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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US Pub 2021/0201710 (hereafter Kim'710) in view of Kim et al. CN217718922 for translation and citation purpose use US equivalent Kim US Pub 2022/0374058.
Regarding claim 1, Kim'710 teaches,
An electronic device (Figure 6c-d; paragraph 46 described electronic devices) comprising:
A display device (figure 6c-d) comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 6c, 10) comprising a first non-folding region (NBA1), a folding region (BA), and a second non-folding region (NBA2);
a first support plate (Figure 6c, SM1) disposed below the display panel and having a plurality of openings (fig. 6c, OP) which overlap the folding region and are defined in the first support plate;
a second support plate (as described below, CM1 and CM2) including: a second-first support plate (CM1 overlapping NBA1 and below SM1) overlapping the first non-folding region and disposed below the first support plate in a plan view;
a second-second support plate (CM2 overlapping NBA2 and below SM1) overlapping the second non-folding region and disposed below the first support plate in the plan view; and
a plurality of impact resistant layers (AL1 and AL2 provided on both sides such that they are position between first support plate SM1 and CM1 and SM1 and CM2) disposed between the first support plate and the second-first support plate and between the first support plate and the second-second support plate, the plurality of impact resistant layers comprising:
a first-first adhesive layer (AL1, figure 6c between SM1 and CM1) disposed between the first support plate and the second-first support plate; and
a first-second adhesive layer (AL2, between SM1 and CM2) disposed between the first support plate and the second-second support plate,
wherein an empty space (see annotated drawing figure 6c below) is provided between a side of the first-first adhesive layer adjacent to the first-second adhesive layer (see annotated drawing with the dotted line box showing the empty space in similar configuration as present application) and a side of the first-second adhesive layer adjacent to the first-first adhesive layer in a manner in which the side of the first-first adhesive layer and the side of the first-second adhesive layer directly face each other through the empty space (as seen in the annotated drawing below, the sides of AL1 and AL2 are directly facing each other through the empty space (as annotated), similar to figure 10 of present application and as provided by the applicant in the remarks page 3),
wherein each of the plurality of impact resistant layers has a value of thickness (Figure 6c there is some thickness of AL1 and AL2; paragraph 109-110).
Kim'710 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of impact resistant layers has a thickness of about 40 micrometers to about 300 micrometers (the office notes that “about” is plus or minus 30% as described in the specification paragraph 33; thus, making this range of about 40 micrometer to about 300 micrometers be in the range of 28 micrometers (-30% of 40) to 390 micrometers (+30% of 300 micrometers)). However, modifying the size (i.e., the thickness) of a particular layer such as the impact resistant layers (I.e., adhesive layer) of Kim is not new, MPEP§2144.04(IV).
Kim an adhesive layers (AL3, AL4 and AL5, the adhesive layer, which are the impact resistant layers) has a thickness of about 35 micrometer (AL3; paragraph 154) about 50 micrometers (For AL4 and AL5; paragraph 154).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the thickness of each of the plurality of impact resistant layers has a thickness of about 40 micrometers to about 300 micrometers, more specifically the thickness from range of about 35 micrometer to about 50 micrometer as taught by Kim, such modification will improve bonding and impact resistance due to the increased thickness while still maintaining an overall thin and compact design.
The office notes:
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). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
PNG
media_image1.png
400
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Kim'710 as modified by Kim teaches,
wherein the second-first support plate and the second-second support plate extend below (figure 6c-d, CM1 and CM2 extending below the folding area BA/FA) the folding region and are adjacent to each other.
Regarding claim 16, Kim'710 as modified by Kim teaches,
Kim'710 as modified teaches elastic moduli of the first support plate, the second-first support plate, and the second-second support plate (at least some value of elastic moduli is provided for each of the plates since that is material property of any material).
Kim'710 as modified does not teach specific elastic moduli of 20 gigapascals to about 190 gigapascals, in more details Kim'710 as modified does not teach wherein an elastic moduli of the first support plate, the second-first support plate, and the second-second support plate are about 20 gigapascals to about 190 gigapascals. However, providing the desired material and property of material is not new in the art.
Kim'710 as modified discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for specific elastic moduli of 20 gigapascals to about 190 gigapascals.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the elastic module of the first support plate, the second-first support plate, and the second-second support plate are about 20 gigapascals to about 190 gigapascals, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). MPEP§2144.05.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US Pub 2021/0201710 (hereafter Kim'710) in view of Kim et al. CN217718922 for translation and citation purpose use US equivalent Kim US Pub 20220374058 further in view of Chen US Pub 2021/0107251.
Regarding claim 17,
Kim'710 as modified teaches elastic moduli of the plurality of impact resistant layers(at least some value of elastic moduli is provided for each of the impact resistant layers since that is material property of any material).
Kim'710 as modified does not teach specific elastic moduli of 20 megapascals to about 1 gigapascal. Specifically, the elastic moduli of the plurality of impact resistant layers are about 20 megapascals to about 1 gigapascal.
Chen teaches an impact resistant layer (adhesive layer paragraph 30) having an elastic moduli from 250 megapascals to about 4 gigapascals.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the elastic module as taught by Chen such that the elastic module of the plurality of impact resistant layers of Kim'710 as modified are about 20 megapascals to about 1 gigapascal, such modification provide the desired level of stretchability in a foldable display device and ensure the impact resistant layers provide desired stiffness and resistance to elastic deformation under stress.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US Pub 2021/0141124 in view of Kim et al. CN217718922 for translation and citation purpose use US equivalent Kim US Pub 2022/0374058.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches,
An electronic device (Figure 1 and figure 14 electronic devices) comprising:
A display device (figure 14) comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 14, 100) comprising a first non-folding region (110 and left side), a folding region (130), and a second non-folding region (120 and right side);
a first support plate (Figure 14, 214, 224, 240) disposed below the display panel and having a plurality of openings (fig. 14, 240 comprises openings (HL2; paragraph 150, figure 15) overlapping 130) which overlap the folding region and are defined in the first support plate;
a second support plate (figure 14, element 212/222) including: a second-first support plate (212 overlapping 110 and below 214) overlapping the first non-folding region and disposed below the first support plate in a plan view;
a second-second support plate (222 overlapping 120 and below 120) overlapping the second non-folding region and disposed below the first support plate in the plan view; and
a plurality of impact resistant layers (215 and 225 provided on both sides such that they are position between first support plate 214/212 and 224/222) disposed between the first support plate and the second-first support plate and between the first support plate and the second-second support plate, , the plurality of impact resistant layers comprising:
a first-first adhesive layer (215, figure 14 between 214 and 212) disposed between the first support plate and the second-first support plate; and
a first-second adhesive layer (225, between 224 and 222) disposed between the first support plate and the second-second support plate,
wherein an empty space (see annotated drawing figure 14 below) is provided between a side of the first-first adhesive layer adjacent to the first-second adhesive layer (see annotated drawing with the dotted line showing the empty space in similar configuration as present application) and a side of the first-second adhesive layer adjacent to the first-first adhesive layer in a manner in which the side of the first-first adhesive layer and the side of the first-second adhesive layer directly face each other through the empty space (as seen in the annotated drawing below, the sides of 215 and 225 are directly facing each other through the empty space (as annotated), similar to figure 10 of present application and as provided by the applicant in the remarks page 3),
wherein each of the plurality of impact resistant layers has a value of thickness (Figure 14 there is some thickness of 215 and 225).
Park does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of impact resistant layers has a thickness of about 40 micrometers to about 300 micrometers (the office notes that “about” is plus or minus 30% as described in the specification paragraph 33; thus making this range of about 40 micrometer to about 300 micrometers be in the range of 28 micrometers (-30% of 40) to 390 micrometers (+30% of 300 micrometers)). However, modifying the size (i.e., the thickness) of a particular layer such as the impact resistant layers (I.e., adhesive layer) of Kim is not new, MPEP§2144.04(IV).
Kim an adhesive layers (AL3, AL4 and AL5, the adhesive layer, which are the impact resistant layers) has a thickness of about 35 micrometer (AL3; paragraph 154) about 50 micrometers (For AL4 and AL5; paragraph 154).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the thickness of each of the plurality of impact resistant layers has a thickness of about 40 micrometers to about 300 micrometers, more specifically the thickness from range of about 35 micrometer to about 50 micrometer as taught by Kim, such modification will improve bonding and impact resistance due to the increased thickness while still maintaining an overall thin and compact design.
The office notes:
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). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
PNG
media_image2.png
440
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Park as modified by Kim teaches,
wherein the first-first and first-second adhesive layers (Figure 14, such that the adhesive layers 215 and 225 are directly disposed on lower surface of the 214/224 respectively and upper surface of the second support plate 212/222 respectively) are disposed directly on a lower surface of the first support plate and an upper surface of the second support plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and claims dependent (at least claim 5 and 6) thereupon 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.
Primary reasons for indicating claim 4 as allowable, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed inventions as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant, specifically the following limitation:
further comprising: a cover layer overlapping the folding region, disposed below the first support plate and covering the plurality of openings in the plan view; and
an adhesive layer overlapping the folding region and disposed between the cover layer and the first support plate in the plan view.
The office notes: that if the applicant incorporates allowable subject matter, please consider the withdrawn claims to ensure there is no overlapping in embodiments (i.e., potentially cancelling the claim(s) as needed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant provides arguments towards the newly amended limitation. However, upon further consideration the prior arts provided teaches the limitation in another embodiment (figures 6c-d) of the prior art Kim’710. Thereby, in the rejection above, the office has highlighted the teaching of the newly amended limitation and how Kim’710 under 35USC 103 teaches the limitations.
Furthermore, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park in view of Kim further in view of Kim as provided above, for at least claims 1 and 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK M RATHOD whose telephone number is (571)270-3947. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
ABHISHEK M. RATHOD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
/ABHISHEK M RATHOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841