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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/7/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I claims 1-15 emphasis added in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
As to claim 14 it is unclear how one would determine if the devices is folded/rolled or not. The final structure may appear to be in a folded/rolled shape but if the device takes the form of that shape the display merely represents the natural state and not a folded. So, it is unclear what determines whether it take a folded shape per se . It appears applicant means configured to be folded or rolled.
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) 1-10,12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al 202387058 in view of Johnson et al cited-on ids Tang et al. cited on ids Hirano cited on ids and Inoue et al. cited on Ids.
a. As to claim 1, there is no defined structure for a base substrate circuit layer or light emitting element.
Kim therefore teaches a display panel including a base substrate (figure 5 a portion of item 510 item or item p1 , a circuit layer a portion of item 510 , and a light emitting element (a portion of item 510) which are stacked on each other; and a support layer disposed below the base substrate (item 520) and including a metal (As an embodiment, the metal plate 520 contains 55 to 70% of zirconium (Zr), 15 to 20% of copper (Cu), 10 to 15% of nickel (Ni), and 2 to 6% of aluminum (Al), based on wt%. , Titanium (Ti) may have a composition of 1 to 5%. As an example, the metal plate 520 may include a polymer. As an example, the metal plate 520 may have a modulus of 70 GPa or more and a yield strength of 1200 MPa or more. As the elastic strain of the member supporting the display panel 510 increases, the amount of plastic deformation generated by a predetermined strain decrease, and the rigidity of the display panel 510 can be supplemented only when the modulus is higher than 50 GPa. Since the metal plate 520 has a modulus of 70 GPa or more, rigidity of the display panel 510 can be supplemented.), wherein the support layer has an elastic strain of about 1.5% or greater, and the support layer has a yield strength of about 1200 MPa or greater(As an example, the metal plate 520 may be formed of a material having an elastic strain of 1.5% or more and a modulus of 70 GPa or more. For example, since the metal plate 520 contains liquid metal, its molecular bonding form is not regular, and its modulus is low compared to general metal materials, but its elastic strain is high and its yield strength is high, so it supports the display 500. can do. Fold marks and wrinkles in the folding area (e.g., the third area h3) according to folding/unfolding of the display 500 may be prevented by the metal plate 520 .).
As to the stacking of a base substrate a circuit layer (sic interconnect) and light emitting element was well known at the time of filing to form displayers where transistors/tfts are formed on the substrate and a interconnect provided there on to form driving circuits and the LED formed there on to be driven.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide 510 a base substrate a circuit layer (sic interconnect) and light emitting element to use conventional structure to arrive at expected results of a functional display.
Kim teaches 1200 MPa or more but only states an elastic strain o 1.5% and not explicitly at 2.5 %.
The materials used by applicant claim 54 see Kim Johnson Tang Hirano an Inoue applicant shows results but they do not rise to unexpected results MPEP 716.02 In In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 1276, 182 USPQ 290, 293 (CCPA 1974), the court held that unexpected results for a claimed range as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art had been shown by a demonstration of “a marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree.” Compare In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877, 884, 152 USPQ 552, 560 (CCPA 1967) (differences in properties cannot be disregarded on the ground they are differences in degree rather than in kind); Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (“we generally consider a discussion of results in terms of ‘differences in degree’ as compared to ‘differences in kind’ . . . to have very little meaning in a relevant legal sense”).
Thus, the optimization of elastic strain to be 2.5 % or greater would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the elastic strain to be 2.5% or greater to improve the foldability of the device as suggest by Kim.
b. As to claims 2 and 3, Kim teaches wherein the support layer comprises an alloy including two or more elements among aluminum (Al), zirconium (Zr), titanium (Ti), molybdenum (Mo), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), yttrium (Y), cobalt (Co), and silicon (Si) (Zr Cu) and Zr is the high atomic percent the metal plate 520 contains 55 to 70% of zirconium (Zr), 15 to 20% of copper (Cu), 10 to 15% of nickel (Ni), and 2 to 6% of aluminum (Al), based on wt.%. , Titanium (Ti) may have a composition of 1 to 5%.
c. As to claim 4 and 5, Kim teaches Zr-Cu-Al-Ni with Zr at 50% to 90% (.As an embodiment, the metal plate 520 contains 55 to 70% of zirconium (Zr), 15 to 20% of copper (Cu), 10 to 15% of nickel (Ni), and 2 to 6% of aluminum (Al), based on wt.%. , Titanium (Ti) may have a composition of 1 to 5%).
d. As to claim 6, Kim does not explicitly teach at 4.6% to 4.9% elastic strain.
However, both materials are Zr-Cu-Al-Ni providing a higher elastic strain would allow for better foldability without being too easy to fold giving some feed back to the user thus it would have been further obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further optimize the elastic strain to be between 4.6 to 4.9% to improve foldability while still providing a feed back to the user folding the device.
e. As to claim 7, Kim does not teach a yield strength in a range of about 2700 MPa to about 2900 MPa but does teach it should be greater than 1200 MPA to support the display and prevent wrinkles. Further Kim teaches Zr-Cu-Al-Ni
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the Zr Cu Al Ni with a yield strain at 2700 to 2900 MPa to provide at or near maximum wrinkle protection that Zr-Cu-Al-Ni can provide.
f. As to claim 8-10, Kim does not teach Al-Y-Ni-Co, and an atomic percent of aluminum in the alloy is in a range of about 50 at% to about 85 at% with wherein the support layer has an elastic strain in a range of about 2.5% to about 2.8% and wherein the support layer has a yield strength in a range of about 1200 MPa to about 1400 MPa.
However, Inoue teaches Al-Ni-Y-Co was known to provide high mechanical strengths with Al contents at 0.85% (see totality of Inoue.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Zr-Cu-Al-Ni with Al-Ni-Y-Co with Al at about 85% and elastic strain at 2.5 to 2.8 % and a yield strength at 1200 MPa to 1400 MPa to use other known materials with known elastic strain and yield strength to provide the expected results of low wrinkle displays with good foldability.
g. As to claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the base substrate comprises: a first surface on which the circuit layer is disposed (as found obvious claim 1); and a second surface opposing the first surface, and the support layer physically contacts the second surface (P1 can be considered part of the base substrate thus P1 is in contact with the support layer).
h. As to claim 13, Kim teaches and adhesive P2 on and in contact with the support layer but does not teach wherein the adhesive is a polyimide and polyethylene terephthalate adhesive resin. However, polyimide and polyethylene terephthalate adhesive resin were both known for bonding.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide P2 as a polyimide and polyethylene terephthalate adhesive resin to use known material to provide expected results of a bonded device with good adhesive properties.
i. As to claim 14, Kim teaches the device is folded or can be folded (abstract).
j. As to claim 15, Kim teaches a back structure support structure P2/530/P3/540 on back surface of 520 Kim teaches that the housing 210 maybe stainless (According to one embodiment, the second surface 210B may be formed by a substantially opaque back plate 211 . The rear plate 211 is formed, for example, of coated or colored glass, ceramic, polymer, metal (e.g., aluminum, stainless steel (STS), or magnesium), or a combination of at least two of the foregoing materials. It can be. However, it is not limited thereto, and the back plate 211 may be formed of transparent glass). And 540 maybe the housing).Kim teaches that 530 and 540 maybe the housing (As an embodiment, the window, POL, display panel 510, metal plate 520, first conductive plate 530, and second conductive plate 540 may be a first housing structure (e.g., FIGS. 3A and 3B ). It may be disposed in a space formed by the first housing structure 311 of and the second housing structure (e.g., the second housing structure 312 of FIGS. 3A and 3B). As an example, the window, POL, display panel 510, metal plate 520, first conductive plate 530, and second conductive plate 540 may be a first housing structure (e.g., the first housing structure of FIGS. 3A and 3B). 1 housing structure 311) of the first surface (e.g., the front of the electronic device, the surface on which the screen is displayed when the electronic device is unfolded) and the second housing structure (e.g., the second housing structure 312 of FIGS. 3A and 3B) )) may be disposed to cross at least a portion of the first surface (e.g., a front surface of the electronic device, a surface on which a screen is displayed when the electronic device is unfolded).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have form at least 530 and or 540 of the support plate as stainless steel to use conventional material to arrive at expected results including durability and resistance provided by stainless steel
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al 202387058 in view of Johnson et al cited-on ids Tang et al. cited on ids Hirano cited on ids and Inoue et al. cited on Ids. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bonninghoff “ZrCuAlNi thin film metallic glass grown by high power impulse and direct current magnetron sputtering.”
Bonninghoff indicates columnar free ZrCuAlNi The increase in hardness for the HiPIMS sample as compared to the DC sample (~35%) can be attributed to higher film density, compressive (HiPIMS) as opposed to tensile (DC) stress and the lack of a columnar structure. Further Bonningoff teaches that the lack of columns is deposition dependent: The ramifications thereof for the thin film morphology, roughness and mechanical properties are discussed next. SEM as well as TEM images of the cross-section of all films are shown in Fig. 2. DC deposited films show a columnar structure, whereas samples deposited by HiPIMS are column-free. The columnar structure also influences the surface roughness of the films as seen in the AFM images in Fig. 3. The average roughness values (Ra) of the DC and HiPIMS films are 1.4 nm and 0.2 nm, respectively. Hence, the roughness of the HiPIMS film is about one magnitude lower than that of the DC sample.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the ZrCuAlNi as columnar free to improve the durability at least through hardness to reduce wear and tear on the layer occurring via folding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights