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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that Wang et al. CN 110853520 has a priority date more than a year before the effective filing date of the present application. For purposes of indicating paragraphs and item numbers the English Equivalent Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” will be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the amendments to claims 3-5 and 18-20 resolves the previous rejection of claims 3-5 and 18-20 under 35 USC 112(b). As such, the rejection of claims 3-5 and 18-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang”.
Regarding claim 1, Alternately, Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang teach a support member (Item 100) for supporting a display panel (Item 200), comprising: a first support plate (Item 110E), being a flexible plate, wherein the first support plate (Item 110E) comprises a first deformable region (Portion of 110E which includes Items 120) defined with a plurality of openings (Respective areas occupied by Items 120); a first adhesive layer (Item 120; Paragraph 0043), arranged on a side (Top side) of the first support plate (Item 110E); and a second support plate (Item 110D), bonded to the side of the first support plate (Item 110E) through the first adhesive layer (Paragraph 0043), wherein a rigidity of the second support plate (Item 110D) is greater than (Where Item 110D has less holes than Item 110E) a rigidity of the first support plate (Item 110E), and the second support plate (Item 110D) comprises a second deformable region (Portion of Item 110D which includes Items 120), where the second deformable region (Portion of Item 110D which includes Items 120) is fitted and fixed (See Examiner’s Note below) with the first deformable region (Portion of Item 110E which includes Item 120) through the first adhesive layer (Item 120).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that adhesive layer physically and directly contact the respective first and second deformable regions. In the instant case, Item 120 does fix both 110D and 110E such that the deformable portions are fitted and fixed with each other through Item 120 and the rigid portions of Items 110D and 110E.
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang further teaches where both the first support plate (Item 110E) and the second support plate (Item 110D) are metal plates (Paragraph 0043).
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.
Alternately, Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1 and 17 of Wang teach a support member (Item 100) for supporting a display panel (Item 200), comprising: a first support plate (Item 110E), being a flexible plate, wherein the first support plate (Lower Item 110) comprises a first deformable region (Portion of Lower Item 110 in the region Item 20) defined with a plurality of openings (Items 111); a first adhesive layer (Item 120; Paragraph 0043), arranged on a side (Top side) of the first support plate (Lower Item 110); and a second support plate (Top Item 110), bonded to the side of the first support plate (Lower Item 110) through the first adhesive layer (Item 120; Paragraph 0043), and the second support plate (Top Item 110) comprises a second deformable region (Portion of Top Item 110 in the region Item 20), where the second deformable region (Portion of Top Item 110 in the region Item 20) is fitted and fixed with the first deformable region (Portion of Lower Item 110 in the region of Item 20) through the first adhesive layer (Item 120).
Fig. 1 of Wang does not explicitly teach where a rigidity of the second support plate is greater than a rigidity of the first support plate.
However, Fig. 16 of Wang teaches where a rigidity of the second support plate (Item 110D) is greater than (Where Item 110D has less holes than Item 110E) a rigidity of the first support plate (Item 110E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a rigidity of the second support plate is greater than a rigidity of the first support plate because this allows the foldable support to have good supportability but also effectively disperses stress during bending so that the bending performance of the foldable support and the performance of the restoring flatness after bending are effectively improved.
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang further teaches where both the first support plate (Lower Item 110) and the second support plate (Top Item 110) are metal plates (Paragraph 0043).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang”.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first deformable region is located at an edge of the first support plate.
Fig. 1 of Tang teaches a flexible display device where there is a deformable region (Item 11) in the middle of a support structure (Item 20) and deformable regions (Items 12) at edges of the support structure (Item 20) (Paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first deformable region located at an edge of the first support plate because this allows for a flexible display to have a curved structure with a specific curvature at the edge of the flexible display panel such that the display screen can be used to form a foldable flexible display device with a curved surface (Tang Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 16 of Wang further teaches where at least one opening of the plurality of openings (Respective areas of Item 110E occupied by Items 120) run through the first support plated (Item 110E).
Under the alternate interpretation, Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang”.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first deformable region is located at an edge of the first support plate.
Fig. 1 of Tang teaches a flexible display device where there is a deformable region (Item 11) in the middle of a support structure (Item 20) and deformable regions (Items 12) at edges of the support structure (Item 20) (Paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first deformable region located at an edge of the first support plate because this allows for a flexible display to have a curved structure with a specific curvature at the edge of the flexible display panel such that the display screen can be used to form a foldable flexible display device with a curved surface (Tang Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 1 of Wang further teaches where at least one opening of the plurality of openings (Item 111) run through the first support plated (Lower Item 110).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang” and in further view of Shyu et al. (US 2017/0294495) hereinafter “Shyu”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang and Tang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
The combination of Wang and Tang further teaches where the first deformable region is bendable along a first direction (Left to right across the page).
Wang does not teach where the plurality of openings comprise a plurality of strip-shaped openings extending along the first direction, the plurality of strip-shaped openings are spaced apart from each other along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are intersected.
Fig. 26 of Shyu teaches where a first deformable region (Item 80) is bendable along a first direction (Left to right across the page), where the plurality of openings (Items 80EF) comprise strip-shaped openings (Items 80EF) extending along the first direction (Left to right across the page), a plurality of strip-shaped openings (Items 80EF) are spaced apart from each other along a second direction (Up and down across the page), and the first direction and the second direction are intersected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of openings comprise a plurality of strip-shaped openings extending along the first direction, the plurality of strip-shaped openings are spaced apart from each other along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are intersected because the strip shaped openings serve as flexibility enhancement regions (Shyu Paragraph 0050).
Under the alternate interpretation, Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang” and in further view of Shyu et al. (US 2017/0294495) hereinafter “Shyu”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang and Tang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
The combination of Wang and Tang further teaches where the first deformable region is bendable along a first direction (Left to right across the page).
Wang does not teach where the plurality of openings comprise a plurality of strip-shaped openings extending along the first direction, the plurality of strip-shaped openings are spaced apart from each other along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are intersected.
Fig. 26 of Shyu teaches where a first deformable region (Item 80) is bendable along a first direction (Left to right across the page), where the plurality of openings (Items 80EF) comprise strip-shaped openings (Items 80EF) extending along the first direction (Left to right across the page), a plurality of strip-shaped openings (Items 80EF) are spaced apart from each other along a second direction (Up and down across the page), and the first direction and the second direction are intersected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of openings comprise a plurality of strip-shaped openings extending along the first direction, the plurality of strip-shaped openings are spaced apart from each other along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are intersected because the strip shaped openings serve as flexibility enhancement regions (Shyu Paragraph 0050).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Jiang (US 2023/0156934) hereinafter “Jiang”.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where at least one opening of the plurality of openings is a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel.
Jiang teaches a foldable display device where holes located in a bending zone are blind holes (Paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one opening of the plurality of openings be a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel because the blind holes allow a support plate to disperse and reduce the stress when the support plate is bent (Jiang Paragraph 0060).
Under the alternate interpretation, Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Jiang (US 2023/0156934) hereinafter “Jiang”.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where at least one opening of the plurality of openings is a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel.
Jiang teaches a foldable display device where holes located in a bending zone are blind holes (Paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one opening of the plurality of openings be a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel because the blind holes allow a support plate to disperse and reduce the stress when the support plate is bent (Jiang Paragraph 0060).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang” and in further view of Jiang (US 2023/0156934) hereinafter “Jiang”.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wang and Tang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where at least one opening of the plurality of openings is a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel.
Jiang teaches a foldable display device where holes located in a bending zone are blind holes (Paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one opening of the plurality of openings be a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel because the blind holes allow a support plate to disperse and reduce the stress when the support plate is bent (Jiang Paragraph 0060).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang” and in further view of Jiang (US 2023/0156934) hereinafter “Jiang”.
Under the alternate interpretation, Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wang and Tang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where at least one opening of the plurality of openings is a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel.
Jiang teaches a foldable display device where holes located in a bending zone are blind holes (Paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one opening of the plurality of openings be a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel because the blind holes allow a support plate to disperse and reduce the stress when the support plate is bent (Jiang Paragraph 0060).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Jang et al. (US 2018/0033979) hereinafter “Jang”.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the second support plate is greater than a thickness of the first support plate.
However, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang further teach where the second support plate is more rigid than the first support plate (Where the second support plate has less openings than the first support plate).
Jang teaches where the rigidity of a support member for a display can be controlled by the thickness of the support member and that having a greater thickness yields a greater rigidity (Paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the second support plate be greater than a thickness of the first support plate because this allows the second support plate to be more rigid than the first support plate (Jang Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wang and Jang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Wang does not teach where the thickness of the first support plate is less than or equal to 50 µm, and the thickness of the second support plate is greater than or equal to 100 µm.
However, Jang further teaches where the thickness of a support layer is a result effective variable (Jang Paragraph 0103 where the rigidity of a support member can be controlled by the thickness of the support member). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the respective first and second support plates such that the thickness of the first support plate is less than or equal to 50 µm, and the thickness of the second support plate is greater than or equal to 100 µm because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Under the alternate interpretation, Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Jang et al. (US 2018/0033979) hereinafter “Jang”.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the second support plate is greater than a thickness of the first support plate.
However, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang further teach where the second support plate is more rigid than the first support plate (Where the second support plate has less openings than the first support plate).
Jang teaches where the rigidity of a support member for a display can be controlled by the thickness of the support member and that having a greater thickness yields a greater rigidity (Paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the second support plate be greater than a thickness of the first support plate because this allows the second support plate to be more rigid than the first support plate (Jang Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wang and Jang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Wang does not teach where the thickness of the first support plate is less than or equal to 50 µm, and the thickness of the second support plate is greater than or equal to 100 µm.
However, Jang further teaches where the thickness of a support layer is a result effective variable (Jang Paragraph 0103 where the rigidity of a support member can be controlled by the thickness of the support member). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the respective first and second support plates such that the thickness of the first support plate is less than or equal to 50 µm, and the thickness of the second support plate is greater than or equal to 100 µm because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 14, 15, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao”.
Regarding claim 14, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang teach a display module, comprising: a display panel (Item 200) having a light emitting side and a backlight side, where the display panel comprises a planar region (Item 30) and a bending region (Item 40); and a support member (Item 100) comprising: a first support plate (Item 110E), being a flexible plate, wherein the first support plate (Item 110E) comprises a first deformable region (Portion of 110E which includes Items 120) defined with a plurality of openings (Respective areas occupied by Items 120); a first adhesive layer (Item 120; Paragraph 0043), arranged on a side (Top side) of the first support plate (Item 110E); and a second support plate (Item 110D), bonded to the side of the first support plate (Item 110E) through the first adhesive layer (Paragraph 0043), wherein a rigidity of the second support plate (Item 110D) is greater than (Where Item 110D has less holes than Item 110E) a rigidity of the first support plate (Item 110E), and the second support plate (Item 110D) comprises a second deformable region (Portion of Item 110D which includes Items 120), where the second deformable region (Portion of Item 110D which includes Items 120) is fitted and fixed (See Examiner’s Note below) with the first deformable region (Portion of Item 110E which includes Item 120) through the first adhesive layer (Item 120); and the first deformable region of the first support plate is fitted with the bending region of the display panel.
While one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the support member in Wang would have to be adhered to the display panel in some manner Wang does not explicitly teach a second adhesive layer, arranged on the backlight side of the display panel nor where the first support plate in the support member is bonded to the backlight side of the display panel through the second adhesive layer.
Liao teaches where a display panel is fixedly connected to a support member by pasting, bonding, welding or the like (Paragraph 0098).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second adhesive layer, arranged on the backlight side of the display panel, where the first support plate in the support member is bonded to the backlight side of the display panel through the second adhesive layer because the second adhesive layer fixedly connects the display panel to the support member (Liao Paragraph 0098).
When the support member is connected to the backlight side of the display panel with the second adhesive layer, the first support plate will be bonded (indirectly) to the backlight side of the display panel.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that adhesive layer physically and directly contact the respective first and second deformable regions. In the instant case, Item 120 does fix both 110D and 110E such that the deformable portions are fitted and fixed with each other through Item 120 and the rigid portions of Items 110D and 110E.
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 16 and 17 of Wang (when combined with Liao as stated above) further teach where the first adhesive layer (Item 130) and the second layer (taught by Liao) are bonded as a whole at the openings of the first support plate.
Regarding claim 21, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang further teach where both the first support plate (Item 110E) and the second support plate (Item 110D) are metal plates (Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 24, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang teach a display device, comprising a display module, wherein the display module comprises: a display panel (Item 200) having a light emitting side and a backlight side, where the display panel comprises a planar region (Item 30) and a bending region (Item 40); and a support member (Item 100) comprising: a first support plate (Item 110E), being a flexible plate, wherein the first support plate (Item 110E) comprises a first deformable region (Portion of 110E which includes Items 120) defined with a plurality of openings (Respective areas occupied by Items 120); a first adhesive layer (Item 120; Paragraph 0043), arranged on a side (Top side) of the first support plate (Item 110E); and a second support plate (Item 110D), bonded to the side of the first support plate (Item 110E) through the first adhesive layer (Paragraph 0043), wherein a rigidity of the second support plate (Item 110D) is greater than (Where Item 110D has less holes than Item 110E) a rigidity of the first support plate (Item 110E), and the second support plate (Item 110D) comprises a second deformable region (Portion of Item 110D which includes Items 120), where the second deformable region (Portion of Item 110D which includes Items 120) is fitted and fixed (See Examiner’s Note below) with the first deformable region (Portion of Item 110E which includes Item 120) through the first adhesive layer (Item 120); and the first deformable region of the first support plate is fitted with the bending region of the display panel.
While one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the support member in Wang would have to be adhered to the display panel in some manner Wang does not explicitly teache a second adhesive layer, arranged on the backlight side of the display panel nor where the first deformable region of the first support plate in the support member is fitted with the bending region if the display panel through the second adhesive layer.
Liao teaches where a display panel is fixedly connected to a support member by pasting, bonding, welding or the like (Paragraph 0098).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second adhesive layer, arranged on the backlight side of the display panel, where the first deformable region of the first support plate in the support member is fitted with the bending region if the display panel through the second adhesive layer because the second adhesive layer fixedly connects the display panel to the support member (Liao Paragraph 0098).
When the support member is connected to the backlight side of the display panel with the second adhesive layer, the first deformable region of the first support plate in the support member is fitted (indirectly) with the bending region if the display panel.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the claim language does not require that adhesive layer physically and directly contact the respective first and second deformable regions. In the instant case, Item 120 does fix both 110D and 110E such that the deformable portions are fitted and fixed with each other through Item 120 and the rigid portions of Items 110D and 110E.
Alternately, Claims 14, 15, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao”.
Regarding claim 14, Figs. 1 and 17 of Wang teach a display module, comprising: a display panel (Item 200) having a light emitting side and a backlight side, where the display panel comprises a planar region (Item 30) and a bending region (Item 40); and a support member (Item 100) comprising: a first support plate (Lower Item 110), being a flexible plate, wherein the first support plate (Lower Item 110) comprises a first deformable region (Portion of Lower Item 110 in region 20) defined with a plurality of openings (Items 111); a first adhesive layer (Item 120; Paragraph 0043), arranged on a side (Top side) of the first support plate (Lower Item 110); and a second support plate (Top Item 110), bonded to the side of the first support plate (Lower Item 110) through the first adhesive layer (Paragraph 0043), and the second support plate (Top Item 110) comprises a second deformable region (Portion of Top Item 110 in Item 20), where the second deformable region (Portion of Top Item 110 in Item 20) is fitted and fixed with the first deformable region (Portion of Lower Item 110 in Item 20) through the first adhesive layer (Item 120); and the first deformable region of the first support plate is fitted with the bending region of the display panel.
While one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the support member in Wang would have to be adhered to the display panel in some manner Wang does not explicitly teach a second adhesive layer, arranged on the backlight side of the display panel nor where the first support plate in the support member is bonded to the backlight side of the display panel through the second adhesive layer.
Liao teaches where a display panel is fixedly connected to a support member by pasting, bonding, welding or the like (Paragraph 0098).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second adhesive layer, arranged on the backlight side of the display panel, where the first support plate in the support member is bonded to the backlight side of the display panel through the second adhesive layer because the second adhesive layer fixedly connects the display panel to the support member (Liao Paragraph 0098).
When the support member is connected to the backlight side of the display panel with the second adhesive layer, the first support plate will be bonded (indirectly) to the backlight side of the display panel.
Fig. 1 of Wang does not explicitly teach where a rigidity of the second support plate is greater than a rigidity of the first support plate.
However, Fig. 16 of Wang teaches where a rigidity of the second support plate (Item 110D) is greater than (Where Item 110D has less holes than Item 110E) a rigidity of the first support plate (Item 110E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a rigidity of the second support plate is greater than a rigidity of the first support plate because this allows the foldable support to have good supportability but also effectively disperses stress during bending so that the bending performance of the foldable support and the performance of the restoring flatness after bending are effectively improved.
Regarding claim 15, Fig. 1 and 17 of Wang (when combined with Liao as stated above) further teach where the first adhesive layer (Item 120) and the second layer (taught by Liao) are bonded as a whole at the openings of the first support plate.
Regarding claim 21, Figs. 1 and 17 of Wang further teach where both the first support plate (Lower Item 110) and the second support plate (Top Item 110) are metal plates (Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 24, Figs. 1 and 17 of Wang teach a display device, comprising a display module, wherein the display module comprises: a display panel (Item 200) having a light emitting side and a backlight side, where the display panel comprises a planar region (Item 30) and a bending region (Item 40); and a support member (Item 100) comprising: a first support plate (Lower Item 110), being a flexible plate, wherein the first support plate (Lower Item 110) comprises a first deformable region (Portion of Lower Item 110 in item 20) defined with a plurality of openings (Items 111); a first adhesive layer (Item 120; Paragraph 0043), arranged on a side (Top side) of the first support plate (Lower Item 110); and a second support plate (Top Item 110), bonded to the side of the first support plate (Lower Item 110) through the first adhesive layer (Paragraph 0043), and the second support plate (Top Item 110) comprises a second deformable region (Portion of Top Item 110 in Item 20), where the second deformable region (Portion of Top Item 110 in Item 20) is fitted and fixed with the first deformable region (Portion of Lower Item 110 in Item 20) through the first adhesive layer (Item 120); and the first deformable region of the first support plate is fitted with the bending region of the display panel.
While one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the support member in Wang would have to be adhered to the display panel in some manner Wang does not explicitly teaches a second adhesive layer, arranged on the backlight side of the display panel nor where the first deformable region of the first support plate in the support member is fitted with the bending region if the display panel through the second adhesive layer.
Liao teaches where a display panel is fixedly connected to a support member by pasting, bonding, welding or the like (Paragraph 0098).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second adhesive layer, arranged on the backlight side of the display panel, where the first deformable region of the first support plate in the support member is fitted with the bending region if the display panel through the second adhesive layer because the second adhesive layer fixedly connects the display panel to the support member (Liao Paragraph 0098).
When the support member is connected to the backlight side of the display panel with the second adhesive layer, the first deformable region of the first support plate in the support member is fitted (indirectly) with the bending region if the display panel.
Fig. 1 of Wang does not explicitly teach where a rigidity of the second support plate is greater than a rigidity of the first support plate.
However, Fig. 16 of Wang teaches where a rigidity of the second support plate (Item 110D) is greater than (Where Item 110D has less holes than Item 110E) a rigidity of the first support plate (Item 110E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a rigidity of the second support plate is greater than a rigidity of the first support plate because this allows the foldable support to have good supportability but also effectively disperses stress during bending so that the bending performance of the foldable support and the performance of the restoring flatness after bending are effectively improved.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao” ad in further view of Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang”.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wang and Liao teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the bending region is located at least located on a side of the planar region.
Fig. 1 of Tang teaches a flexible display device where there is a bending region (Item 11) in the middle of a support structure (Item 20) and bending regions (Items 12) at edges of a planar portion of the support structure (Item 20) (Paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bending region is located at least located on a side of the planar region because this allows for a flexible display to have a curved structure with a specific curvature at the edge of the flexible display panel such that the display screen can be used to form a foldable flexible display device with a curved surface (Tang Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wang and Liao teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first deformable region is located at an edge of the first support plate.
Fig. 1 of Tang teaches a flexible display device where there is a deformable region (Item 11) in the middle of a support structure (Item 20) and deformable regions (Items 12) at edges of the support structure (Item 20) (Paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first deformable region is located at an edge of the first support plate because this allows for a flexible display to have a curved structure with a specific curvature at the edge of the flexible display panel such that the display screen can be used to form a foldable flexible display device with a curved surface (Tang Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 18, Figs. 16 and 17 further teach where the at least one opening of the plurality of openings (Areas occupied by Items 120) run through the first support plate (Item 110E).
Under the alternate interpretation, Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao” ad in further view of Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang”.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wang and Liao teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the bending region is located at least located on a side of the planar region.
Fig. 1 of Tang teaches a flexible display device where there is a bending region (Item 11) in the middle of a support structure (Item 20) and bending regions (Items 12) at edges of a planar portion of the support structure (Item 20) (Paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bending region is located at least located on a side of the planar region because this allows for a flexible display to have a curved structure with a specific curvature at the edge of the flexible display panel such that the display screen can be used to form a foldable flexible display device with a curved surface (Tang Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wang and Liao teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the first deformable region is located at an edge of the first support plate.
Fig. 1 of Tang teaches a flexible display device where there is a deformable region (Item 11) in the middle of a support structure (Item 20) and deformable regions (Items 12) at edges of the support structure (Item 20) (Paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first deformable region is located at an edge of the first support plate because this allows for a flexible display to have a curved structure with a specific curvature at the edge of the flexible display panel such that the display screen can be used to form a foldable flexible display device with a curved surface (Tang Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 18, Figs. 1 and 17 further teach where the at least one opening of the plurality of openings (Items 111) run through the first support plate (Lower Item 110).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao” and Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang” and in further view of Shyu et al. (US 2017/0294495) hereinafter “Shyu”.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wang, Liao and Tang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
The combination of Wang, Liao and Tang further teaches where the first deformable region is bendable along a first direction (Left to right across the page).
Wang does not teach where the plurality of openings comprise a plurality of strip-shaped openings extending along the first direction, a plurality of strip-shaped openings are spaced apart from each other along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are intersected.
Fig. 26 of Shyu teaches where a first deformable region (Item 80) is bendable along a first direction (Left to right across the page), where the plurality of openings (Items 80EF) comprise strip-shaped openings (Items 80EF) extending along the first direction (Left to right across the page), a plurality of strip-shaped openings (Items 80EF) are spaced apart from each other along a second direction (Up and down across the page), and the first direction and the second direction are intersected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of openings comprise a plurality of strip-shaped openings extending along the first direction, a plurality of strip-shaped openings are spaced apart from each other along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are intersected because the strip shaped openings serve as flexibility enhancement regions (Shyu Paragraph 0050).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao” and Tang (US 2023/0157131) hereinafter “Tang” and in further view of Shyu et al. (US 2017/0294495) hereinafter “Shyu”.
Under the alternate interpretation, Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wang, Liao and Tang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
The combination of Wang, Liao and Tang further teaches where the first deformable region is bendable along a first direction (Left to right across the page).
Wang does not teach where the plurality of openings comprise a plurality of strip-shaped openings extending along the first direction, a plurality of strip-shaped openings are spaced apart from each other along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are intersected.
Fig. 26 of Shyu teaches where a first deformable region (Item 80) is bendable along a first direction (Left to right across the page), where the plurality of openings (Items 80EF) comprise strip-shaped openings (Items 80EF) extending along the first direction (Left to right across the page), a plurality of strip-shaped openings (Items 80EF) are spaced apart from each other along a second direction (Up and down across the page), and the first direction and the second direction are intersected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of openings comprise a plurality of strip-shaped openings extending along the first direction, a plurality of strip-shaped openings are spaced apart from each other along a second direction, and the first direction and the second direction are intersected because the strip shaped openings serve as flexibility enhancement regions (Shyu Paragraph 0050).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao” and in further view of Jiang (US 2023/0156934) hereinafter “Jiang”.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wang and Liao teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where at least one opening of the plurality of openings is a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel.
Jiang teaches a foldable display device where holes located in a bending zone are blind holes (Paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one of the openings of the plurality of openings be a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel because the blind holes allow a support plate to disperse and reduce the stress when the support plate is bent (Jiang Paragraph 0060).
Under the alternate interpretation, Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao” and in further view of Jiang (US 2023/0156934) hereinafter “Jiang”.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wang and Liao teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where at least one opening of the plurality of openings is a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel.
Jiang teaches a foldable display device where holes located in a bending zone are blind holes (Paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one of the openings of the plurality of openings be a blind hole defined on the first support plate, and the blind hole is located on a surface of the first support plate facing towards or away from the display panel because the blind holes allow a support plate to disperse and reduce the stress when the support plate is bent (Jiang Paragraph 0060).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao” and in further view of Jang et al. (US 2018/0033979) hereinafter “Jang”.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Wang and Liao teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the second support plate is greater than a thickness of the first support plate.
However, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang further teach where the second support plate is more rigid than the first support plate (Where the second support plate has less openings than the first support plate).
Jang teaches where the rigidity of a support member for a display can be controlled by the thickness of the support member and that having a greater thickness yields a greater rigidity (Paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the second support plate be greater than a thickness of the first support plate because this allows the second support plate to be more rigid than the first support plate (Jang Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Wang, Liao and Jang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Wang does not teach where the thickness of the first support plate is less than or equal to 50 µm, and the thickness of the second support plate is greater than or equal to 100 µm.
However, Jang further teaches where the thickness of a support layer is a result effective variable (Jang Paragraph 0103 where the rigidity of a support member can be controlled by the thickness of the support member). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the respective first and second support plates such that the thickness of the first support plate is less than or equal to 50 µm, and the thickness of the second support plate is greater than or equal to 100 µm because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Under the alternate interpretation, Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929) hereinafter “Wang” in view of Liao (US 2022/0103670) hereinafter “Liao” and in further view of Jang et al. (US 2018/0033979) hereinafter “Jang”.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Wang and Liao teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the second support plate is greater than a thickness of the first support plate.
However, Figs. 16 and 17 of Wang further teach where the second support plate is more rigid than the first support plate (Where the second support plate has less openings than the first support plate).
Jang teaches where the rigidity of a support member for a display can be controlled by the thickness of the support member and that having a greater thickness yields a greater rigidity (Paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the second support plate be greater than a thickness of the first support plate because this allows the second support plate to be more rigid than the first support plate (Jang Paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Wang, Liao and Jang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Wang does not teach where the thickness of the first support plate is less than or equal to 50 µm, and the thickness of the second support plate is greater than or equal to 100 µm.
However, Jang further teaches where the thickness of a support layer is a result effective variable (Jang Paragraph 0103 where the rigidity of a support member can be controlled by the thickness of the support member). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the respective first and second support plates such that the thickness of the first support plate is less than or equal to 50 µm, and the thickness of the second support plate is greater than or equal to 100 µm because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14 and 24 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, respectively, 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 an alternate interpretation of Wang.
The Examiner notes that while the Applicant’s arguments are persuasive with regard to the teaching specifically in Fig. 16, as Item 103 is a single sided adhesive and thus does not fix the first and second deformable portions through it, the Examiner disagrees that Wang teaches away from having the first adhesive layer being present between the first and second deformable portions as Fig. 1 shows an embodiment where a layer (Item 120) is present between a first and second bending portion and where Item 120 acts as an adhesive (Paragraph 0063 where Item 120 bonds the two layers together) nor does Wang teach away from the adhesive layer fix and fitting the first and second deformable portions to each other as Item 120 in Fig. 1 directly fixes and fits the two portions together and in Fig. 16 fixes and fits the two portions together through the layer and the rigid portions of the respective first and second support plates. As such, the Examiner continues to rely on Wang.
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights