DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 12th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed March 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 15, and 18 have been amended. Claims 2, 10-14, and 19-20 have been cancelled.
The Section 112, 2nd paragraph rejections made in the Office action mailed December 18th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed March 12th, 2026. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection has been made.
The Section 103 rejections made in the Office action mailed December 18th, 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed March 12th, 2026 and the Examiner’s recommendations as set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, regarding claim 1, filed March 12th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Choi teaches only a rollable plate that could not be adapted for a folding structure as claimed. The Examiner disagrees. The different between a rollable and foldable structure is merely extending the bendable portion only the folding line (Figs. 5A-5B) or the entirety (Figs. 5C-5D) of the structure as set forth in Russell-Clarke (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0216740 A1). It would have been obvious to adapt a known method of supporting a display device from a rolling to a folding state with relative ease and still able to meet the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Hu cannot teach the first and second plates as claimed because they are connected by a folding part. The Examiner disagrees. There is nothing in the claim that requires the separation between the first and second plates to comprise only an empty space or air. The plates can still be first and second separated and distinct plates while still being in conjunction with each other as currently claimed.
Furthermore, forming a single-material or connected plate having a perforated or otherwise mechanically weakened folding line (Figs. 8-11, 14-23) and forming separated supporting plates, separated by an empty folding part (Figs. 2, 4-7, 12-13), is a well-known equivalent in the art as demonstrated by Park (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0334114 A1). This could have been applied to Choi as well.
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, 3-9, & 15-18 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 claims 1 and 18, the conditional support plate thickness in relation to the fiber thickness of lines 7-15 and its equivalent is confusing as claimed and as argued. Applicant argues the limitations in the alternative “or” but they are being claimed simultaneously “and”. It is unclear because the limitations are conditional “when” if they can be claimed simultaneously or not as the support plate can only meet one thickness condition, right? The Examiner believes “when” should be deleted and the “and” should be an “or”. However, Applicant is free to explain and/or amend differently.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “each of the plurality of sub-plates comprises at least one of the plurality of fiber layers” is confusing and comprises an improved wording that clarifies the context of the sub-plates in claim 18 comprising “each of the plurality of sub-plates comprises a fiber layer of the plurality of fiber layers having a thickness proportional to a thickness of the support plate”.
However, because now this creates some antecedent basis errors, it is recommended to move this phase in claim 18 (and keep it in the same location in claim 1) to immediately before the final limitation of the claim and reworded such that: “each of the plurality of sub-plates comprises a fiber layer of the plurality of fiber layers having a thickness proportional to the thickness of the support plate”.
Claims 3-9 and 15-17 are rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance
The Examiner is convinced by the unexpected results comprising each of the claim elements of claim 18. Claim 1 is missing the crucial element of claim 3. However, if Applicant fixes or properly argues the conditional support thickness proportionality as set forth and the issue regarding the sub-plates of claim 1, claims 3 and 18 teach a combination that provides a synergistic effect not currently available in the discovered prior art.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 April 3rd, 2026