DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/30/24 and 10/14/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xi (CN 107863000, English translation provided by Applicant with the IDS filed 4/30/24).
As to claims 1, 20, and 21, Xi teaches a display device comprising a display panel (see abstract) comprising a flexible display substrate (fig. 4 and annotated fig. 13 below), comprising:
a peripheral region (200) and a display region (100), the peripheral region surrounding the display region (fig. 4, [0069]);
wherein the peripheral region (200) has a plurality of corner regions (230, fig. 4, [0075]), at least one of the corner regions comprising two first regions (R1) and a second region (R2) disposed between the two first regions (see fig. 13 below); and
the first region has a hollow structure (231a), and the second region has at least one notch disposed in an edge of the flexible display substrate ([0083], 231a is folded along line L, which would place the notches 231a on the edge of the substrate).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Xi further teaches the notch is a semi-elliptical notch, a semi-circular notch, a rectangular notch, a trapezoidal notch, or an arcuate notch ([0084]).
As to claims 3 and 4, Xi further teaches a long axis of the semi-elliptical notch (231a, once folded, 231a becomes a semi ellipse)) is intersected with the edge (along folding line L) in which the notch (231a) is disposed at one intersection point (point “P” (see fig. 13 above), which is the midpoint of the ellipse 231a along folding line L).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi.
As to claim 5, Xi does not explicitly teach the dimensions of the ellipse nor the spacing. However, determining optimal spacing between notches and optimal dimensions of notches would have been obvious so as to properly and effectively relieve the stresses brought on by the folding process such that the metal lines 231 won’t break ([0083]). If that leads to the dimensions and distances claimed, then that is the result of ordinary skill in the art and not innovation, 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 AIler, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 19, Xi further teaches a flexible substrate (10), and a display functional film layer (organic and inorganic layers, [0092]) and a cover plate (obvious) that are sequentially disposed on the flexible substrate (10), wherein a projection of edges of the flexible substrate (10) and the cover plate in a plane that a surface of the display functional film layer is within is outside a surface of the display functional film layer ([0094], there is a distance of 0.2 mm between them. Also, as disclosed in [0020], the device can be a fingerprint recognition sensor. It is obvious that a cover plate would be used in this environment for protection of the sensor layers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-16 and 18 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims listed above in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all of the features in the claims. As to claim 6, Xi fails to teach the second sub-region is disposed between the two first sub-regions, the first sub-region and the second sub-region are arranged in an extension direction along the edge of the flexible display substrate, and the notch is disposed in each of the two first sub-regions. While the notches are in all of the regions, the first and second regions extend in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the substrate, not along the edge.
As to claim 11, Xi fails to teach the hollow structure having the structure claimed. The hollow structure is a simple polygonal shape. It is not described as having thru holes and body portions and strip portions.
As to claim 14, Xi fails to teach an area of the hollow structure in the display region per unit area is greater than an area of the hollow structure in the peripheral region. Xi teaches the same lines in the corner region are also in the display region ([0087]), but does not teach that the per unit area of the hollow structures have a greater per unit area than that of the hollow structures in the corner region.
The remaining claims are allowable at least because they depend from allowable claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhao (US 2022/0085305) teaches hollowed out portions throughout the corner region (and even in the display area, see figs. 4 and 6) but fails to teach notches. Dong (US 2023/0061339), Yoon (US 2022/0077242), and Choi (US 2022/0165805) teach notches in the corner region but no hollowed out portions.
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
4/29/26
Prosecution Insights