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
Claims 11-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/02/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final rejection on 12/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-16 , filed 02/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-10 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Choi et al. (KR 20210053582 A) and Baek et al. (US 20210074955 A1).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first part” and “second part” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 20210053582 A) in view of Baek et al. (US 20210074955 A1).
Regrading claim 1, Choi discloses a display device, comprising:
a first subpixel (annotated below); (Fig. 6)
a folding axis (FX) about which the display device (140) is configured to fold; (Fig. 1)
a first light emitting portion (EA annotated below) in the first subpixel, the first light emitting portion containing a first part and a second part, wherein the first part (annotated below) of the first light emitting portion (EA annotated below) is closer to the folding axis (FX) than the second part (annotated below) of the first light emitting portion in a plan view of the display device; (Fig. 6) and
a second light emitting portion (annotated below) in the first subpixel; (Fig. 6)
and wherein the second light emitting portion (annotated below) does not surround any portion of a perimeter of the second part of the first light emitting portion(annotated below) in the plan view of the display device. (Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image1.png
798
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi does not disclose
wherein the second light emitting portion surrounds an entirety of a perimeter of the first part of the first light emitting portion in the plan view of the display device,
However, Baek discloses:
wherein the second light emitting portion (EA2) surrounds an entirety of a perimeter of the first part of the first light emitting portion (EA1) in the plan view of the display device, (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Choi and Baek for the second light emitting portion surrounds an entirety of a perimeter of the first part of the first light emitting portion in the plan view of the display device in order to have “a high brightness in a structure in which a plurality of panels are connected.” (Baek, [0007])
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the second light emitting portion (annotated above) is between the first light emitting portion (annotated above) and the folding axis (FX). (Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 4, Choi discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the first light emitting portion emits light of a first wavelength and the second light emitting portion emits light of a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength. (“In addition, the plurality of emission areas EA may include a red emission area, a green emission area, and a blue emission area, but is not limited thereto.”)
Claim 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 20210053582 A) in view of Baek et al. (US 20210074955 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song (US 20210050388 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Baek disclose the display device of claim 1. Choi in view of Baek do not disclose wherein the first light emitting portion is in an opening of the first subpixel, and the second light emitting portion is outside of the opening of the first subpixel.
However, Song discloses:
wherein the first light emitting portion (TA1) is in an opening of the first subpixel (PXS_1), and the second light emitting portion (TA2) is outside of the opening of the first subpixel (PXS_1). (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Choi, Baek, and Song for the first light emitting portion is in an opening of the first subpixel, and the second light emitting portion is outside of the opening of the first subpixel in order to have “the self-light-emitting display device has low power consumption, is thin and lightweight, and has high quality characteristics such as a wide viewing angle, high luminance and contrast, and a fast response speed.” (Song, [0005])
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Baek disclose the display device of claim 1. Choi in view of Baek do not disclose further comprising: a reverse spacer that surrounds a portion of a perimeter of the second light emitting portion.
However, Song discloses:
a reverse spacer (SPC) that surrounds a portion of a perimeter of the second light emitting portion (EMA2). (Fig. 9)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Choi, Baek and Song to have a reverse spacer that surrounds a portion of a perimeter of the second light emitting portion in order to “support the structure stacked thereon and may mitigate deformation of the display device caused by stress when the display device is pressed.” (Song, [0080])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 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.
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 ASHLEY BLACKWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-1600.
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.
/ASHLEY NICOLE BLACKWELL/
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights