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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and attached affidavit, filed 5/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 112b rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/11/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection of rejection are made in view of the amendments made to claims 1-20 and clarification of claim language from affidavit. Therefore, the 103 rejection of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20220389290 A1) hereafter referred to as Woo in view of Wu et. al (US 20220388276 A1) hereafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Woo teaches an electronic device comprising:
a display module (DM display module) including:
a folding display unit (DP-DA display area) which is foldable with reference to a folding axis extending in a first direction (FX1 folding axis, ¶60) ; and
a first non-folding display unit (NFA1 non folding area) and
a second non-folding display unit (NFA2 non folding area) which are spaced apart from each other with the folding display unit there between (¶59, Fig 1A);
a support member (LM support module) disposed below the display module (Fig 4), and including:
a folding part (section of LM defined by FA1 folding area 1 in Fig 4) having a plurality of patterns defined therein (OP openings) and corresponding to the folding display unit (Fig 4); and
a first non-folding part (portion of LM defined by NFA1 non folding area in Fig 4) and a second non-folding part (portion of LM defined by NFA2 non folding area in Fig 4) respectively corresponding to the first non-folding display unit and the second non-folding display unit (Fig 4, Fig 1A); and
an adhesive layer disposed between the display module and the support member (AP1; ¶101)
Woo fails to teach the adhesive layer has an elastic modulus of about 1 megapascal to about 1500 megapascals at -20 degrees Celsius.
However, Wu teaches an adhesive layer (42 multilayer adhesive stack) and that a relationship between the modulus at various temperatures is known in the art (¶64, “the multilayer adhesive stack may have a modulus at various other temperatures (e.g., −20 degrees Celsius… Less than 1 megapascal (MPa), … between 500 MPa and 1.5 GPa…” omissions for clarity). Due to the way Wu lists numerous examples, the exact value at -20 degrees Celsius may not be directly taught, but examples of overlapping temperatures and overlapping moduli at least presents a list of identifiable and predictable solutions for adapting the modulus of an adhesive as a function of temperature.
Additionally, Wu further directly identifies the desire to “optimize” adhesives for lower temperatures (see at least the Abstract, ¶7, ¶56, ¶58, and more) demonstrating that the moduli of an adhesive are result-effective variables.
Woo and Wu are both in the industry of devices with glass with an adhesive layer, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo to include an optimized adhesive and corresponding modulus.
Further, the MPEP §2144.05 states: “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” and “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” In the instant case, the ranges incorporated from the Woo reference overlap the claimed ranges are considered to provide a prima facie case of obviousness.
Finally, the teachings of Wu show further optimization of the modulus of an adhesive layer is obvious as a mere optimization of a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05.II.A) and there is currently no showing by applicant that the claimed range is “Critical” and results in any unexpected results (see MPEP §2144.05.III.A and §716.02), in particular as the claimed ranges spans three orders of magnitude.
In summary, the missing teaching of Woo is rendered obvious by Wu’s teachings and well known and recognized motivations such as selecting materials from a finite number of identifiable and predictable solutions (list of ranges/temperatures of Wu; MPEP §2141.III.E), overlapping ranges (§2144.05), and routine optimization motivated by Wu (§2144.05.II.A).
Regarding claim 6, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the support member (LM support module) comprises a first surface adjacent to the display module (not numbered, see annotated Fig 4 below) and a second surface facing the first surface (not numbered, see annotated Fig 4 below), and the plurality of patterns (OP openings, Fig 4) comprises a first groove recessed in a direction from the first surface to the second surface and a second groove recessed in the direction from the second surface to the first surface (Fig 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the first groove (first vertical opening that makes up OP openings section) does not overlap the second groove (second vertical opening that makes up OP openings section, Fig 4).
Regarding claim 8, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the first groove and the second groove (vertical openings that make up OP openings section) are alternately arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig 4).
Claims 4-5, 9, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Wu and evidenced by designer data, and further in view of Ostholt et. al (US 20220223806 A1) hereafter referred to as Ostholt.
Regarding claim 4, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Woo in view of Wu fail to teach the support member has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers. However, Ostholt teaches the support member (11 outer surface) has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers (¶45). Woo, Wu, and Ostholt are all in the industry of flexible display devices with adhesive layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the specific thickness of the support member in order to enable movability in the manner of a flexure joint (Ostholt ¶45)
Regarding claim 5, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Woo in view of Wu as evidenced by designer data fail to teach the adhesive layer has a thickness of about 10 micrometers to about 30 micrometers. However, Ostholt teaches the adhesive layer (4 layer) has a thickness of about 10 micrometers to about 30 micrometers. (¶49) Woo, Wu, and Ostholt are all in the industry of flexible display devices with adhesive layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the specific thickness of the adhesive layer to allow the substrate to support the display itself and be less susceptible to damage (Ostholt ¶55)
Regarding claim 9, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 6.
Woo in view of Wu fail to teach a first resin portion filled in the first groove, and a second resin portion filled in the second groove. However, Ostholt teaches a first resin portion (4 polymer layer) filled in the first groove (5 modifications, ¶18, ¶61), and a second resin portion (4 polymer layer) filled in the second groove (5 modifications, ¶18, ¶61). Woo, Wu, and Ostholt are all in the industry of flexible display devices with adhesive layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the flexible resin layer in the first and second groove in order to create a flexure hinge (Ostholt, claim 2, ¶61).
Regarding claim 11, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Woo in view of Wu fail to teach the plurality of patterns comprises a plurality of openings arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. However, Ostholt teaches the plurality of patterns (2 modified region is made up of 6 recesses and 5 modifications) comprises a plurality of openings (6 recesses) arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. (see Fig 2, ¶45-46) Woo, Wu, and Ostholt are all in the industry of flexible display devices with adhesive layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the recess and opening structure of Ostholt in order to allow for bending along the hinge line of the flexible display (Ostholt ¶56)
Regarding claim 12, Woo in view of Wu and further in view of Ostholt teach the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the plurality of openings (Ostholt 6 recesses) comprises first sub-openings (Ostholt 6 recesses, Fig 2) arranged in the first direction and second sub-openings spaced apart from the first sub-openings in the second direction (Ostholt 6 recesses, Fig 2) perpendicular to the first direction and arranged in the first direction (Ostholt Fig 2).
Regarding claim 13, Woo in view of Wu teach electronic device of claim 1.
Woo in view of Wu a fail to teach the support member is a glass substrate. However, Ostholt teaches the support member (11 outer surface) is a glass substrate (¶59-60). Woo, Wu, and Ostholt are all in the industry of flexible display devices with adhesive layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the glass substrate as a support layer in order to form the hinge support while keeping the final display unit thin (Ostholt ¶56 and ¶58)
Regarding claim 14, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Woo in view of Wu fail to teach a hard coating layer disposed between the support member and the adhesive layer. However, Ostholt teaches a hard coating layer (7 cover layer) disposed between the support member (LM support module) and the adhesive layer (4 layer), (¶56-57) Woo, Wu, and Ostholt are all in the industry of flexible display devices with adhesive layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the hard coating layer in order to encapsulate the underlying layers of the flexible display (Ostholt ¶51)
Regarding claim 15, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the hard coating layer (Ostholt 7 cover layer) has a thickness of about 1 micrometer to about 5 micrometers (Ostholt ¶59).
Regarding claim 17, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the hard coating layer (Ostholt 7 cover layer) is directly disposed on the support member (Ostholt ¶56), and the adhesive layer (Ostholt 4 layer) is directly disposed on the hard coating layer (Ostholt ¶56).
Claim 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Wu further in view of Jung (US 20220305753 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Woo in view of Wu fail to teach the folding part has a modulus of about 100 megapascals to about 600 megapascals at -20 degrees Celsius in the combination of claim 1. However, Jung teaches the folding part has a modulus of about 100 megapascals to about 600 megapascals at -20 degrees Celsius. (¶176). Woo, Wu, and Jung are all in the industry of display devices with layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the thickness and modulus of Jung in order to allow for deformation of the display during manufacturing to ensure a thinner display unit (Jung ¶18)
Regarding claim 18, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Woo in view of Wu fail to teach the support member has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers, and the folding part has a modulus of about 100 megapascals to about 600 megapascals at -20 degrees Celsius in the combination of claim 1. However, Jung teaches the support member (20 lower protection layer) has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers (¶94, the specified range 100 to 400 micrometers is within the range of 50 to 400 micrometers in Jung), and the folding part has a modulus of about 100 megapascals to about 600 megapascals at -20 degrees Celsius (¶176). Woo, Wu, and Jung are all in the industry of display devices with layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the thickness and modulus of Jung in order to allow for deformation of the display during manufacturing to ensure a thinner display unit (Jung ¶18)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Woo in view of Wu and evidenced by designer data, and further in view of Ostholt and Kim (US 11024653 B2)
Regarding claim 10, Woo in view of Wu and further in view of Ostholt teach the electronic device of claim 9.
Woo in view of Wu and further in view of Ostholt fail to teach the first resin portion and the second resin portion each comprise an acrylic resin. However, Kim teaches the first resin portion and the second resin portion each comprise an acrylic resin. (183 cover layer, col 9 lines 25-36) Woo, Wu, Ostholt, and Kim are all in the industry of display device units, therefore it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo, Wu and Ostholt to include the acrylic resin in order to fill the grooves with an elastic material with insulating properties (183 cover layer, col 9 lines 25-36)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of and further in view of Ostholt and Park et. al (US 20220020940 A1) hereafter referred to as Park.
Regarding claim 16, Woo in view of Wu and further in view of Ostholt teach the electronic device of claim 14,
Woo in view of Wu and further in view of Ostholt fail to teach the hard coating layer has a modulus of about 1000 megapascals to about 1500 megapascals at -20 degrees Celsius in the combination of claim 14. However, Park teaches he hard coating layer (690 second protection film) has a modulus of about 1000 megapascals to about 1500 megapascals at -20 degrees (¶125). Woo, Wu, Ostholt, and Park are all in the industry of display devices, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the modulus of Park in order to enforce rigidity of the display. Park, ¶125)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Wu, and further in view of Jung, and Kishimoto (US 20220317791 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Woo in view of Wu fail to teach the support member has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers. However, Jung teaches the support member (20 lower protection layer) has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers (¶94, the specified range 100 to 400 micrometers is within the range of 50 to 400 micrometers in Jung). Woo, Wu, and Jung are all in the industry of display devices with layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the thickness of Jung in order to allow for deformation of the display during manufacturing to ensure a thinner display unit (Jung ¶18)
Woo in view of Wu and further in view of Jung fail to teach the adhesive layer has a thickness of about 10 micrometers to about 30 micrometers. However, Kishimoto teaches the adhesive layer (241 adhesive layer) has a thickness of about 10 micrometers to about 30 micrometers (¶119) Woo, Wu, Jung, and Kishimoto are all in the industry of display devices, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo, Wu, and Jung to include the adhesive layer thickness of Kishimoto in order to allow deformation of the device without peeling after repeated deformation (Kishimoto ¶119)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Wu and further in view of Ostholt and Jung.
Regarding claim 20, Woo in view of Wu teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Woo in view of Wu fail to teach the support member has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers and the adhesive layer has a thickness of about 10 micrometers to about 30 micrometers. However, Ostholt teaches the support member (11 outer surface) has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers (¶45) and the support member (11 outer surface) has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers (¶45). Woo, Wu, and Ostholt are all in the industry of flexible display devices with adhesive layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the specific thickness of the support member and adhesive layer in order to enable movability in the manner of a flexure joint (Ostholt ¶45) and allow the substrate to support the display itself and be less susceptible to damage (Ostholt ¶55)
Woo in view of Wu fail to teach the folding part has a modulus of about 100 megapascals to about 600 megapascals at -20 degrees Celsius in the combination of claim 1. However, Jung teaches the folding part has a modulus of about 100 megapascals to about 600 megapascals at -20 degrees Celsius. (¶176). Woo, Wu, and Jung are all in the industry of display devices with layers, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Woo and Wu to include the thickness and modulus of Jung in order to allow for deformation of the display during manufacturing to ensure a thinner display unit (Jung ¶18)
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 ELISA SASSERATH whose telephone number is (703)756-5847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/E.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights