Reissue
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 June 2025 has been entered.
The indicated allowability of claims 1-10 and 15-20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to KR 10-2016-0083608 to Kim. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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) 1-7, 11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2016-0083608 to Kim (hereinafter Kim ‘608) in view of US 2016/0357052 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim ‘052).
PNG
media_image1.png
732
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Kim ‘608 teaches a foldable display device including a display panel 110 including a folding area 115 and a non-folding area 111, 113; a first member 210,220 disposed under the display panel; a support member 300 disposed
under the first member; and an adhesive member 315,415 disposed between the support member 300 and the first member 210,220, wherein the adhesive member includes a non-adhesive portion (space between 315 and 415) disposed between the support member 300 and the first member 210,220, and wherein the non-adhesive portion of the adhesive member overlaps with the first member, and the non-adhesive portion of the adhesive member overlaps with the folding area of the display panel. See Figure 2. Kim ‘608 does not discloses that the first member is a rigid member, the rigid member including an opening pattern corresponding to the folding area.
Kim ‘052 discloses a foldable display device including a display panel 110 having a folding region FR and a non-folding region, a rigid member 180 disposed under the display panel, the rigid member including an opening pattern 182 corresponding to the folding area. Kim ‘052 notes that use of a rigid member with opening pattern prevents damage to the display panel that often occurs when using a flexible backplate, like first member 210,220 of Kim ‘608. See paras [0015-0019, 0036, 0081]. Thus, in order to prevent damage to the display panel 110 of Kim ‘608, it would have been obvious to use the rigid member 180 of Kim ‘052 in place of the flexible member 210,220 of Kim ‘608.
As to claim 2, Kim ‘052 teaches the compensation layers within the opening pattern suppress deformation when the display panel is folded. The compensation layers will be located under the non-adhesive portion in the combination of Kim ‘608. See paras [0085-0088].
With respect to claim 3, Figures 9d, 9e of Kim ‘608 illustrate the display in a folded position wherein the non-adhesive portion located between the portions of the first member 210,220 is separated (i.e. spaced) from the first member.
As to claims 4-7, the rigid member 580 (see Figure 7C) of Kim ‘052 includes a flexibility-improving adhesive (silicon) layer 586,588 disposed between the display
PNG
media_image2.png
268
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
panel and the rigid member and which includes extended portions disposed in the open regions of the opening pattern 582 in the rigid member. See paras [0086, 0138, 0139]. As the extended portions are located in the opening regions of the opening pattern, the silicon layer will contact the non-adhesive portion of the adhesive member in the combination with Kim ‘608 and thus, suppress deformation when the display panel is folded.
PNG
media_image3.png
192
138
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Kim ‘608 teaches foldable display having a flexible substrate 110 including a foldable region 115 and a non-foldable region 111,113; a member 210,220 disposed under the flexible substrate; and an adhesive member including: a first adhesive layer 215,225 configured to be attached to a rear surface of the flexible substrate 110, and a second adhesive layer 315,415 disposed between the member 210,220 and a support member 300, the second adhesive layer 215,315 being configured to be attached to the member 210,220 and the support member 300 (as shown in cutout of Figure 3 above).
Furthermore, the first adhesive layer 215,225 is disposed between the flexible substrate 110 and the member 210,220, wherein the second adhesive layer of the adhesive member includes: a first portion (located between adhesive portions 315,415) corresponding to the foldable region, the first portion having a non-adhesive property, and a second portion 315,415 corresponding to the non-foldable region, the second portion having an adhesive property. Kim ‘608 does not teach that the member 210,220 is rigid with an opening pattern in the foldable region.
Kim ‘052 is relied upon as set forth above. In order to prevent damage to the display panel 110 of Kim ‘608, it would have been obvious to use the rigid member 180 of Kim ‘052 in place of the flexible member 210,220 of Kim ‘608.
In modifying Kim ‘608 with Kim ‘052, the rigid member including an opening pattern would correspond to the folding area 115 of the display 110. Furthermore, the first, non-adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer would overlap with the opening pattern in the rigid member, as both are located in the folding area of the display. As shown in Figure 2 of Kim ‘608, the support member 300 is disposed under the second, adhesive portion and would necessarily extends under the opening pattern in the combination with Kim ‘052.
As to claim 13, "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, the adhesive member having a non-adhesive portion as claimed appears to be an obvious variation of that of Kim ‘608. The specification of the instant ‘693 patent discloses only that the UV radiation renders the treated part non-adhesive. See col.9, lines 53-60.
With respect to claim 14, it would have been obvious to use similar adhesives for the two adhesive layers for cost reduction and ease of assembly.
With respect to claim 15, Kim ‘608 teaches a foldable display device including a display panel 110 including a folding area 115 and a non-folding area 111,113; a first member 210,220 disposed under the display panel; a rigid member 300 disposed under the first member; and an adhesive member 315,415 disposed between the rigid member 300 and the first member 210,220, the adhesive member including an adhesive portion and a non-adhesive portion (located between the adhesive portions 315,415), wherein the non-adhesive portion of the member is disposed between the rigid member 300 and the first member 210,220. See Figure 2. Kim ‘608 does not disclose that the first member is a rigid member, the rigid member including an opening pattern overlapping with the non-adhesive portion and corresponding to the folding area.
Kim ‘052 is relied upon as set forth above. In order to prevent damage to the display panel 110 of Kim ‘608, it would have been obvious to use the rigid member 180 of Kim ‘052 in place of the flexible member 210,220 of Kim ‘608. When making the combination, the opening pattern would have overlapped with the non-adhesive portion and folding area.
As to claims 16 and 17, in Kim ‘608 the width and placement of the non-adhesive portion between adhesive portions 315,415 is such that it would not be in contact with the opening pattern 182 in the combination with Kim ‘052 but would overlap somewhat with the rigid member 180. Regardless, it is deemed obvious to size the non-adhesive portion such that it would not interfere with the folding portion of the rigid member.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Figure 7C of Kim ‘052 illustrates an embodiment of the rigid member 580 wherein the opening pattern 582 extends into and through opposite sides of the rigid member.
As to claim 20, Kim ‘608 discloses a polarizing plate disposed on the display panel. See English translation of Kim ‘608, page 4 lines 1-3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11, 13, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH MCKANE whose telephone number is
(571) 272-1275. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs; 6:30 am -
4:30 pm.
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, Patricia Engle can be reached on 571-272-6660. 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.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/LEONARDO ANDUJAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991