DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, Applicant argues that “none of the cited figures in Shin … show a first and second surface that are inclined at an obtuse angle relative to a plane of a bottom surface, with a third surface between the first and second surfaces that is arranged at an angle different from the first and second surfaces. Rather, Shin appears to only show a single inclined surface” and that “there is no apparent reason why a person having ordinary skill would have modified the disclosures of the cited references to arrive at the embodiments of claims 1 and 14” (Remarks, p. 2).
As cited previously, Shin teaches that side surfaces of Figs. 22 and 23 may be stepped ([0179]). Fig. 20 depicts the stepped shape with non-angled sidewalls ([0169]). A person of ordinary skill would understand this explicit teaching as corresponding to the embodiment of Fig. 22, where the inclined side surfaces (e.g. CP100) are stepped as shown in Fig. 20, leading to a structure with first and second inclined surfaces connected by a third surface which is horizontal. The rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
771
991
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. PGPub 2023/0081014) in view of Shin (U.S. PGPub 2021/0111230).
PNG
media_image5.png
1060
1236
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a display device (Fig. 3) comprising: a substrate comprising an upper surface, a bottom surface facing the upper surface, and a through hole penetrating the upper surface and the bottom surface (7/8, [0049]-[0050], H2/H3), a light emitting element layer on the upper surface of the substrate (1, [0038], [0034]), wherein the substrate comprises a side surface that meets the upper surface in the through hole, a first surface that meets the bottom surface, a second surface that meets the side surface, and a third surface between the first surface and the second surface and arranged at an angle different from the first surface and second surface, wherein the first surface and the second surface are spaced apart from each other with the third surface therebetween (Fig. 3, annotated below; first surface = inner surface of 8/H3, second surface = inner surface of 7/H2, third surface between).
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the first surface and the second surface are inclined at an obtuse angle relative to a plane of a bottom surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
771
991
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shin teaches a display device comprising a through hole opening for a sensor (Fig. 1, [0053], [0056]), where the through hole opening has a side surface which may be inclined at an obtuse angle relative to a plane of the bottom surface (Fig. 22-23), stepped (Fig. 20), or inclined and stepped ([0179]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Shin with Wang such that the first surface and the second surface are inclined at an obtuse angle relative to a plane of a bottom surface for the purpose of reducing interference between components when providing a through hole for a sensor in a flexible display device (Wang, [0032]; Shin, [0178]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wang and Shin teaches wherein one end of the third surface meets the first surface and an opposite end of the third surface meets the second surface (Wang, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Shin and Wang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wang and Shin teaches wherein an angle between the bottom surface and the first surface and an angle between the side surface and the second surface are obtuse angles (Shin, Figs. 22-23). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Shin and Wang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang and Shin teaches wherein an angle between the bottom surface and the first surface is equal to an angle between the side surface and the second surface (Shin, Fig. 22, [0179]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wang and Shin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 5-6, the combination of Wang and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein an angle between the bottom surface and the first surface is greater or smaller than an angle between the side surface and the second surface. Shin teaches wherein portions of the side surface of the through hole may be formed at different obtuse angles from other portions ([0193]), indicating either a greater or smaller angle. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wang and Shin such that an angle between the bottom surface and the first surface is greater or smaller than an angle between the side surface and the second surface. Furthermore, Applicant has claimed mutually exclusive alternatives in claims 4-6 and 15, preventing an argument that any of the alternatives are critical.
Regarding claims 7-9, the combination of Wang and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein a length of the first surface in an inclined direction is equal, greater than, or smaller than a length of the second surface in an inclined direction. Shin teaches wherein the lengths of the inclined surfaces varies based on where the step is placed, and the step may be placed at different locations in the side surface ([0179], [0188]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wang and Shin such that a length of the first surface in an inclined direction is equal, greater than, or smaller than a length of the second surface in an inclined direction. Furthermore, Applicant has claimed mutually exclusive alternatives in claims 7-9 and 16, preventing an argument that any of the alternatives are critical.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wang and Shin teaches wherein the third surface extends in parallel to the bottom surface or the upper surface (Wang, Fig. 3; Shin, [0179]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wang and Shin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wang and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein the third surface is an inclined surface. Shin teaches wherein portions of the side surface of the through hole may be formed at different obtuse angles from other portions ([0193]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wang and Shin such that the third surface is an inclined surface. Furthermore, Applicant has claimed mutually exclusive alternatives in claims 10-11, preventing an argument that any of the alternatives are critical.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wang and Shin teaches wherein at least one of the first surface or the second surface is a straight surface (Wang, Fig. 3; Shin, [0179]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wang and Shin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches a display device (Fig. 3) comprising: a substrate comprising an upper surface, a bottom surface facing the upper surface, and a through hole penetrating the upper surface and the bottom surface (7/8, [0049]-[0050], H2/H3), a light emitting element layer on the upper surface of the substrate (1, [0038], [0034]), wherein the substrate comprises a side surface that meets the upper surface in the through hole, a first surface that meets the bottom surface, a second surface that meets the side surface, and a third surface between the first surface and the second surface and arranged at an angle different from the first surface and second surface, wherein the bottom surface and the third surface form a stepped edge (Fig. 3, annotated below; first surface = inner surface of 8/H3, second surface = inner surface of 7/H2, third surface between).
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein an angle between the bottom surface and the first surface and an angle between the side surface and the second surface are obtuse angles.
PNG
media_image5.png
1060
1236
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
511
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
771
991
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shin teaches a display device comprising a through hole opening for a sensor (Fig. 1, [0053], [0056]), where the through hole opening has a side surface which may be inclined at an obtuse angle relative to a plane of the bottom surface (Fig. 22-23), stepped (Fig. 20), or inclined and stepped ([0179]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Shin with Wang such that an angle between the bottom surface and the first surface and an angle between the side surface and the second surface are obtuse angles for the purpose of reducing interference between components when providing a through hole for a sensor in a flexible display device (Wang, [0032]; Shin, [0178]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wang and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein an angle between the bottom surface and the first surface is greater than an angle between the side surface and the second surface. Shin teaches wherein portions of the side surface of the through hole may be formed at different obtuse angles from other portions ([0193]), indicating either a greater or smaller angle. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wang and Shin such that an angle between the bottom surface and the first surface is greater than an angle between the side surface and the second surface. Furthermore, Applicant has claimed mutually exclusive alternatives in claims 4-6 and 15, preventing an argument that any of the alternatives are critical.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wang and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein a length of the first surface in an inclined direction is greater than a length of the second surface in an inclined direction. Shin teaches wherein the lengths of the inclined surfaces varies based on where the step is placed, and the step may be placed at different locations in the side surface ([0179], [0188]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wang and Shin such that a length of the first surface in an inclined direction is greater than a length of the second surface in an inclined direction. Furthermore, Applicant has claimed mutually exclusive alternatives in claims 7-9 and 15, preventing an argument that any of the alternatives are critical.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wang and Shih teaches an optical device at least partially inserted into the through hole (Wang, [0066], Figs. 6-8; Shih, SED, Figs. 22-23). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Wang and Shin for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. PGPub 2023/0081014) in view of Shin (U.S. PGPub 2021/0111230) and further in view of Koo (U.S. PGPub 2016/0211350).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wang and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein a length on a plane formed by the first surface, the second surface and the third surface between the bottom surface and the side surface is 100 μm to 500 μm.
Koo teaches wherein a flexible substrate for a display device has a thickness of about 500 μm or less ([0092]). Shin teaches wherein an obtuse angle is greater than 90 and less than 180 degrees ([0088]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Koo with Wang and Shin such that a length on a plane formed by the first surface, the second surface and the third surface between the bottom surface and the side surface is 100 μm to 500 μm for the purpose of forming the device of Wang and Shin with a flexible substrate (Wang, [0038]; Shin, [0048]; Koo, [0092]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wang and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein a length on a plane formed by the first surface, the second surface and the third surface between the bottom surface and the side surface is 100 μm to 500 μm.
Koo teaches wherein a flexible substrate for a display device has a thickness of about 500 μm or less ([0092]). Shin teaches wherein an obtuse angle is greater than 90 and less than 180 degrees ([0088]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Koo with Wang and Shin such that a length on a plane formed by the first surface, the second surface and the third surface between the bottom surface and the side surface is 100 μm to 500 μm for the purpose of forming the device of Wang and Shin with a flexible substrate (Wang, [0038]; Shin, [0048]; Koo, [0092]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights