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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR 20210014812 A, and Ha hereinafter) in view of Lee et al. (US 11080502 B2, and Lee hereinafter), further in view of Song et al. (US Pub. No. 20210326569 A1, and Song hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 13, Ha discloses a display device including unfoldable areas (NFA1 and NFA2, fig. 1A) and a foldable area between the unfoldable areas (FA, fig. 1A), the display device comprising:
a window (“a window … may be provided”, [0096]);
a display panel (DM, fig. 5) under the window (“window … for protecting the exposed surface of the display module DM may be provided on the display module” [0096]);
a fingerprint detection sensor (FPS, fig. 5) configured to generate signals for fingerprint recognition in a direction toward the display panel (“the fingerprint sensor FPS may generate a first ultrasonic signal USW1 through vibration, and the first ultrasonic signal USW1 may be emitted in a third direction DR3… USW2 may be emitted in the third direction DR3 … a fingerprint sensing capability of the fingerprint sensor FPS may be improved”, [0148]) in any one of the unfoldable areas (figs. 1A and 5);
a second support member (CUS, fig. 2A) supporting the display panel (fig. 5).
Ha does not explicitly disclose a first support member supporting the display panel under the display panel and between the display panel and the fingerprint detection sensor; and the second support member being under the first support member and between the first support member and the fingerprint detection sensor, wherein the first support member has a thickness less than a thickness of the second support member, wherein the first support member and the second support member successively extend along an extension direction of the display panel without an opening in an area overlapping the fingerprint detection sensor; and a reinforcing member between the second support member and the fingerprint sensor with the reinforcing member having a width greater than a width than the fingerprint detection sensor.
Lee discloses a first support member (130, fig. 2) supporting a display panel (140, fig. 2) under the display panel and between the display panel and a fingerprint detection sensor (120, fig. 2); and
a second support member (212, fig. 2) being under the first support member and between the first support member and the fingerprint detection sensor (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ha to incorporate the teachings of Lee so that a first support member supporting the display panel under the display panel and between the display panel and the fingerprint detection sensor; and the second support member being under the first support member and between the first support member and the fingerprint detection sensor, wherein the first support member and the second support member successively extend along an extension direction of the display panel without an opening in an area overlapping the fingerprint detection sensor, in order to provide support and protection to the flexible display panel (Col. 6, ln. 63-65 of Lee). This modification would be implemented by replacing CUS1 of the second support member (fig. 2A of Ha) by support member 212 (fig. 2 of Lee), which has no opening, and relocating the fingerprint sensor of Ha under it, as taught in fig. 2 of Lee. Furthermore, it has been ruled that changes in size/proportion carry no patentable weight (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See also, MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A), therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered obvious to have the first support member having a thickness less than a thickness of the second support member. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do such modification, in order to provide enhanced structural and mechanical strength to the support layer (second support member) that supports the weight load of other elements above it, including the first support member.
Song discloses a reinforcing member (422, fig. 18) with the reinforcing member having a width greater than a width than a fingerprint detection sensor (410, fig. 18)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ha/Lee to incorporate the teachings of Song so that it further comprises a reinforcing member with the reinforcing member having a width greater than a width than a fingerprint detection sensor (410, fig. 18), in order to provide additional support to the fingerprint sensing region of the display to prevent deformation and damage of the display panel (figs. 17(a)-(b) and [0177-0180] of Song). This modification of Ha/Lee would necessarily require the reinforcement member to be disposed between the second support member and the fingerprint detection sensor, in order to perform a support role for the display unit similar to the originally intended functionality.
Regarding Claim 18, Ha/Lee/Song discloses the display device according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose the reinforcing member includes glass.
Song further discloses the reinforcing member (90, fig. 9) includes glass (“transparent glass 422” [0217]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ha/Lee/Song to incorporate the additional teachings of Song so that the reinforcing member includes glass, due to its high structural rigidity that is advantageous for support of flexible layers above it.
Claims 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha in view of Lee and Song, further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20210086745 A, and Kim hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 14, Ha/Lee/Song discloses the display device according to claim 13 but does not explicitly disclose the first support member and the second support member include a same material as each other.
Kim discloses a first support member (SM1, fig. 5A) and a second support member (SP1 fig. 5A) include a same material as each other (“The first support plate SP1 … may be made of the same material as the first support member SM1”, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ha, Lee, and Song to incorporate the teachings of Kim so that the first support member and the second support member include a same material as each other, in order to have consistency in the material properties of the elements used for similar functions of support.
Regarding Claim 15, Ha/Lee/Song discloses the display device according to claim 13 but does not explicitly disclose the first support member and the second support member include aluminum alloy.
Kim discloses a first support member (SM1, fig. 5A) and a second support member (SP1, fig. 5A) include aluminum alloy (“The first support plate SP1 … may include … aluminum, or an alloy thereof” and “SP1 and … may be made of the same material as the first support member SM1”, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ha, Lee, and Song to incorporate the teachings of Kim so that the first support member and the second support member include aluminum alloy, in order to have consistent mechanical strength and light-weight properties for both support members.
Regarding Claim 16, Ha/Lee/Song discloses the display device according to claim 13 but does not explicitly disclose each of the first support member and the second support member includes at least one selected from a group consisting of aluminum alloy, titanium alloy, magnesium alloy, carbon fiber reinforced plastics, glass fiber reinforced plastics, and stainless steel.
Kim discloses each of a first support member (SM1, fig. 5A) and a second support member (SP1, fig. 5A) includes at least aluminum alloy (“The first support plate SP1 … may include … aluminum, or an alloy thereof” and “SP1 and … may be made of the same material as the first support member SM1”, [0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ha, Lee, and Song to incorporate the teachings of Kim so that wherein each of the first support member and the second support member includes at least aluminum alloy, in order to have consistent mechanical strength and light-weight properties for both support members.
Regarding Claim 17, Ha/Lee/Song discloses the display device according to claim 13, wherein the second support member includes bodies respectively overlapping the unfoldable areas (fig. 2A of Ha, CUS1 (as modified by Lee) and CUS2 overlap NFA1 and NFA2 respectively), and the fingerprint detection sensor overlaps one of the bodies (Ha as modified, CUS1 would overlap fingerprint detection sensor. See figs. 2A and 5 of Ha and rejection of Claim 13 above).
Regarding Claim 19, Ha/Lee/Song discloses the display device according to claim 13, wherein the fingerprint detection sensor includes an ultrasonic fingerprint sensor configured to generate ultrasonic signals as the signals (“the fingerprint sensor FPS may generate a first ultrasonic signal USW1”, [0148] of Ha).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 20 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 20, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “a reinforcing member in the opening of the second support member and separated from the second support member by a gap with a space of the gap immediately adjacent to an edge of the reinforcing member”.
The closest art of record is provided in the previous office action. In addition, Kwon (US 20190073505 A1), Cho (US 20210318726 A1), Bae (US 20220183174 A1), Sim (US 20180341290 A1), Tsai (US 20170323133 A1), Han (US 20190294770 A1), Erhart (US 20110267298 A1), and Song (US 20190303640 A1) are also cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a display panel, window, a fingerprint detection sensor, reinforcing member and/or support member. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
For instance, Ha (cited in Non-Final rejection dated 01/09/2026) discloses a display device including unfoldable areas (NFA1 and NFA2, fig. 1A) and a foldable area between the unfoldable areas (FA, fig. 1A), the display device comprising: a window (“a window … may be provided”, [0096]); a display panel (DM, fig. 9A) under the window; a fingerprint detection sensor (FPS, fig. 9A) configured to generate signals for fingerprint recognition in a direction toward the display panel ([0148]) in any of the unfoldable areas (figs. 1A and 9A); a second support member (CUS, fig. 2B) supporting the display panel (fig. 9A) and having an opening (OP1, fig. 9A) overlapping the fingerprint detection sensor (fig. 9A), and a reinforcing member (FXM2, fig. 9A) in the opening of the second support member and separated from the second support member by a gap (OP1, fig. 9A), with the reinforcing member having a greater width than the fingerprint detection sensor (fig. 9A). However, Ha lacks a first support member supporting the display panel under the display panel and between the display panel and the fingerprint detection sensor, wherein the first support member has a thickness less than a thickness of the second support member; the second support member being under the first support member; the reinforcing member being between the first support member and the fingerprint detection sensor, wherein the reinforcing member includes glass having a thickness greater than the thickness of the second support member; a space of the gap immediately adjacent to an edge of the reinforcing member. Kwon discloses a space of a gap (SP, fig. 4) immediately adjacent to an edge of a reinforcing member (40, fig. 4); however, the reinforcing member of Kwon is not located in the opening of the second support member as claimed for the second support member; therefore, Kwon, alone or in combination, does not cure the deficiencies of Ha.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to claim 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant argues “Lee, however, appears to be entirely silent regarding the back plate 130 having a thickness that is less than the support layer 212. Indeed, FIG. 2 of Lee appears to illustrate that the back plate 130 has a greater thickness than the support layer 212. Thus, Lee does not appear to cure the deficiencies of Ha to reject claim 13. Furthermore, none of the other cited references appear to cure the deficiencies of Ha and Lee to reject claim 13, and there is no apparent reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the disclosures of the cited references to arrive at the embodiments of claim 13. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the rejections of claim 13 be withdrawn, and that claim 13 be allowed”. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s assertion about Lee; however, respectfully disagrees with the assertion of being no apparent reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the disclosures of the cited references to arrive at the embodiments of claim 13. Examiner indicates that since the support layer (second support member) supports the weight load of other elements place on top of it, including the first support member (see rejection of Claim 13 above), increasing its thickness would provide enhanced structural and mechanical strength. Furthermore, said modification would be considered a change of relative dimensions, which absent disclosure of any functional significance, has been ruled to carry no patentable weight.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights