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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20210141419 A1).
Re claim 17: Wang discloses a display device (flexible display screen 100 in fig 15 and paragraph 78), comprising:
a display module (display screen body 3 in fig 15 and paragraph 100) including a first area (first straight segment 31, second straight segment 32 in fig 15) and a second area (first bent segment 33 in fig 15) adjacent to the first area in a first direction (horizontal direction), wherein at least a portion of the second area is configured to be (i.e., functional language) curved;
a plurality of segments (transition segments 14 in figs 8-9, 11 and paragraphs 104, 106-107) disposed under the display module, overlapping the second area, each of the plurality of segments extending in a second direction (i.e., vertical direction) crossing the first direction (horizontal direction), spaced apart from one another in the first direction (horizontal direction), and each of the plurality of segments having a structure including a plurality of laminated plates (first material layer 141, second material layer 142 in fig 11) laminated onto each other in the first direction (horizontal direction),
wherein all of the plurality of laminated plates has a same size as one another (see fig 11; herein, both 141 and 142 have a triangular shape of the same size).
Re claim 18: Wang discloses the display device, wherein at least two of the plates include materials different from each other (see paragraph 107; herein, the first material layer 141 and the plane segment are integrated into one body, and the second material layer 142 and the bending portion 13 are integrated into one body).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20210141419 A1).
Re claim 19: Wang discloses the display device.
Wang fails to disclose that the plates include a same material as each other.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plates with same material as each other depending on the designer’s choice since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Re claim 20: Wang discloses the display device.
Wang fails to disclose that each of the plates includes stainless steel (SUS), fiber reinforced plastic (FRP), and/or magnesium (Mg)
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plates with materials such as stainless steel, fiber reinforced plastic, and/or magnesium depending on the desired strength and hardness of the plates since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 14-16 are allowed.
The best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination thereof, fails to teach a display device including, along with other limitations, each of the plurality of segments having a structure including a plurality of laminated plates laminated onto each other in a planar superposition in the first direction as set forth in the claim.
Claims 6-13 are allowed.
The best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination thereof, fails to teach a display device including, along with other limitations, each of the plates including a first portion facing the display module; a second portion contacting the first portion and having a rectangular cross-sectional shape with one side open; and two third portions respectively contacting both ends of the second portion as set forth in the claim.
Claims 21-27 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 best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination thereof, fails to teach a display device including, along with other limitations, each of the plates including a first portion facing the display module; a second portion contacting the first portion and having a rectangular cross-sectional shape with one side open; and two third portions respectively contacting both ends of the second portion as set forth in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments that Wang fails to disclose that all of the plates have a same shape as each other, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant argues that it is not clear from either FIG. 10 or FIG. 11 of Wang, however, that elements 141 and 142 have the same shape. For example, in FIG. 11, element 142 has a cross- sectional isosceles trapezoid shape whereas element 141 has an irregular quadrilateral shape. Thus, Wang fails to teach or suggest, "wherein the plates have a same shape as each other."
The examiner herein notes that the examiner has treated transition segments 14 (Wang: see fig 11) as the claimed plurality of segments. According to fig 11 of Wang, each transition segment 14 comprises a first material layer 141 and a second material layer 142 laminated along the thickness direction of the support plate 1. Herein, according to fig 11 of Wang, all of the first material layers 141 and the second material layers 142 are in triangular shape of the same size.
The examiner further notes that it was never the intention of the examiner to treat the entire bending portion 13 + transition segments 14 as the claimed plurality of segments. The examiner has only treated transition segments 14, comprising a first material layer 141 and a second material layer 142 laminated along the thickness direction of the support plate 1, as the claimed plurality of segments.
Therefore, the arguments remain non-persuasive and the rejection remains unchanged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nidhi Thaker whose telephone number is (571)270-3408. The examiner can normally be reached M, TH, F 10am-6pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/NIDHI THAKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights