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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1, claims 1-11 and 15, in the reply filed on 12/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 claim 8,
The term “soft material area” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, any material that is capable of flexing or bending will be considered a “soft material”.
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, 4-8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 208622359 U; machine translation) in view of Liu et al. (CN 107578707 A; machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5,
Zhou teaches a flexible screen assembly (a substrate), comprising: a flexible display screen (31); an elastic layer (322) located on a side of the flexible display screen connected to the flexible display screen through a first adhesive layer (Zhou: Fig. 3; pg. 2, par. 13-14; pg. 3, par. 3), and the elastic layer may be in a compressed state (Zhou: pg. 3, par. 1-3); and wherein the elastic layer (322) may be connected to a rigid layer (321, a base) by a transparent adhesive (a material layer that is a second adhesive layer and is located between the base and the elastic layer in which said material layer may be considered to face away from the flexible display screen as there is intervening layers between the display screen and said material layer and may be considered in a direction perpendicular to a plane in which the flexible display screen is located as planes may be arbitrarily drawn through any segment of said screen layer including ones that are perpendicular to a plane in which the material layer resides) (Zhou: Fig. 4; pg. 3, par. 5-8).
Zhou is silent towards the elastic modulus of the material layer being less than an elastic modulus of the first adhesive layer.
Liu teaches a flexible and bendable display device comprising a flexible display screen in which a first layer has an elastic modulus is set to be smaller, equal, or larger or gradually changes towards a bending axis than the elastic modulus of the second film layer depending on the bending/deformation requirements of the respective regions (Liu: abstract; pgs. 1-2 and 4-5).
Zhou and Liu are in the corresponding field of flexible and bendable display devices comprising elastic materials. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the elastic modulus of the material layer to be less than an elastic modulus of the first adhesive layer in the flexible display substrate of Zhou to meet the desired bending and deformation requirements as taught by Liu.
Regarding claim 6,
Zhou and Liu teach the flexible display substrate required by claim 1. Zhou further teaches that when the flexible display substrate is folded, as shown in Fig. 5, there would exists an embodiment in which the layer 32, which comprises a stack of the elastic layer (322) and the rigid layer (321, the base layer) may be considered to have the layer ordering of a flexible display screen (31) being located between the base and the first adhesive layer due to the display screen folding all around said base/first adhesive layer that bonds a portion of the bendable area (32) to the screen (31) (Zhou: Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7,
Zhou and Liu teach the flexible display substrate required by claim 6. Zhou further teaches the flexible display screen comprises a display area and supporting structures 33 and 34 which may represent frames of the display device (Zhou: pg. 4, par. 1). Fig. 5 details an embodiment in which the elastic layer on a base is projected from a frame area edge and thus may be considered an orthographic projection of the elastic layer on the base of the frame area on the base as there is no special structure assigned and said elastic layer on the base may be considered structurally the same as a structural continuation or extension from a frame area and thus of the frame area.
Regarding claim 8,
Zhou and Liu teach the flexible display substrate required by claim 6. Zhou further teaches the material layer may be a transparent adhesive layer that bonds the elastic layer and is part of the bending area and thus may be considered to comprise a soft material area (see the claim interpretation in the Section 112(b) rejection above) that is uniformly distributed with a bending center of the flexible display screen as a center as shown in Fig. 5 as said material layer bonds the two layers together and is not described as discontinuous. The material layer may also be considered a “shielding layer” as it is a physical material layer that would shield from some aspect or artifact to some degree as no specific shielding effect or material property is claimed.
Regarding claim 11,
Zhou in view of Liu teaches the flexible display substrate required by claim 1. Zhou further teaches the elastic layer may comprise a plurality of elastic layers as two elastic layers may be present in combination with rigid layers (film layers) (Zhou: Fig. 4; pg. 3, par. 5-8).
Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein an elastic modulus of the film layer on a side of the elastic layer facing the flexible display screen is greater than an elastic modulus of the film layer on a side of the elastic layer away from the flexible display screen.
However, Liu teaches a flexible and bendable display device comprising a flexible display screen in which a first layer has an elastic modulus is set to be smaller, equal, or larger or gradually changes towards a bending axis than the elastic modulus of the second film layer depending on the bending/deformation requirements of the respective regions (Liu: abstract; pgs. 1-2 and 4-5).
Zhou and Liu are in the corresponding field of flexible and bendable display devices comprising elastic materials. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the elastic modulus of the elastic and film layers of Zhou to have an elastic modulus of the film layer on a side of the elastic layer facing the flexible display screen to be greater than an elastic modulus of the film layer on a side of the elastic layer away from the flexible display screen to meet the desired bending and deformation requirements as taught by Liu.
Regarding claim 15,
Zhou in view of Liu teaches the flexible display substrate required by claim 1. Zhou further teaches the substrate may be implemented into a display device (Zhou: abstract; pgs. 1 and 4).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Liu and in further view of Yu (CN 110428735 A; machine translation).
Regarding claims 2 and 3,
Zhou in view of Liu teaches the flexible display substrate required by claim 1. Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the elastic layer is a mesh structure that comprises a plurality of nodes, and an elastic rib is connected between every two adjacent nodes, such that when the elastic layer is compressed, the elastic rib is in a compressed deformation state and stores strain energy and wherein a bending direction of the flexible display screen a length of an inner side of the elastic rib is greater than a length of an outer side of the elastic rib.
Yu teaches a flexible display device that comprises an elastic layer (102) that has a mesh structure that when bent, disperses or buffers pressure so the bent display may be restored to the original flattened state (Yu: abstract; pg. 7, par. 5; pg. 8, par. 3-4). The mesh structure comprises a uniform crisscrossed structure in which the mesh structure can be considered to have nodes (point of crisscross) and elastic ribs (lines between said crisscross sections) (Yu: abstract; pg. 7, par. 5; pg. 8, par. 3-4). The elastic ribs would be in a compressed deformation state upon bending and would store strain energy which is described as buffering stress (strain) (Yu: abstract; pg. 7, par. 5; pg. 8, par. 3-4). The length of an inner side of the elastic rib would intrinsically be greater than a length of an outer side of the elastic rib due to the elastic nature when bent.
Zhou, Liu, and Yu are in the corresponding field of flexible display devices comprising elastic layers. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the elastic layer of Zhou and Liu to have a mesh structure of nodes and elastic ribs to provide improved buffering of strain when the flexible display screen is bent to more easily restore the display to an originally flattened state when unbent as taught by Yu.
Regarding claim 9,
Zhou in view of Liu teaches the flexible display substrate required by claim 1. Zhou and Liu are silent towards the thickness of the elastic layer.
Yu teaches the elastic layer may be composed of a superelastic material or a metal material with a thickness of less than 100 µm or more than 100 µm for the respective materials, both of which overlap with the claimed thickness range of 20 to 200 µm, to provide improved stretchability and ductility (Yu: pg. 4, par. 4). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Zhou, Liu, and Yu are in the corresponding field of flexible display devices comprising elastic layers. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a thickness for the elastic layer of Zhou and Liu to be within the claimed range to provide improved stretchability and ductility as taught by Yu.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Liu and in further view of Wang (US 2023/0209971 A1)
Regarding claim 10,
Zhou in view of Liu teaches the flexible display substrate required by claim 1. An interpretation of Zhou in view of claim 1 could be taken in which the elastic layer may be considered layer (32) which may be composed of a rigid layer (321 that is embedded within an elastic layer (322) in which said rigid layer may be composed of steel. (Zhou: pg. 3, par. 3-13).
However, Zhou does not explicitly teach the steel is stainless steel.
Wang teaches a foldable display panel teaches a foldable hollow pattern that is composed of a metal supporting layer of stainless steel (Wang: abstract). The steel provides improved support for repeat folding stress and thus improving flexibility and stability (Wang: par. 0027).
Zhou, Liu, and Wang are in the corresponding field of foldable display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the steel reinforcement material of Zhou to be stainless steel to provide improved support to improve repeat folding properties as taught by Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783