Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/325,375

FLEXIBLE SCREEN

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 30, 2023
Examiner
LINDSEY, COLE LEON
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Syncmold Enterprise Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
103 granted / 116 resolved
+20.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
150
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.8%
+15.8% vs TC avg
§102
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 116 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Objections Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of the claim recites “approximate” when it would more naturally read as “approximately.” Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US20180351117A1). Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a flexible screen, being disposed on a foldable electronic device, the flexible screen comprising: a multi-layer display structure including an outer surface and an inner surface opposite to the outer surface (Fig. 4B display panel 100 has upper surface towards top of figure and bottom surface towards bottom of figure), and the inner surface facing towards the foldable electronic device (Fig. 4B upper surface of display panel 100 faces towards touch panel 150); a covering structure being disposed on the outer surface of the multi-layer display structure (Fig. 4B adhesive layer 200 on bottom surface of display panel 100) and including a substrate layer and a plurality of nano-protrusions (Fig. 5A adhesive layer 200 includes base film 210 and a plurality of first and second protuberances 220-1/220-2), wherein the nano-protrusions are arranged in array on at least one side of the substrate layer (Fig. 5A first and second protuberances 220-1/220-2 are arranged on both sides of base film 210); wherein the flexible screen is able to transform between an unfolded state and a folded state (Fig. 3B, par. 48 “the foldable display device…may be folded as illustrated in FIG. 3B”), and wherein when the flexible screen is in the folded state, the flexible screen is partially formed with a bending section (Par. 48 “the foldable display device may include two or more active areas A-1 and A-2 and a folding area B therebetween”), and the nano-protrusions located in the bending section release the stress generated in the bending section (Fig. 5A, par. 69 “a movement of the first protuberance 220-1 and the second protuberance 220-2 relieves the stress which is applied to the adhesive layer 200 upon folding or unfolding of the display device”). Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the flexible screen as claimed in claim 1, wherein when the flexible screen is in the unfolded state, a first longitudinal direction and a second longitudinal direction perpendicular to each other are defined relative to the outer surface, and the nano-protrusions are arranged in array with intervals along the first longitudinal direction and second longitudinal direction (Fig. 5C first and second protuberances 220-1/220-2 are arranged on both sides of base film 210 in an array with a first direction parallel to an unfolded display panel as pictured in fig. 4A and a second direction of the array perpendicular to said first direction). 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. Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20180351117A1). Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the flexible screen as claimed in claim 2, wherein a pitch of any two adjacent nano-protrusions is less than 250 nanometers (Par. 66 “the specific dimensions (e.g., shape, length, width, height, thickness, packed density, etc.) of the first and second protuberance 220-1, 220-2 may vary with respect to the overall size of the foldable display device and how the folding (i.e., inward folding, outward folding, both, etc.) or otherwise pliable movement action should be achieved.” Therefore, as Kim teaches that the pitch between nano protuberances directly influences the desired folding capacity, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the flexible screen as claimed in claim 3, wherein a thickness of the covering structure is approximate 1000 nanometers (Par. 66 “the specific dimensions (e.g., shape, length, width, height, thickness, packed density, etc.) of the first and second protuberance 220-1, 220-2 may vary with respect to the overall size of the foldable display device and how the folding (i.e., inward folding, outward folding, both, etc.) or otherwise pliable movement action should be achieved.” Therefore, as Kim teaches that the thickness of the adhesive layer which includes the protuberances directly influences the desired folding capacity, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the flexible screen as claimed in claim 4, further comprising a supporting plate, which attaches to the inner surface of the multi-layer display structure, and is arranged on the foldable electronic device (Fig. 4B support frame 300 attached to display panel 400). Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the flexible screen as claimed in claim 1, wherein the bending section further includes a first bending segment, a second bending segment, and a third bending segment, the second bending segment is located between the first bending segment and the third bending segment, wherein the first bending segment, the second bending segment and the third bending segment are continuously arranged (Fig. 5A adhesive layer is continuous throughout the bent portion and can be broken into 3 continuous segments with the second segment being located between the first and third), and the bending section is in a droplet shape when the flexible screen is in the folded state (Par. 66 “the specific dimensions (e.g., shape, length, width, height, thickness, packed density, etc.) of the first and second protuberance 220-1, 220-2 may vary with respect to the overall size of the foldable display device and how the folding (i.e., inward folding, outward folding, both, etc.) or otherwise pliable movement action should be achieved.” Therefore, as the pitch and shape of the first and second protuberances affects the folding properties as well as stress applied to the display, see par. 69, the resulting folded shape is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the flexible screen as claimed in claim 6, wherein the nano-protrusions are formed at least on the first bending segment, the second bending segment, and the third bending segment, and are respectively formed on opposite sides of the substrate layer that away from the multi-layer display structure and toward the multi-layer display structure (Fig. 5A adhesive layer 200 has first and second protuberances 220-1/220-2 continuously throughout the bent portions on both sides of base film 210). Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the flexible screen as claimed in claim 7, wherein each of the nano-protrusions is in a conical shape and has a height and a base diameter with an aspect ratio greater than 1 (Par. 66 “[a]spect ratios of the first protuberance 220-1 and the second protuberance 220-2 may be 5 to 50” which is greater than 1). Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the flexible screen as claimed in claim 8, wherein any aspect ratio of the nano-protrusions located in the second bending segment is greater than any aspect ratio of the nano-protrusions located in the first bending segment and the third bending segment (Par. 66 “the specific dimensions (e.g., shape, length, width, height, thickness, packed density, etc.) of the first and second protuberance 220-1, 220-2 may vary with respect to the overall size of the foldable display device and how the folding (i.e., inward folding, outward folding, both, etc.) or otherwise pliable movement action should be achieved.” Therefore, as Kim teaches that the length and width, and therefore aspect ratio of nano protuberances directly influences the desired folding capacity, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the flexible screen as claimed in claim 9, wherein a pitch defined by the adjacent nano-protrusions located in the second bending segment is smaller than that of the adjacent nano-protrusions located in the first bending segment and the third bending segment (Par. 66 “the specific dimensions (e.g., shape, length, width, height, thickness, packed density, etc.) of the first and second protuberance 220-1, 220-2 may vary with respect to the overall size of the foldable display device and how the folding (i.e., inward folding, outward folding, both, etc.) or otherwise pliable movement action should be achieved.” Therefore, as Kim teaches that the pitch between nano protuberances directly influences the desired folding capacity, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLE LEON LINDSEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.. 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 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. /COLE LEON LINDSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593630
PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING A SILICON CARBIDE DEVICE AND SILICON CARBIDE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575330
ORDERED ALLOY MAGNETIC TUNNEL JUNCTION WITH SIMPLIFIED SEED STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12550407
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES WITH BACKSIDE VIA AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543538
TEMPORARY FIXATION LAYERED FILM AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, TEMPORARY FIXATION LAYERED BODY, AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12532501
STRUCTURE WITH BACK-GATE HAVING OPPOSITELY DOPED SEMICONDUCTOR REGIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.8%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 116 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month