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.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 06/29/2026 to the claims and the specifications/drawings have been entered.
Claims 1, 7, 12, and 19 have been amended.
The Section 103 rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
New Section 103 rejections have been implemented upon further search and consideration of the amended claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2023/0007796) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2021/0029839 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Ahn teaches a display device comprising: a display panel (120) including a first portion (121, a first area) and a second portion (122, a second area) extending from the first area (121) in a first direction; a cover layer (300, a first support plate) disposed on a bottom of the display panel in the first area (121); a cover layer (300, a second support plate) in the second area (122) (Ahn: abstract; Fig. 6A; par. 0081-0083, 0114, and 0118-0127).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ahn does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of holes formed in the second support plate and extending substantially perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the plurality of holes extend between opposite side surfaces of the second support plate in a direction crossing a thickness direction of the second support plate.
Kwon teaches a rollable display panel comprising a back cover (110, corresponds to the second support plate of Ahn) which comprises a plurality of openings (111, holes) which would extend substantially perpendicular to a first direction and the holes extend between opposite side surfaces of the second support plate in a direction crossing a thickness direction of the second support plate as shown in Fig. 6 (Kwon: abstract; Fig. 6; par. 0107-0112). The openings provide improved flexibility to the second support (110) to improve the ability to roll said display device (Kwon: par. 0124).
Ahn and Kwon are in the corresponding field of foldable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes in the second support plate of Ahn, which extend substantially perpendicular to the first direction and extend between opposite side surfaces in a direction crossing a thickness direction, to provide improved flexibility and shape retention after rolling as taught by Kwon.
Regarding claim 2,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 1. Kwon teaches the plurality of holes as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kwon further teaches the holes may be elliptical shape (Kwon: Fig. 6).
Ahn and Kwon are in the corresponding field of rollable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes with the claimed shapes in the second support plate of Ahn to provide improved flexibility and shape retention after rolling as taught by Kwon.
Regarding claim 6,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 1. Ahn further teaches the second support plate (300) may comprise a metal such as aluminum (Ahn: par. 0138)
Regarding claim 7,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 1. Ahn further teaches the second support plate (300) may include a second cover layer (302, a finishing member) that may comprise polymer films which is described as a suitable finishing member material in Applicant’s specification (Ahn: par. 0085). Kwon teaches the plurality of holes as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Ahn and Kwon do not explicitly teach the plurality of holes in the second support plate are formed from a plurality of corrugated plates attached to each other in a stack. However, the limitation requiring the holes to be formed from “a plurality of corrugated plates attached to each other in a stack” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the holes of Kwon appear to be structurally similar to a 1`stack of corrugated plates attached together forming holes (Kwon: see adapted Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
904
1073
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ahn and Kwon are in the corresponding field of rollable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes to provide improved flexibility as taught by Kwon.
Regarding claim 9,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 1. Kwon teaches the plurality of holes as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kwon further teaches the holes may be on inner and outer surfaces of the foldable support plate as shown in Figure 6 and thus may be on an inside part or an outside part with respect to a neutral plane of the back cover (the second support plate) to provide flexibility (Kwon: Fig. 6; par. 0123).
Ahn and Kwon are in the corresponding field of rollable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes on an inside part and an outside part of the second support plate to provide improved flexibility as taught by Kwon.
Regarding claim 10,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 1. Ahn further teaches a plurality of support bars (411) disposed on a bottom of the second support plate (300); and a rotating member (420) having a structure engaged with at least some of the plurality of support bars (Ahn: par. 0094 and 0100-0107).
Regarding claim 11,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 1. Ahn further teaches a laminate stack that may be considered at the rear surface of the display panel (120), depending on perspective either direction may be considered a rear surface, comprising: a sixth bonding layer (816, a first adhesive layer) overlapping with the first area (121) and second area (122); a first window layer (841, a protective film as any physical film would provide some level of protection) disposed on a rear surface of the first adhesive layer (816), the protective film overlapping with the first area and the second area; a fifth bonding layer (815, a second adhesive layer) disposed on a rear surface of the protective film (841), the second adhesive layer (815) overlapping with the first area (121); a fourth bonding layer (814, a third adhesive layer) disposed on the rear surface of the protective film (841), the third adhesive layer overlapping with the second area (122); a third cover layer (803, a barrier layer as any layer would provide some level of barrier or protection) disposed on a rear surface of the third adhesive layer (814), the barrier layer (803) overlapping with the second area (122); a third bonding layer (813, a fourth adhesive layer) disposed on a rear surface of the barrier layer (803), the fourth adhesive layer overlapping with the second area (122); wherein the first support plate (801 + 802 in region 121) is disposed on a rear surface of the second adhesive layer (815), and the second support plate (801+802 in region 122) is deposed on a rear surface of the fourth adhesive layer (813) (Ahn: Fig. 8A; par. 0136). It is noted that “disposed on” allows for additional intervening layers as directly disposed on is not required by the claims.
Regarding claim 12,
Ahn teaches a display device operating in a first state (a first display mode as shown in Fig. 1A) in which a display area is collapsed and a second state (a second display mode as shown in Fig. 1B) in which the display area is expanded (Ahn: Figs. 1A-1B; par. 0018-0019 and 0067). The display device comprising: a display panel (120) including a first portion (121, a first area) and a second portion (122, a second area) extending from the first area (121) in a first direction; a cover layer (300, a first support plate) disposed on a bottom of the display panel in the first area (121); a cover layer (300, a second support plate) in the second area (122) (Ahn: abstract; Fig. 6A; par. 0081-0083, 0114, and 0118-0127).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ahn does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of holes formed in the second support plate and extending substantially perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the plurality of holes extend between opposite side surfaces of the second support plate in a direction crossing a thickness direction of the second support plate.
Kwon teaches a rollable display panel comprising a back cover (110, corresponds to the second support plate of Ahn) which comprises a plurality of openings (111, holes) which would extend substantially perpendicular to a first direction and the holes extend between opposite side surfaces of the second support plate in a direction crossing a thickness direction of the second support plate as shown in Fig. 6 (Kwon: abstract; Fig. 6; par. 0107-0112). The openings provide improved flexibility to the second support (110) to improve the ability to roll said display device (Kwon: par. 0124).
Ahn and Kwon are in the corresponding field of foldable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes in the second support plate of Ahn, which extend substantially perpendicular to the first direction and extend between opposite side surfaces in a direction crossing a thickness direction, to provide improved flexibility and shape retention after rolling as taught by Kwon.
Regarding claim 13,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 12. Ahn further teaches wherein an area of the second area (122) exposed to an outside of the second display mode (Fig. 1B is greater than the area of the second area exposed to the outside to the first display mode Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 15,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 12. Kwon teaches the plurality of holes as explained in the rejection of claim 12 above. Kwon further teaches the holes may be on inner and outer surfaces of the foldable support plate as shown in Figure 6 and thus may be on an inside part or an outside part with respect to a neutral plane of the foldable support plate (the second support plate) to provide improved flexibility (Kwon: Fig. 6; par. 0123).
Ahn and Kwon are in the corresponding field of rollable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes on an inside part and an outside part of the second support plate to provide a good bending effect as taught by Kwon.
Regarding claims 16 and 17,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 15. Ahn teaches changing a display mode of the display device from a first display mode to a second display mode as explained in the rejection of claim 12.
Ahn and Kwon are silent towards at least some of the plurality of first holes are contracted, and at least some of the plurality of second holes are expanded. However, as the second plate of Kwon does correspond to a bending area, the first and second plurality of holes taught by Kwon would correspond to said area when modifying Ahn.
Additionally, Wang does teach the plurality of first and second holes do correspond and aid in improving flexibility in combination with the teachings as explained in the rejections above, having the same materials, thickness, hole dimensions and motivation to adjust these structural aspects such as shape, it would be expected to holes would contract and expand in the claimed manner when bent. 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.
Regarding claim 18,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 12. Ahn further teaches a plurality of support bars (411) disposed on a bottom of the second support plate (300); and a rotating member (420) having a structure engaged with at least some of the plurality of support bars (Ahn: par. 0094 and 0100-0107).
Regarding claim 19,
Ahn teaches a display device operating in a first state (a first display mode as shown in Fig. 1A) in which a display area is collapsed and a second state (a second display mode as shown in Fig. 1B) in which the display area is expanded (Ahn: Figs. 1A-1B; par. 0018-0019 and 0067). The display device comprising: a display panel (120) including a first portion (121, a non-sliding area) and a second portion (122, a sliding area); a cover layer (300, a second support plate) in the slidable area (122) comprising a flat portion and a bent shaped portion as shown in Fig. 6A below (Ahn: abstract; Figs. 1A-1B and 6A; par. 0081-0083, 0114, and 0118-0127).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8A shows an embodiment in which the second support plate (labeled 800) may be disposed at the bottom of the display panel (810) (Ahn: Fig. 8A; par. 0136).
Ahn does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of holes formed in the second support plate and extending substantially perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the plurality of holes extend between opposite side surfaces of the second support plate in a direction crossing a thickness direction of the second support plate in at least two rows.
Kwon teaches a rollable display panel comprising a back cover (110, corresponds to the second support plate of Ahn) which comprises a plurality of openings (111, holes) which would extend substantially perpendicular to a first direction and the holes extend between opposite side surfaces of the second support plate in a direction crossing a thickness direction of the second support plate in at least two rows as shown in Fig. 6 (Kwon: abstract; Fig. 6; par. 0107-0112). The openings provide improved flexibility to the second support (110) to improve the ability to roll said display device (Kwon: par. 0124).
Ahn and Kwon are in the corresponding field of foldable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes in the second support plate of Ahn, which extend substantially perpendicular to the first direction and extend between opposite side surfaces in a direction crossing a thickness direction, to provide improved flexibility and shape retention after rolling as taught by Kwon.
Ahn and Kwon do not explicitly teach the plurality of holes in the second support plate are formed from a plurality of at least three corrugated plates bonded to each other in a stack. However, the limitation requiring the holes to be formed from “a plurality of corrugated plates attached to each other in a stack” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, the holes of Kwon appear to be structurally similar to a 1`stack of corrugated plates attached together forming holes (Kwon: see adapted Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
904
1073
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ahn and Kwon are in the corresponding field of rollable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes to provide improved flexibility as taught by Kwon.
Regarding claim 20,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 19. Ahn further teaches a first cover plate (300, a first support plate) in the non-slidable area (121) (Ahn: Fig. 6A; par. 0118-0122).
Claims 3-5, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Kwon and in further view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 1. Ahn and Kwon do not explicitly state the diameter of each of plurality of holes being at least about 20 micrometers and the distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of hole sis at least about 0.3 micrometers.
Wang teaches a foldable support for a display device (Wang: abstract). The foldable support (100, corresponds to the claimed first and second support plates and cover plates of Ahn) includes recessed portions in the form of holes (111, a plurality of holes in a second support plate) which would extend in a direction perpendicular to the first direction as they extend through the thickness of the support plates to provide improved bending and performance of restoring flatness after bending (Wang: par. 0006-0007 and 0043-0058). Wang further teaches the size and spacings of cross-sectional shape of the holes may be adjusted and the shapes of the cross-sectional holes are not particularly limited and the specific size of the cross section is not particularly limited as long as the foldable support can obtain a good bending affect and at the same time can provide a flat support for a flexible display panel, those skilled in the art can design according to specific conditions (Wang: par. 0048-0049 and 0055-0058).
Ahn, Kwon, and Wang are in the corresponding field of foldable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, lacking criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes with the claimed shapes, size/diameters, and spacings in the second support plate of Ahn and Kwon to provide improved bending and performance of restoring flatness after bending as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 5,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 1. Ahn does not explicitly teach the thickness of the second support plate.
Wang teaches a foldable support for a display device (Wang: abstract). The foldable support (100, corresponds to the claimed first and second support plates and cover plates of Ahn) includes recessed portions in the form of holes (111, a plurality of holes in a second support plate) which would extend in a direction perpendicular to the first direction as they extend through the thickness of the support plates to provide improved bending and performance of restoring flatness after bending (Wang: par. 0006-0007 and 0043-0058). Wang further teaches the thickness of each of the two metal layers that make up the foldable support layer is each within the range of 0.15 to 0.5 mm (150 to 500 µm), which overlaps with the claimed thickness of the second support plate being from 200 to 300 µm, to provide improved bending effects (Wang: par. 0008). 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.
Ahn, Kwon, and Wang are in the corresponding field of foldable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the second support plate of Ahn and Kwon with the claimed thickness to provide improved bending performance as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 8,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 1. Ahn and Kwon are silent towards the explicit modulus of the second support plate being about 0.20 to 0.40 gigapascal. However, Ahn teaches the claimed material of the second support plate (see rejection of claim 6) and Wang teaches adjusting the holes and thickness of the second support plate to meet the claimed structure (see the rejection of claims 1-5).
Thus, it is expected that the second support plate of Ahn, Kwon, and Wang would inherently possess the claimed modulus as it has the claimed structure and material compositions. 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.
Alternatively, Wang further teaches the elastic modulus may be adjusted and reduced by further including polymer layers made of high resilience materials and have certain thicknesses (Wang: par. 0080).
Therefore, lacking criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the modulus by adjusting the materials and/or addition of polymer layers to achieve the desired elastic modulus to give the desired bending performance as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 14,
Ahn and Kwon teach the display device required by claim 12. Kwon teaches the plurality of holes as explained in the rejection of claim 12 above. Kwon further teaches the holes may be elliptical shape wherein the holes improve flexibility (Kwon: Fig. 6; par. 0123).
Ahn and Kwon are in the corresponding field of foldable support plates for use in display devices. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a plurality of holes with the claimed shapes in the second support plate of Ahn to provide improved flexibility as taught by Kwon.
Ahn and Kwon are silent towards the explicit modulus of the second support plate being about 0.20 to 0.40 gigapascal. However, Ahn teaches the claimed material of the second support plate (see rejection of claim 6) and Wang teaches adjusting the holes and thickness of the second support plate to meet the claimed structure (see the rejection of claims 1-5 and 12).
Thus, it is expected that the second support plate of Ahn, Kwon, and Wang would inherently possess the claimed modulus as it has the claimed structure and material compositions. 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.
Alternatively, Wang further teaches the elastic modulus may be adjusted and reduced by further including polymer layers made of high resilience materials and have certain thicknesses (Wang: par. 0080).
Therefore, lacking criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the modulus by adjusting the materials and/or addition of polymer layers to achieve the desired elastic modulus to give the desired bending performance as taught by Wang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/29/2026 drawn to the combination of Ahn and Wang are moot as they do not pertain to the updated prior art rejection of record. Relevant arguments are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Ahn and Wang cannot be combined because Ahn continuously slides and does not fold at a fixed point like Wang and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would demand different mechanical demands.
The argument is not found persuasive as rolling around a roller still involves bending of the support plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would see the advantages of Want such as improved bending properties and restoration of flatness after bending as would be desirable as the support plate does bend around the roller and change between flat and non-flat forms.
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 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