DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed on 12/21/2023.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “lacer” in line 3 is incorrectly spelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
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)(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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220416181) in view of Togashi (US 20200004082) & Tomioka (US 20170371194).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 6) shows an electronic device, comprising:
a flexible element 102 & PG (see, e.g., para.0022, para.0052);
a plurality of electronic units DU (see, e.g., para.0028) disposed on the flexible element;
and a first supporting element SUP (see, e.g., para.0021) disposed under the flexible element,
wherein the flexible element has a first Young's modulus E1 (any suitable adhesive of PG, see, e.g., para.0052),
the first supporting element has a second Young’s modulus E2 (polyimide),
Wu (see, e.g., para.0022, para.0035, para.0052) states the flexible element can be any suitable adhesive and the first supporting element can be polyimide.
Wu, however, fails to show
and the first Young’s modulus E1 and the second Young’s modulus E2 meet following equation: 100<E2/E1<250.
Togashi (see, e.g., fig. 3, para.0062), in a similar device to Wu, teaches an adhesive layer 3 with a Young’s modulus of 50 MPa would have a preferable Young’s Modulus stiffness as the layer could curve without deformation.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Young’s modulus of layer 3 of Togashi in the device of Wu to have a preferable Young’s Modulus stiffness as the layer could curve without deformation.
Tomioka (see, e.g., fig. 7, para.0074), in a similar device to Wu, teaches a first supporting element 11 made of polyimide with a Young’s modulus of 8 GPa would have a preferable stiffness for the first supporting element of a flexible display device.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Young’s modulus of layer 11 of Tomioka in the device of Wu to have a preferable stiffness for the first supporting element of a flexible display device.
Therefore, Wu, in view of Togashi & Tomioka, E2/E1 = 160 with values 50 MPa for E1 and 8 GPa for E2 and renders the missing limitation obvious.
Regarding Claim 3, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 2, para.0038), in view of Togashi & Tomioka, shows the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising
a second supporting element PL (see, e.g., para.0038) disposed under the flexible element 102 & PG and a space (space of AD2) between the first supporting element SUP and the second supporting element PL (see, e.g., fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 9), in view of Togashi & Tomioka, shows the electronic device of claim 3,
wherein a portion of the flexible element 102 & PG overlapped with the space (space of AD2 omitted from drawings, see, e.g., para.0038) has a first thickness T1
T2 of PG (100 µm, see, e.g., fig. 6, para.0052),
another portion of the flexible element 102 overlapped with the first supporting element SUP has a second thickness T2
T3 of 102 (10 µm, see, e.g., fig. 6, para.0052),
the first supporting element SUP has a third thickness T3
T4 (39 µm, see, e.g., para.0058),
and the first thickness T1, the second thickness T2 and the third thickness T3 meet following equation: 0.05≤(T2+T3)/T1≤0.5.
The thicknesses T1, T2, & T3 corresponding to T2, T3, & T4, respectively, results in a value of
0.05 ≤ (10 µm + 39 µm)/(100 µm) = 0.49 ≤ 0.5.
Additionally, ranges of thickness ratio will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Criticality
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed temperature and pressure ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 1), in view of Togashi & Tomioka, shows the electronic device of claim 1,
wherein an outline of the first supporting element SUP has a curved shape (see, e.g., fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 6, annotated figure 6), in view of Togashi & Tomioka, shows the electronic device of claim 1,
wherein an area of the first supporting element SUP is less than an area of the flexible element 102 (see, e.g., annotated figure 6).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220416181) in view of Togashi (US 20200004082) & Tomioka (US 20170371194) and further in view of Seo (US 20190138127).
Regarding Claim 2, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 2, para.0022, para.0038), in view of Togashi & Tomioka, shows the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising
an elastic element AD2 (see, e.g., para.0038) disposed under the first supporting element SUP and having a third Young’s modulus E3,
Wu (see, e.g., para.0022, para.0035) states the elastic element can be any suitable adhesive.
Wu, however, fails to show
wherein the second Young’s modulus E2 and the third Young’s modulus E3 meet following equation: 400<E2/E3<8000.
Seo (see, e.g., fig. 11, para.0268) in a similar device to Wu, in view of Togashi & Tomioka, teaches an elastic element 410 with a Young’s modulus of 15 MPa would have a preferable Young’s Modulus stiffness allowing for the elastic element to flex and adapt its shape.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Young’s modulus of elastic element 410 of Seo in the device of Wu, in view of Togashi & Tomioka, have a preferable Young’s Modulus stiffness allowing for the elastic element to flex and adapt its shape.
Therefore, Wu, in view of Togashi & Tomioka and further in view of Seo, E2/E3 = 533.33 with values 15 MPa for E3 and 8 GPa for E2 and would render the missing limitation obvious.
Claims 7-12 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US 20220416181).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 1, fig. 2) shows an electronic device, comprising:
a flexible structure having a flexible element 102 & PG (see, e.g., para.0022, para.0052) and a plurality of openings OPE (see, e.g., para.0029);
an electronic unit DU (see, e.g., para.0028) disposed on the flexible element;
and a supporting structure disposed under the flexible structure and having a plurality of supporting elements AD1, SUP, AD2, & PL overlapped with a portion of the flexible element and a space (the space of SUP) overlapped with the plurality of openings,
wherein an outline of at least one of the supporting elements has a curved shape (SUP has curved shape, see, e.g., fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 4) shows the electronic device of claim 7,
wherein the flexible element has a first island portion BP (see, e.g., para.0021),
a second island portion NRP and a bridge portion P5 connecting the first island portion and the second island portion,
and the space (the space of SUP) is overlapped with the bridge portion P5.
Regarding Claim 9, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 4, annotated figure 4) shows the electronic device of claim 8,
wherein the supporting structure has a first supporting element AD1 and a second supporting element SUP overlapped with the first island portion BP and the second island portion NRP respectively,
the first supporting element AD1 has a projection on the first island portion BP (see, e.g., annotated figure 4),
and the projection is located in the first island portion.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows the electronic device of claim 8,
wherein the first island portion BP has a first area A1 (using R1 radius of curvature 400 µm, see, e.g., para.0036),
one of the supporting elements SUP has a second area A2 (T4 thickness 100 µm subtracted from R2 radius of curvature 1000 µm, see, e.g., para.0036, para.0056),
and the first area A1 and the second area A2 meet following equation: 0.6<A2/A1<1.4.
PNG
media_image1.png
769
1400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, ranges of area ratio will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. See paragraph 19 above for criticality statement.
Regarding Claim 11, Wu shows the electronic device of claim 8,
wherein the bridge portion P5 has a first thickness T1
T2 (100 µm, see, e.g., para.0052),
the first island portion BP is overlapped with one of the supporting elements and has a second thickness T2
T3 (10 µm, overlap with SUP & AD1, see, e.g., fig. 6, para.0052)
one of the supporting elements has a third thickness T3
T4 of SUP (39 µm, see, e.g., para.0058),
and the first thickness T1, the second thickness T2 and the third thickness T3 meet following equation: 0.05≤(T2+T3)/T1≤0.5.
The thicknesses T1, T2, & T3 corresponding to T2, T3, & T4, respectively, results in a value of
0.05 ≤ (10 µm + 39 µm)/(100 µm) = 0.49 ≤ 0.5.
Additionally, ranges of thickness ratio will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. See paragraph 21 above for criticality statement.
Regarding Claim 12, Wu shows the electronic device of claim 7,
wherein one of the supporting elements SUP has a thickness T3 T1 (80 µm, see, e.g., para.0058),
the one of the supporting elements SUP has a portion RP which has the curved shape (see, e.g., fig. 1),
the portion has another thickness T4 T4 (39 µm, see, e.g., para.0058),
and the thickness T3 and the another thickness T4 meet following equation: 0.05<T4/T3<0.5.
The thicknesses T3 & T4 corresponding to T1 & T4, respectively, results in a value of
0.05< T4/T3 = (39 µm)/(80 µm) = 0.4875 <0.5
Additionally, ranges of thickness ratio will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. See paragraph 21 above for criticality statement.
Regarding Claim 15, Wu (see, e.g., fig. 4, annotated figure 4) shows the electronic device of claim 7,
wherein an area of the openings OPE is less than an area of the space (the space of SUP, see, e.g., annotated figure 4).
Claims 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220416181) in view of Togashi (US 20200004082) & Tomioka (US 20170371194).
Regarding Claim 13, Wu (see, e.g., para.0022, para.0035) shows the electronic device of claim 7,
wherein the flexible element 102 & PG has a first Young's modulus E1 (any suitable adhesive of PG, see, e.g., para.0052),
the at least one of the supporting elements SUP has a second Young’s modulus E2 (polyimide),
and the first Young’s modulus E1 is less than the second Young’s modulus.
Wu (see, e.g., para.0022, para.0035, para.0052) states the flexible element can be any suitable adhesive and the at least one of the supporting elements can be polyimide.
Wu, however, fails to show
and the first Young’s modulus E1 is less than the second Young’s modulus.
Togashi (see, e.g., fig. 3, para.0062), in a similar device to Wu, teaches an adhesive layer 3 with a Young’s modulus of 50 MPa would have a preferable Young’s Modulus stiffness as the layer could curve without deformation.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Young’s modulus of layer 3 of Togashi in the device of Wu to have a preferable Young’s Modulus stiffness as the layer could curve without deformation.
Tomioka (see, e.g., fig. 7, para.0074), in a similar device to Wu, teaches a first supporting element 11 made of polyimide with a Young’s modulus of 8 GPa would have a preferable stiffness for the first supporting element of a flexible display device.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Young’s modulus of layer 11 of Tomioka in the device of Wu to have a preferable stiffness for the first supporting element of a flexible display device.
Therefore, Wu, in view of Togashi & Tomioka, E1 is less than E2 with values 50 MPa for E1 and 8 GPa for E2 and renders the missing limitation obvious.
Regarding Claim 14, Wu (see, e.g., para.0022, para.0035), in view of Togashi (see, e.g., para.0062) & Tomioka (see, e.g., para.0074), shows the electronic device of claim 13,
wherein the first Young’s modulus E1 (50 MPa) and the second Young’s modulus E2 (8 GPa) meet following equation: 100<E2/E1<250.
8 GPa/50 MPa = 160
Claims 16, 17, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated Vanfleteren (US 20120051005).
Regarding Claim 16, Vanfleteren shows a method for manufacturing an electronic device, comprising following steps:
providing a supporting layer 100 (see, e.g., fig. 12a, para.0122);
forming a flexible layer 110 (deposited before patterning, see, e.g., fig. 12b, para.0123) on the supporting layer;
forming a plurality of electronic units 200, 400, & 500 (see, e.g., fig. 12c, fig. 12f, para.0125, para.0129) on the flexible layer;
patterning the flexible layer to form a flexible structure (see, e.g., fig. 12b),
wherein the flexible structure has a flexible element 110 (meander shaped structures see, e.g., para.0124) and a plurality of openings 300 (see, e.g., para.0124);
and patterning the supporting layer to form a supporting structure (see, e.g., fig. 12e) after the step of patterning the flexible layer (see, e.g., fig. 12b),
wherein the supporting structure has a plurality of supporting elements 101 (see, e.g., fig. 12e, para.0127) and a space (space between supporting elements 101, see, e.g., fig. 12e).
Regarding Claim 17, Vanfleteren shows the method for manufacturing the electronic device of claim 16,
wherein the step of patterning the flexible layer 110 comprises wet etching, dry etching or lacer etching (photolithographic process, see, e.g., para.0123).
Regarding Claim 20, Vanfleteren shows the method for manufacturing the electronic device of claim 16,
wherein the plurality of supporting elements 101 are overlapped with a portion of the flexible element 110 (vertical direction overlap, see, e.g., fig. 12e),
and the space (space between supporting elements 101) is overlapped with the plurality of openings 300 (vertical direction overlap, see, e.g., fig. 12e).
Claims 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanfleteren (US 20120051005) in view of Tsai (US 20160100487).
Regarding Claim 18, Vanfleteren shows the method for manufacturing the electronic device of claim 16,
Vanfleteren, however, fails to show
wherein the supporting layer comprises
a first sub supporting layer
and a second sub supporting layer disposed between the first sub supporting layer and the flexible layer.
Tsai (see, e.g., fig. 1, para.0002-0004), in a similar method to Vanfleteren, teaches that the supporting layer comprising a first sub supporting layer 17, a patterned photoresist layer, and a second sub supporting layer 16 disposed between the first sub supporting layer and the flexible layer 1 would help by masking with the patterned photoresist layer and concentrate etching to the sides of the second sub supporting layer to form the supporting elements.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the first sub supporting layer 17, a patterned photoresist layer, and second sub supporting layer 16 of Tsai as the supporting layer 100 in the method of Vanfleteren to help by masking with the patterned photoresist layer and concentrate etching to the sides of the second sub supporting layer to form the supporting elements 101.
Regarding Claim 19, Vanfleteren (see, e.g., figs. 12d-e), in view of Tsai (see, e.g., fig. 1), shows the method for manufacturing the electronic device of claim 18, further comprising:
removing the first sub supporting layer 17 in the step of patterning the supporting layer
Tsai (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows removing the first sub supporting layer 17 in the step of patterning the supporting layer 16 & 17 which corresponds to patterning supporting layer 100 of Vanfleteren to form the supportive structure 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-5855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on 571-272-1657. 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.
/FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2818 /STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights