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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 7-9, 13-14, and 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A3, claims 1-6, 10-12, and 15-17, in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9, 13-14, and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2026.
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 10-12 are 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 10-12,
The term “thin” when describing the glass cover in claims 10-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, any glass cover that is not explicitly thick may be considered a thin glass cover.
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) 1-2, 4-6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2015/0064367 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Choi teaches a foldable display device, comprising: a display panel (200) including a folding area (183) to be folded with respect to a folding axis (axis H) and a non-folding area (181 or 182) (Choi: abstract; par. 0010 and 0053). The foldable display device may have a display panel (200); an antireflective film laminate (400) adhered to the display panel via an adhesive (Choi: par. 0059). The antireflective film laminate (400) may comprise a polarization coating layer (430, a polarization film on the display panel as it is laminated over it), a retardation coating layer (420, a retardation film) may be formed on the polarization coating layer (430) (Choi: par. 0130). Choi further teaches embodiments wherein an adhesive layer (an adhesive member) is placed on the retardation coating layer or beneath the retardation coating layer (Choi: par. 0129 and 0130). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would configure the placement of an adhesive member in the desired placement such as between the polarizer and the retardation film to achieve the desired adhesiveness. The in-plane retardation value (Rin) and the thickness direction retardation value (Rth) may be 10 nm or less, which is within the claimed range (Choi: par. 0076).
Regarding claim 2,
Choi teaches the foldable display device required by claim 1. Choi further teaches the in-plane retardation value (Rin) and the thickness direction retardation value (Rth) may be 10 nm or less and thus the thickness retardation value and the in-plane retardation value may be the same or less due to both having the same claimed range and it would be obvious to select within the ranges (Choi: par. 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4,
Choi teaches the foldable display device required by claim 1. Choi further teaches an adhesive layer (480) is used to attach the anti-reflective layer (400, which includes the polarization film) to the touch panel that is attached to the display panel (200) and thus there may be an adhesive layer bonding the polarization film to the display panel as an adhesive layer exist between the two layers (Choi: par. 0129).
Regarding claim 5,
Choi teaches the foldable display device required by claim 1. Choi further teaches an optical coating layer (470) may be placed over the polarization layer (430) and the retardation layer (420) and may include an anti-fingerprint coating (a hard coating layer, as any layer can be considered a hard coating layer that is solid and not explicitly soft, that would intrinsically having a contact angle to provide anti-fingerprint function) (Choi: Fig. 15; par. 0127).
Regarding claim 6,
Choi teaches the foldable display device required by claim 1. Choi further teaches an optical coating layer (470) may be placed over the polarization layer (430) and the retardation layer (420) and may include at least one of a low-reflection coating, an anti-reflection coating (may be considered a hard coating layer as any layer that is solid and is not explicitly soft may be considered a hard coating to some degree), and an anti-fingerprint coating (Choi: Fig. 15; par. 0127). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the anti-fingerprint coating over the hard coating layer as it is the layer that is designed to resist fingerprint formation from touch.
Regarding claim 16,
Choi teaches a foldable display device, comprising: a display panel (200) including a folding area (183) to be folded with respect to a folding axis (axis H) and a non-folding area (181 or 182) (Choi: abstract; par. 0010 and 0053). The foldable display device may have a display panel (200); an antireflective film laminate (400) adhered to the display panel via an adhesive (Choi: par. 0059). The antireflective film laminate (400) may comprise a polarization coating layer (430, a polarization film on the display panel as it is laminated over it), a retardation coating layer (420, a retardation film) may be formed on the polarization coating layer (430) (Choi: par. 0130). Choi further teaches embodiments wherein an adhesive layer (an adhesive member) is placed on the retardation coating layer or beneath the retardation coating layer (Choi: par. 0129 and 0130). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would configure the placement of an adhesive member in the desired placement such as between the polarizer and the retardation film to achieve the desired adhesiveness.
Choi further teaches the in-plane retardation value (Rin) and the thickness direction retardation value (Rth) may be 10 nm or less and thus the thickness retardation value and the in-plane retardation value may be the same or less due to both having the same claimed range and it would be obvious to select within the ranges (Choi: par. 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Seto (JP 2004/170875 A; machine translation).
Regarding claim 10,
Choi teaches the foldable display device required by claim 1. Choi does not explicitly teach wherein the foldable display device further comprises a thin cover glass between the polarization film and the adhesive member.
Seto teaches a display device comprising a polarizing plate (31) and an optical member layer (32) laminated directly on said polarizing plate (Seto: abstract: par. 0007 and 0020-0022). The optical member (32) may comprise a cover glass which is used to increase the strength of the display screen (Seto: par. 0019). The cover glass may be considered a thin cover glass as it is not described as thick as interpreted in the Section 112(b) rejection above.
Choi and Seto are in the corresponding field of display devices comprising polarizing plates. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a thin cover-glass directly on the polarizing film of Choi, which would place the thin cover-glass between the adhesive member and the polarizing film, to provide improved strength to the display screen as taught by Seto.
Claims 3, 11-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Seto and in further view of Takatani et al. (US 2011/0199348 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 11-12, and 17,
Choi teaches the foldable display device required by claims 1 and 16 and Choi in view of Seto teaches the foldable display device comprising the claimed the cover glass required by claim 10. Choi and Seto are silent towards the refractive index of the adhesive member, the thin cover glass refractive index being from 1.51 to 1.53 and the relationship of the in-plane and thickness retardation value of the thin cover glass, and the refractive index of the polarization film and the retardation film.
Takatani teaches a display device comprising an adhesive layer, a glass cover, and a protective layer of a polarizer in which the refractive indexes of these layers are set to be between 1.48 to 1.52, which overlaps with the claimed refractive index for the cover glass, to provide improved light transmittance and reduce contrast caused by external light which can be suppressed (Takatani: abstract; par. 0061). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it is obvious to select any refractive index for each respective layer type within the claimed range, thus they could be the same or different, resulting in the polarization film having a greater refractive index than the adhesive member, for example.
Choi, Seto, and Takatani are in the corresponding field of display devices comprising polarization layers. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the refractive index of the adhesive member, the cover glass, and the polarization film of Choi and Seto, within the claimed proportions, to provide improved transparency and reduced contrast for the intended purposes as taught by Takatani.
The resulting embodiments may have a polarization film with a greater refractive index than the adhesive member, and as the adhesive member matches the claimed structure and properties, it would be expected to have the same relationship with the retardation layer, that also has the claimed structure and relationships, and thus may have a greater refractive index than the retardation film. Additionally, as the glass has the claimed structure and properties, it would also be expected to have the same relationship of in-plane retardation value being greater than a thickness retardation value. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0217639 A1).
Regarding claim 15,
Choi teaches the foldable display device required by claim 1. Choi is silent towards the display further comprising a chemically strengthened glass on the display panel.
Jones teaches a foldable cover and display for an electronic device comprising an outer ceramic layer comprising chemically strengthened glass to provide a hard and scratch resistant surface (Jones: abstract; par. 0067-0068 and 0150).
Choi and Jones are in the corresponding field of foldable displays. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a chemically strengthened glass as an outer layer in the display of Choi, which would result in the glass being on the display panel as it is an outer layer in the laminate, to provided improved scratch resistance as taught by Jones.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights