 (Fig. 4), which is similar to Sim’s second adhesive layer because they are both associated with space between the plate layer(s) and display panel/display module DM. Further, Nam teaches the adhesive layer AP1/AP2 having a transmittance of about 80% or less ([0116]). Incorporating Nam adhesive into Sim’s display device would yield the display apparatus wherein the one or more second adhesives have different transmittance from those of the one or more first adhesives.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the adhesive layers of Sim, further in view of Kim, to include the relationship disclosed by Nam wherein the one or more second adhesives have different transmittance from those of the one or more first adhesives, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Nam’s teaching of their adhesive layers AP1/AP2 is comparable to Sim’s second adhesives because of the same relative placement of the adhesives between their disclosures. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adhesive layers of Sim, further in view of Kim, to include the relationship disclosed by Nam wherein the one or more second adhesives have different transmittance from those of the one or more first adhesives with the predictable result of improving the display apparatus’ transmittance.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 2; however, Sim remains silent wherein
the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is about 70% or more to about 80% or less.
However, further in view of Nam, it would be obvious to incorporate the materials of Nam’s adhesive layers AP1/AP2 into Sim’s first adhesive to yield the display apparatus wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is about 70% or more to about 80% or less.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the first adhesive layer of Sim, further in view of Kim, to include the relationship disclosed by Nam wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is about 70% or more to about 80% or less, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Nam’s teaching of their adhesive layers are comparable to Sim’s first adhesive because of their use within similar folding display devices. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first adhesive layer of Sim, further in view of Kim, to include the relationship disclosed by Nam wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is about 70% or more to about 80% or less with the predictable result of improving the display apparatus’ transmittance.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein
at least one or more of a camera, a sensor (electronic sensor/electronic device SS. See [0147], [0177], and [0214]), and an optical part are disposed in the hole area.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 2, further comprising:
one or more third adhesives (Fig. 25; adhesive layer 116 or 117. [0196] or [0203]) between the one or more plates,
wherein the one or more plates are below the transistor part (Fig. 25 shows the plates below the display module DM).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 8, wherein
at least one of the one or more plates further includes one or more opening patterns (Figs. 24 – 25; plurality of holes H positioned in the folding area FA).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 8, wherein
the hole area is disposed at a part of the one or more plates and a part of the one or more cover members (Fig. 24 shows the display device DSD with first area A1, i.e., the hole area; wherein Fig. 25 shows the hole area overlapping with the cover member).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Sim, further in view of Kim, teach the display apparatus of claim 1; however, Sim remains silent wherein
the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is about 70% or more to about 80% or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nam teaches adhesive layer AP1 and AP2 (Fig. 4), which is similar to Sim’s second adhesive layer because they are both associated with a foldable display apparatus, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect Nam’s adhesive layers to be configurable such that it may function in the same layer of the display apparatus wherein Sim’s first adhesive layer is disposed. Further, Nam teaches the adhesive layer AP1/AP2 having a transmittance of about 80% or less ([0116]). Incorporating Nam adhesive into Sim’s display device would yield the display apparatus the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is about 70% or more to about 80% or less.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the first adhesive layer of Sim, further in view of Kim, to include the relationship disclosed by Nam wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is about 70% or more to about 80% or less, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Nam’s teaching of their adhesive layers are comparable to Sim’s first adhesive because of their use within similar folding display devices. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first adhesive layer of Sim, further in view of Kim, to include the relationship disclosed by Nam wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is about 70% or more to about 80% or less with the predictable result of improving the display apparatus’ transmittance.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the one or more second adhesives include transparent adhesives (Nam teaches, e.g., [0016], that the adhesive layers AP1/AP2 have a transmittance of about 80%/optically clear (OCA), such that the examiner is considering adhesive layers AP1/AP2 to include transparent adhesives).
Claims 4, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230383152 A1), Nam et al. (US 20220174828 A1), Xu et al. (US 20250059409 A1), Ogawa (US 20100181090 A1), and Kim et al. (US 20210363392 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the display area includes a variable area (Fig. 24; folding area) and a first area (Fig. 24; second-first area A2a or second-second area A2b) adjacent to the variable area (Fig. 24), and …
However, Sim remains silent regarding:
… wherein a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the first area is different from a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the variable area.
However, within the field of adhesive films, it is taught that wettability may be adjusted during formation (e.g., [0143] of Xu). Further, from disclosures such as Ogawa, it is understood that the surface on which the adhesive is to be applied needs to be considered, adjusting wettability as needed (e.g., [0026]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches forming areas within an single adhesive layer to have different wettabilities ([0132]). Thus, the teachings may be applied from Kim to Sim’s first adhesive layer to yield a display apparatus wherein a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the first area is different from a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the variable area (See Fig. 1 of Kim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Sim’s wettability of the first adhesive to include a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the first area is different from a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the variable area, as disclosed by the combination of Kim, Xu, and Ogawa, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the adhesive layer of Kim is comparable to Sim’s adhesive layers because they are designed to be deformed during a folding of the display apparatus. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sim’s wettability of the first adhesive to include a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the first area is different from a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the variable area, as disclosed by the combination of Kim, Xu, and Ogawa, with the predictable result of forming adhesives of appropriate wettability based on the surface material and topology, as supported at least by Xu and Ogawa.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 9, further comprising:
a first area (Fig. 24; second-first area A2a or second-second area A2b) adjacent to the one or more opening patterns (Figs. 24 – 25),
wherein a wettability of the one or more third adhesives in the first area is different from a wettability of the one or more third adhesives corresponding to the one or more opening patterns.
It is the examiner understanding that, for at least adhesive layer 117, the wettability would be different in the folding area of the device because of cut out shape shown in at least Fig. 25; however, Sim remains silent regarding a wettability of the one or more third adhesives in the first area is different from a wettability of the one or more third adhesives corresponding to the one or more opening patterns.
Regardless, within the field of adhesive films, it is taught that wettability may be adjusted during formation (e.g., [0143] of Xu). Further, from disclosures such as Ogawa, it is understood that the surface on which the adhesive is to be applied needs to be considered, adjusting wettability as needed (e.g., [0026]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches forming areas within an single adhesive layer to have different wettabilities ([0132]). Thus, the teachings may be applied from Kim to Sim’s first adhesive layer to yield a display apparatus wherein a wettability of the one or more third adhesives in the first area is different from a wettability of the one or more third adhesives corresponding to the one or more opening patterns (See Fig. 1 of Kim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Sim’s wettability of the first adhesive to include a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the first area is different from a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the variable area, as disclosed by the combination of Kim, Xu, and Ogawa, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the adhesive layer of Kim is comparable to Sim’s adhesive layers because they are designed to be deformed during a folding of the display apparatus. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sim’s wettability of the first adhesive to include a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the first area is different from a wettability of the one or more first adhesives in the variable area, as disclosed by the combination of Kim, Xu, and Ogawa, with the predictable result of forming adhesives of appropriate wettability based on the surface material and topology, as supported at least by Xu and Ogawa.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Sim, further in view of Kim, Nam, Xu, Ogawa, and Kim, teach the display apparatus of claim 10, wherein
the one or more third adhesives include a first area and a second area adjacent to the first area, and wherein a wettability of the first area is different from a wettability of the second area (Kim (US 20210363392 A1): Fig. 1 and [0132]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230383152 A1), Nam et al. (US 20220174828 A1), and Tanaka et al. (US 20140070203 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 2, further comprising:
an encapsulation part (Fig. 25; first protecting member PL1) over the light emitting part; and …
However, Sim remains silent regarding:
… a color filter part over the encapsulation part.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches a display apparatus with a resin adhesive layer 18, interpreted to be an encapsulation part (wherein it is understood that resin makes an excellent encapsulation material. See [0187] wherein Sim teaches their first protecting member PL1 to be formed from a resin), is formed over a light emitting part (Fig. 8). Further, a color filter 19B is formed directly onto the encapsulation part. Examiner asserts that a color filter, such as that shown by Tanaka may be added to the display apparatus of Sim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display apparatus of Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, to include Tanaka’s color filter part over the encapsulation part, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display apparatus of Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, as modified by Tanaka’s color filter part over the encapsulation part can yield a predictable result of providing better color clarity/purity for the user since the color filter may be configured to selectively transmit wavelengths within a predefined range. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230383152 A1), Nam et al. (US 20220174828 A1), Tanaka et al. (US 20140070203 A1), and Lee et al. (US 20200119113 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Sim, further in view of Kim, Nam, and Tanaka, teach the display apparatus of claim 6; however, Sim remains silent regarding the display apparatus further comprising:
a touch part between the encapsulation part and the color filter part.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches an encapsulation layer 450; a touch layer 501, 511, and IE2; and a color filter layer CF_R/G/B (Fig. 6). Therefore, examiner asserts it would have been obvious to form the display apparatus wherein a touch part between the encapsulation part and the color filter part through Sim, further in view of Lee.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the display apparatus of Sim, further in view of Kim, Nam, and Tanaka, to include Lee’s touch part between the encapsulation part and the color filter part, because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the display apparatus of the display apparatus of Sim, further in view of Kim, Nam, and Tanaka, as modified by Lee’s touch part between the encapsulation part and the color filter part can yield a predictable result of providing a touch function to the display apparatus since the touch part may be configured to transmit a signal generated from a user’s touch. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230383152 A1), Nam et al. (US 20220174828 A1), and Park et al. (US 20210375166 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 8; however, Sim remains silent wherein
the hole area extends from a part of the one or more plates to a part of the one or more cover members.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches a support member PM, interpreted to be a plate, and window WM, i.e., a cover member; wherein a hole area extends from the plate to the cover member (Fig. 6). Examiner asserts it would have been obvious to combine Sim and Park to yield the display apparatus wherein the hole area extends from a part of the one or more plates to a part of the one or more cover members.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Sim’s display apparatus to include Park’s teaching wherein the hole area extends from a part of the one or more plates to a part of the one or more cover members, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Park’s hole is comparable to Sim’s hole because they may house sensor components. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sim’s display apparatus to include Park’s teaching wherein the hole area extends from a part of the one or more plates to a part of the one or more cover members with the predictable result of the hole reaching the cover member in order to provide appropriate connectivity for the sensor provided therein.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230383152 A1), Nam et al. (US 20220174828 A1), and Hao et al. (US 20200152715 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, teach the display apparatus of claim 8; however, Sim remains silent wherein
at least one of the one or more first adhesives and the one or more third adhesives include a color material and an ultraviolet ray blocker.
However, in the field of adhesives, Hao teaches a polymeric adhesive that may include materials for color shifting, i.e., a color material ([0071] discusses colored tackifiers) and UV blocking features ([0060]). Examiner asserts it would have been obvious to combine Sim and Hao to yield the display apparatus wherein at least one of the one or more first adhesives and the one or more third adhesives include a color material and an ultraviolet ray blocker.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the adhesives of Sim, Kim, and Nam to include Hao’s adhesive features of colored material and UV blocking material, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the adhesives disclosed by Hao are comparable to the adhesives of Sim, Kim and Nam because Hao discloses the use of their adhesives in display devices (e.g., [0007] – [0008]). Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the adhesives of Sim, Kim, and Nam to include Hao’s adhesive features of colored material and UV blocking material, with the predictable result of providing protection to the sensitive device components on/in/below the display panel.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230383152 A1), Nam et al. (US 20220174828 A1), Tanaka et al. (US 20140070203 A1), and Wu et al. (US 20240278533 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Sim, further in view of Kim, Nam, and Tanaka, teach the display apparatus of claim 6, wherein
the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is differently configured in going away from the color filter part to the one or more cover members.
However, in the same layer field of endeavor, Wu teaches making a multilayered adhesive layer wherein the transmittance may vary in the vertical direction (Fig. 8, [0114]). Therefore, it would be obvious from Sim, further in view of Wu, to form a display apparatus wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is differently configured in going away from the color filter part to the one or more cover members.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the transmittance, in the vertical direction, of the adhesives of Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, to include Wu’s teaching wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is differently configured in the vertical direction, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Wu’s adhesive layers discussed are comparable to the adhesive layers of Sim, Kim, and Nam because of the explicit teaching for use in foldable displays (abstract/[0005] – [0007] of Wu). Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmittance, in the vertical direction, of the adhesives of Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, to include Wu’s teaching wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is differently configured in the vertical direction with the predictable result of optimizing the desired optical properties ([0123]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230383152 A1), Nam et al. (US 20220174828 A1), Xu et al. (US 20250059409 A1), Ogawa (US 20100181090 A1), Kim et al. (US 20210363392 A1), and Wu et al. (US 20240278533 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Sim, further in view of Kim, Nam, Kim, Xu, and Ogawa, teach the display apparatus of claim 17; however, Sim remains silent wherein
a transmittance of the one or more third adhesives is differently configured in going away from the one or more plates including the one or more opening patterns.
However, in the same layer field of endeavor, Wu teaches making a multilayered adhesive layer wherein the transmittance may vary in the vertical direction (Fig. 8, [0114]). Therefore, it would be obvious from Sim, further in view of Wu, to form a display apparatus wherein a transmittance of the one or more third adhesives is differently configured in going away from the one or more plates including the one or more opening patterns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the transmittance, in the vertical direction, of the adhesives of Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, to include Wu’s teaching wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is differently configured in the vertical direction, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Wu’s adhesive layers discussed are comparable to the adhesive layers of Sim, Kim, and Nam because of the explicit teaching for use in foldable displays (abstract/[0005] – [0007] of Wu). Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmittance, in the vertical direction, of the adhesives of Sim, further in view of Kim and Nam, to include Wu’s teaching wherein the transmittance of the one or more first adhesives is differently configured in the vertical direction with the predictable result of optimizing the desired optical properties (Wu: [0123]).
Claims 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 20230071578 A1), and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20240278533 A1).
Regarding independent claim 19, Sim teaches a display apparatus, comprising:
one or more plates (Fig. 25; plate PT) including a display area (Figs. 24 – 25; plate PT at the folding area FA) and a non-display area (Figs. 24 – 25; plate PT outside of the boundaries of the display module DM);
a transistor part (pixel circuit PC taught in [0216], wherein the pixel circuit PC at least includes transistors T1 to T7) over the one or more plates (Figs. 25);
a light emitting part ([0216] teaches light emitting device OLED connected to the pixel circuit PC within the display module DM. Also see Fig. 26. [0215] – [0216] discloses Fig. 26 to be a circuit diagram of the pixel PX) over the transistor part (Fig. 26) over the transistor part (Fig. 26);
one or more cover members (Fig. 25; cover window CW) over the light emitting part (Fig. 25 shows the cover window CW over the display module DM); and
a plurality of first adhesives (Fig. 25; adhesive layer 116 or 117 and 111 or 112 110) divided into a first group (Fig. 25; adhesive layer 116 or 117 of 110 (below the illustration)) and a second group (Fig. 25; adhesive layer 111 or 112 of 110 (below the illustration)),
wherein the first group of the plurality of first adhesives … is disposed between the one or more plates (Fig. 25; adhesive layer 116 or 117), and
wherein the second group of the plurality of first adhesives … is disposed between the one or more cover members (Fig. 25; first adhesive layer 111 or 112).
However, Sim remains silent regarding the display apparatus wherein:
the first group of the plurality of first adhesives … has a first transmittance and …
the second group of the plurality of first adhesives … has a second transmittance different from the first transmittance, and …
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches adhesive layers that have transmittance values that may vary in the vertical direction (Fig. 8, [0114]). Therefore, it would be obvious from Sim, further in view of Wu, to form a display apparatus wherein the first group of the plurality of first adhesives has a first transmittance and the second group of the plurality of first adhesives has a second transmittance different from the first transmittance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the transmittance, in the vertical direction, of the adhesives of Sim to include Wu’s teaching wherein the first group of the plurality of first adhesives has a first transmittance and the second group of the plurality of first adhesives has a second transmittance different from the first transmittance, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Wu’s adhesive layers discussed are comparable to the adhesive layers of Sim because of the explicit teaching for use in foldable displays (abstract/[0005] – [0007] of Wu). Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmittance, in the vertical direction, of the adhesives of Sim to include Wu’s teaching wherein the first group of the plurality of first adhesives has a first transmittance and the second group of the plurality of first adhesives has a second transmittance different from the first transmittance with the predictable result of optimizing the desired optical properties (Wu: [0123]).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Sim, further in view of Wu, teach the display apparatus of claim 19, further comprising
one or more second adhesives (Fig. 25; adhesive layer 114) disposed at a hole area disposed on or at a periphery of the display area (Fig. 25 shows adhesive layer 114 disposed at a periphery of the display area), …
However, Sim remains silent regarding:
… the one or more second adhesives having a third transmittance,
wherein the third transmittance of the one or more second adhesives is different from that of the one or more first adhesives.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches adhesive layers that have transmittance values that may vary in the vertical direction (Fig. 8, [0114]). Therefore, it would be obvious from Sim, further in view of Wu, to form a display apparatus includes the one or more second adhesives having a third transmittance, wherein the third transmittance of the one or more second adhesives is different from that of the one or more first adhesives.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the transmittance, in the vertical direction, of the adhesives of Sim to include Wu’s teaching wherein their display device includes the one or more second adhesives having a third transmittance, wherein the third transmittance of the one or more second adhesives is different from that of the one or more first adhesives, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Wu’s adhesive layers discussed are comparable to the adhesive layers of Sim because of the explicit teaching for use in foldable displays (abstract/[0005] – [0007] of Wu). Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmittance, in the vertical direction, of the adhesives of Sim to include Wu’s teaching wherein their display device includes the one or more second adhesives having a third transmittance, wherein the third transmittance of the one or more second adhesives is different from that of the one or more first adhesives with the predictable result of optimizing the desired optical properties (Wu: [0123]).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure:
US 20230329070 A1 – teaches a similar foldable display.
US 20200051881 A1 – teaches a similar foldable display.
US 20230251690 A1 – teaches a similar foldable display.
US 20220011815 A1 – teaches a similar foldable display.
US 20200319672 A1 – teaches a similar foldable display.
US 20230292573 A1 – teaches an encapsulation layer, touch layer, and color filter.
US 20230354686 A1 – teaches a similar foldable display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897