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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR 20210014812 A, and Ha hereinafter) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240329448 A1, and Zhang hereinafter), further in view of Attarwala (US 7105931 B2, and Attarwala hereinafter) .
Regarding Claim 1, 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. 9A) 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. 9A) 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 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).
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),
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, 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.
Zhang discloses a first support member (203, fig. 13) supporting a display panel (10, fig. 13) under the display panel and between the display panel and a fingerprint detection sensor (G, fig. 16 in view of “the optical device G may include … a fingerprint module”, [0163]).
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 Zhang so that it comprises a first support member supporting the display panel under the display panel and between the display panel and the fingerprint detection sensor, in order to provide enhanced support to the display panel (“the back film 203 may play a role of supporting the flexible display panel 10”, [0140] of Zhang). Incorporation of the first support member of Zhang into the device of Ha would necessarily have the reinforcing member being between the first support member and the fingerprint detection sensor. Furthermore, given that 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), and taking into account that the language used by Zhang “the back film 203 may play a role of supporting the flexible display panel” ([0140]) as well as fig. 13 of Zhang suggest that the back film (first support member in annotated figure I below) is an auxiliary support element with a thickness less than the thickness of a support plate located under said back film (second support member in annotated figure I below). Thus, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
747
1497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Attarwala discloses a reinforcing member including glass (24, fig. 2; “the bonding member is a structural support … is formed from a sheet or a lamination of multiple sheets of a glass-fiber-reinforced/filled epoxy adhesive”, Col. 12, ln. 7-9).
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 and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Attarwala so that the reinforcing member includes glass, in order to control its flow and coefficient of thermal expansion (“The adhesive is a "no-flow" adhesive, i.e. an adhesive that will not flow substantially under a given set of temperature, pressure and time conditions, during its curing. The adhesive preferably is reinforced or filled with glass fibers, silica spheres or other particles to control the co-efficient of thermal expansion of the adhesive”, Col. 17, ln. 2-8 of Attarwala).
Regarding Claim 2, Ha/Zhang/Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the fingerprint detection sensor includes an active area configured to generate the signals for the fingerprint recognition (area of FPS where ultrasonic signal USW1 are generated fig. 9A of Ha), and the reinforcing member overlaps the entire active area of the fingerprint detection sensor and has an area greater than an area of the active area (fig. 9A of Ha).
Regarding Claim 3, Ha/Zhang/Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the first support member extends along an extension direction of the display panel without an opening overlapping the fingerprint detection sensor.
Zhang further discloses the first support member extends along an extension direction of the display panel without an opening overlapping the fingerprint detection sensor (fig. 13 of Zhang).
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, Zhang, and Attarwala to incorporate the additional teachings of Zhang so that the first support member extends along an extension direction of the display panel without an opening overlapping the fingerprint detection sensor, in order to provide a uniform support to the display panel.
Regarding Claim 6, Ha/Zhang/Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the second support member includes bodies respectively overlapping the unfoldable areas (fig. 2A of Ha, CUS1, CUS2, MTL1, and MTL2 overlap NFA1 and NFA2), and the opening of the second support member is defined by one of the bodies and overlaps the reinforcing member (fig. 9A of Ha).
Regarding Claim 7, Ha/Zhang/ Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 6, wherein the bodies of the second support member include at least one selected from a group consisting of stainless steel, aluminum alloy, and copper alloy (“MTL may be formed of a metallic material such as stainless steel”, Col 7, ln. 1-2 of Ha).
Regarding Claim 9, Ha/Zhang/ Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 1, 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)
Regarding Claim 10, Ha/Zhang/ Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the second support member (CUS, fig. 2A of Ha) extends in a first direction and a second direction crossing the first direction (DR1 and DR2, fig. 2A of Ha), the reinforcing member overlaps the fingerprint detection sensor in a third direction (DR3, fig. 9A of Ha) crossing the first and second directions, the third direction is the direction toward the display panel (fig. 9A of Ha), and the reinforcing member faces a body of the second support member defining the opening in the first and second directions (fig. 9A of Ha).
Regarding Claim 11, Ha/Zhang/Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing member has a thickness greater than a thickness of the second support member (fig. 9A of Ha).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha in view of Zhang and Attarwala, further in view of Kwon et al. (US US10929635B2, and Kwon hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 4, Ha/Zhang/Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 3. Ha discloses that the second support member is made, for example, of polyurethane (“(CUS) may include polyurethane”, [0049]) but does not explicitly disclose the first support member and the second support member include materials different from each other. Zhang is silent about the material of the first support member.
Kwon further discloses a first support member (31, fig. 4) includes polyethylene terephthalate (“support substrate 31 may be formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)”, Col. 7, ln. 51-52).
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, Zhang, and Attarwala to incorporate the teachings of Kwon so that the first support member and the second support member include materials different from each other, in order to have different mechanical and acoustic properties according to their function (for instance, since second support member of Ha (CUS1, fig. 9A of Ha) has an opening where fingerprint sensor is located, it would not interact with ultrasonic waves USW1 as they propagate up towards the display panel).
Regarding Claim 12, Ha/Zhang/Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a copper thin film layer between the reinforcing member and the fingerprint detection sensor.
Kwon further discloses a copper thin film layer (91, fig. 9; “the thin metal layer 91 can be a thin layer including Cu”, Col. 15, ln. 2-4) between a reinforcing member (90, fig. 9) and a fingerprint detection sensor (50, fig. 9).
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, Zhang, and Attarwala to incorporate the teachings Kwon so that it further comprises a copper thin film layer between the reinforcing member and the fingerprint detection sensor, in order to improve recognition of ultrasound waves.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha in view of Zhang and Attarwala, further in view of Han et al. (US 10074824 B2, and Han hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 5, Ha/Zhang/ Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 3 but does not explicitly disclose the first support member includes at least one selected from a group consisting of aluminum alloy, magnesium alloy, titanium alloy, carbon fiber reinforced plastics, and glass fiber reinforced plastics.
Han discloses a first support member (200, fig. 5B) includes carbon fiber reinforced plastics (“200 may be formed of one of glass fiber reinforced plastics”, Col. 6, ln. 59-61).
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, Zhang, and Attarwala to incorporate the teachings of Han so that the first support member includes carbon fiber reinforced plastics, in order to provide the support member with light-weight and high-strength properties that would help improve physical durability of the display panel (Col. 6, ln. 53-61 of Han).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha in view Zhang and Attarwala, further in view of Min et al. (KR 20210107205 A, and Min hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 8, Ha/Zhang/ Attarwala discloses the display device according to claim 7 but does not explicitly disclose the window includes ultra-thin glass having a thickness of 100 micrometers or less.
Min discloses a window (500, fig. 4) includes ultra-thin glass having a thickness of 100 micrometers or less (“window member 500 may include a transparent material such as glass, particularly, ultra-thin glass (“UTG”) having a thickness of about 0.1 millimeter (mm) or less”)..
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, Zhang, and Attarwala to incorporate the teachings of Han so that the window includes ultra-thin glass having a thickness of 100 micrometers or less, in order to provide enhanced flexibility for folding/bending.
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 gravitational 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025, with respect to independent claim 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 13, applicant argues that “for similar reasons as discussed above, Ha, Zhang, and Song do not appear to disclose, or even suggest each of the features of claim 13. Furthermore, none of the other cited references appear to cure the deficiencies of Ha, Zhang, and Song to reject claim 13”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion, the combination of Ha, Lee, and Song is cited by examiner (instead of Ha, Zhang and Song). In particular, Lee discloses a reinforcing member located above a fingerprint sensor and under a display panel (see rejection of Claim 13 above).
Conclusion
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.
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841