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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I, Modification I in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6, 8, and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et at. US 20210341970 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches
A display device (“display device 1000” para. 0058 FIG. 2) comprising:
a display module (“display module 100” para. 059 FIG. 2) which displays an image; and
a window module (“upper layer 200” para. 0063) disposed on the display module, wherein the window module is foldable, and
wherein the window module includes:
a window layer (“window 220” para. 0087 FIG. 4-5) including a base layer (“base layer BS” para. 0087) with a recess pattern (“grooves HM” para. 0087) and a filler (“resin RS” para. 0087) filled in the recess pattern; and
a coating layer (“functional coating layer 230”) disposed on the window layer and contacting an upper surface of the base layer.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the recess pattern is an opening pattern defined through the base layer (“grooves HM” are shown penetrating through the “base layer BS” in FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches display device of claim 1, wherein the coating layer covers the upper surface of the base layer (“functional coating layer 230” is over “window 220”, para. 0081 FIG. 4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1, in view of Yun et al. US 20230269362 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yun).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the display device of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein a modulus of the coating layer is in a range of about 2 times to about 20 times a modulus of the window layer.
Nevertheless, Yun et al. US 20230269362 A1 teaches a “stereoscopic display unit (SSD)” comprising sequentially stacked “flexible layer FCL”, “photothermal response layer PTR”, and “shape deformation layer SDP”, each having an elastic modulus between 0.1MPa and 2000MPa (para. 0038). The examiner understands that each layer can have a different elastic modulus, such that the modulus of the “deformation layer SDP” may be greater than the elastic modulus of “photothermal response layer PTR”, or vice versa. In this modulus range, their shape can be deformed and the “stereoscopic display unit (SSD)” has desired flexibility (para. 0037-0038). As mentioned in Lee et al. US 20230017835 A1, materials with smaller elastic moduli are more flexible but too soft while materials with larger elastic moduli are stronger and more resistant to compression but inflexible (para. 0065-0066). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that “window 220” and “functional coating layer 230” with elastic moduli around 0.1MPa to 2000MPa can impart a desired flexibility to the display device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device in Lee with the moduli as taught in Yun. The modulus of the coating layer and the window layer can be chosen based on desired flexibility and hardness.
Regarding claim 3, Lee, modified by Yun, teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein
the modulus of the window layer is in a range of about 5 Mpa to about 100 Mpa (as modified by Yun, the “window 220” can have a modulus between 0.1-2000MPa, such as from 5-100MPa), and
the modulus of the coating layer is in a range of about 10 Mpa to about 2000 Mpa (as modified by Yun, the “functional coating layer 230” can have a modulus between 0.1-2000MPa, such as 10-2000MPa).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, modified by Yun, as applied to claim 2, in view of Wang et al. US 20210385959 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Lee, modified by Yun, teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein
a thickness of the window layer is in a range of about 100 µm to about 200 µm (“window 220” has a thickness of 100-500 microns, para. 0089), and
However, Lee, modified by Yun, fail to teach a thickness of the coating layer is in a range of about 10 µm to about 50 µm.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches
a thickness of the coating layer is in a range of about 10 µm to about 50 µm (“planarization layer 14” has a thickness of 100nm or less, para. 0026 FIG. 1).
Lee, modified by Yun, and Wang teach foldable display devices. Wang uses “planarization layer 14” to planarize the surface of “protection cover 12” and has an anti-fingerprint property (para. 0026). The examiner understands that the thickness of “planarization layer 14” is sufficient to flatten the surface and avoid fingerprint marks. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that “functional coating layer 230” can be made as “planarization layer 14” to planarize the top surface and protect against fingerprint marks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel taught between Lee and Yun with the coating layer as taught in Wang. A coating layer can be thinner than 100nm and planarize the top surface of the window module and provide anti-fingerprint properties.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Lee et al US 20230017835 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lee’835).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches display device of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the window module further includes a light blocking member (BM) disposed on the base layer, and the coating layer contacts the light blocking member and covers the light blocking member.
Nevertheless, Lee’835 teaches
wherein the window module (“cover member CW” para. 0091 FIG. 4) further includes a light blocking member (BM) (“decoration pattern 351” para. 0092) disposed on the base layer (“first adhesive member 171” para. 0092), and the coating layer (“protective film 180”. Though
“second hard coating layer 290b” is shown in contact with “first adhesive member 171” in FIG. 4, para. 0092 describes “decoration pattern 351 is disposed so as to be in contact with the lower surface of the protective film 180”) contacts the light blocking member and covers the light blocking member.
Lee and Lee’835 teach flexible displays. Lee teaches in para. 0087 that a light blocking pattern may be formed in “window 220” but this is not shown. As described in Lee’835 para. 0057 for the embodiment of FIG. 3, “decoration pattern 151” absorbs light and covers a non-display area. In this manner, wirings and circuitry in the non-display area are not visible from outside. The “decoration pattern 351” in FIG. 4 is a more efficiently formed embodiment that does not need the “over coat layer 152” (para. 0075 and 0093) and is understood to accomplish the same function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that forming a “decoration pattern 351” on “base layer BS” can cover non-display regions so the circuitry is not visible from the outside.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device in Lee with the light blocking member taught in Lee’835. The light blocking member covers elements in the non-display area and hides them from view.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the display device of claim 9 but fails to teach wherein the coating layer covers the upper surface of the base layer and a side surface of the base layer.
Nevertheless, Lee’835 teaches
wherein the coating layer (“first adhesive member 171” para. 0064 FIG. 3) covers the upper surface of the base layer and a side surface of the base layer (“this glass 160” para. 0064).
Lee and Lee’835 teach flexible displays. “Base layer BS” in Lee is a glass substrate (para. 0118). The “thin glass 160” in Lee’835 has excellent folding characteristic and is protected by the “first adhesive member 170” (para. 0060 and 0064). “First adhesive member 171” encloses “thin glass 160” so that, along with “second adhesive member 172, any impact can be dispersed; impact applied to “thin glass 160” is minimized and damage can be avoided (para. 0064). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that having “functional cover layer 230” cover the upper and side surfaces of “base layer BS” can better protect the “base layer BS” from physical impacts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device in Lee with the coating layer structure taught in Lee’835. Having the coating layer also cover side surfaces of the base layer reduces the impact on the base layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC MULERO FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (typically).
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/ERIC MANUEL MULERO FLORES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights