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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-20, it is not clear what modulus is specified. Clarification needed.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostholt et. al (US 20220223806 A1) hereafter referred to as Ostholt in view of Bok (US 20220399511 A1) and 3M (https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1559792O/3m-scotch-weld-urethane-adhesive-ec-3549-ba-nf-tds.pdf) as evidenced by AGC chemicals (https://www.agc-chemicals.com/jp/en/products/detail/index.html?pCode=JP-EN-U014)
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Ostholt teaches an electronic device comprising: a display module (1 carrier substrate) including: a folding display unit (2 central flexible region) which is foldable with reference to a folding axis extending in a first direction (¶44) ; and a first non-folding display unit (3 rigid end region) and a second non-folding display unit (3 rigid end region) which are spaced apart from each other with the folding display unit there between (¶44, Fig 1); a support member (11 outer surface) disposed below the display module (Fig 7), and including: a folding part (2 laser-modified region, Fig 7) having a plurality of patterns defined therein (5 modifications) and corresponding to the folding display unit (Fig 7); and a first non-folding part (see annotated Fig 7 below) and a second non-folding part respectively corresponding to the first non-folding display unit and the second non-folding display unit (see annotated Fig 7 below, Fig 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
328
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and an adhesive layer (4 polymeric adhesive layer) disposed between the display module and the support member (¶60)
Ostholt fails to teach the adhesive layer has a modulus of about 1 megapascal to about 1500 megapascals at -20 degrees Celsius. However, Bok teaches the adhesive layer is urethane acrylate (¶137). Ostholt and Bok 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 Ostholt to include the urethane acrylate layer in order to ensure the adhesive is clear and be easily folded.
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 cases, the ranges incorporated from the Key reference overlap the claimed ranges are considered to provide a prima facie case of obviousness. Though the range is taken at room temperature, an inherent property of the material is that the modulus doesn’t change more than a factor of 1000 between -20 and 23C and would remain in the claimed range. The value of the modulus doesn’t change significantly from -20 to 23. Therefore, would have been obvious to use the commercially available Urethane Acrylate as it would have been a “mere selection of an art recognized” (see graph below)
PNG
media_image2.png
368
423
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, there is no evidence in the specification or claims that explain criticality to the claimed range, as it is customary to measure the properties of materials at room temperature (about 23°C)
Regarding claim 2, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3m as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer (4 polymeric adhesive layer) is directly disposed on the support member (11 outer surface, ¶60).
Regarding claim 4, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3m as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the support member (11 outer surface) has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers (¶45).
Regarding claim 5, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer (4 layer) has a thickness of about 10 micrometers to about 30 micrometers. (¶49)
Regarding claim 6, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the support member (11 outer surface) comprises a first surface adjacent to the display module and a second surface facing the first surface (see annotated Fig 7 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
274
503
media_image3.png
Greyscale
And the plurality of patterns (2 modified region is made up of 6 recesses and 5 modifications) 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 7).
Regarding claim 7, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the first groove (6 recess) does not overlap the second groove (6 recess, Fig 7).
Regarding claim 8, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the first groove and the second groove (5 modifications) are alternately arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 6, further comprising a first resin portion (elastic layer) filled in the first groove (5 modifications, ¶18, ¶61), and a second resin portion (elastic layer) filled in the second groove (5 modifications, ¶18, ¶61).
Regarding claim 11, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein 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)
Regarding claim 12, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the plurality of openings (6 recesses) comprises first sub-openings (6 recesses, Fig 2) arranged in the first direction and second sub-openings spaced apart from the first sub-openings in the second direction (6 recesses, Fig 2) perpendicular to the first direction and arranged in the first direction (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 13, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach electronic device of claim 1, wherein the support member (11 outer surface) is a glass substrate (¶59).
Regarding claim 14, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a hard coating layer (7 cover layer) disposed between the support member (11 outer surface) and the adhesive layer (4 layer), (¶56-57)
Regarding claim 15, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the hard coating layer (7 cover layer) has a thickness of about 1 micrometer to about 5 micrometers (¶59).
Regarding claim 17, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the hard coating layer (7 cover layer) is directly disposed on the support member (¶56), and the adhesive layer (4 layer) is directly disposed on the hard coating layer (¶56).
Claim 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC, and further in view of Jung (US 20220305753 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC 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). Ostholt, Bok 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 Ostholt and Bok 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, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3m as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC 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). Ostholt, Bok, 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 Ostholt and Bok 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 Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC, and further in view of Kim (US 11024653 B2)
Regarding claim 10, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach electronic device of claim 9.
Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC 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) Ostholt, Bok, 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 Ostholt and Bok 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 Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC, and further in view of Park et. al (US 20220020940 A1) hereafter referred to as Park.
Regarding claim 16, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 14,
Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC 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). Ostholt, Bok, 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 Ostholt and Bok to include the modulus of Park in order to enforce rigidity of the display. (park, ¶125)
Claim 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC, and further in view of Jung, and Kishimoto (US 20220317791 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC fail to teach the support member has a thickness of about 100 micrometers to about 400 micrometers. 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). Ostholt, Bok 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 Ostholt and Bok 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)
Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC 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) Ostholt, Bok, 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 Ostholt, Bok, 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)
Regarding claim 20, Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC 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. 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). Ostholt, Bok 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 Ostholt and Bok 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)
Ostholt in view of Bok, and further in view of 3M as evidenced by AGC 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) Ostholt, Bok, 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 Ostholt, Bok, 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)
Conclusion
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.
/E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/HUNG S. BUI/Acting Patent Examiner, 2841/2800