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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/15/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al., CN 114677912 in view of Wu et al., CN 111462622.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches a display device (see at least Figures 5, 6 and 15) comprising: a substrate (SUB) including a folding area and a non-folding area adjacent to the folding area (FA and NFA1 and NFA2, see Figures 3 and 4); a plurality of first pixels in the folding area on the substrate and each having a first light emitting area (see Figure 3, showing pixelated display area); a plurality of second pixels in the non-folding area on the substrate and each having a second light emitting area (see Figure 3, showing pixelated display area); and a window (Figure 15, WIN) on the first and second pixels and including a plurality of grooves (SG1 and SG2) repeatedly arranged along a first direction in the folding area (see Figure 11, grooves in FA), and wherein each of the grooves includes a first groove (SG1) formed from a first surface of the window toward a second surface of the window facing the first surface (see Figure 15) and a second groove (SG2) formed from the second surface toward the first surface (see Figure 15), and the first groove and the second groove are alternately arranged (see Figure 15). Kwon is silent as to the first and second light emitting area being different in size.
However, in the same field of endeavor of foldable display devices, Wu teaches the bonding pad of the light emitting elements in the first area is larger than the bonding pad of light emitting elements in the second area (see Figure 4, bonding area in RF is larger than bonding area in R1 or R2). Further, Wu teaches the bonding pad is larger to ensure sustained bonding during folding (see spec regarding Figure 4). It would also have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing a larger surface for bonding would increase the likelihood of continued attachment. Therefore, based on the teaching in Wu, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide larger light emitting elements, and therefore a larger light emitting area in the folding area of the display in order to ensure proper bonding between the substrate and the light emitting elements.
Regarding claim 2, Kwon and Wu teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, but Kwon fails to teach the size of the first light emitting area is larger than the size of the second light emitting area. However, in the same field of endeavor of foldable display devices, Wu teaches the bonding pad of the light emitting elements in the first area is larger than the bonding pad of light emitting elements in the second area (see Figure 4, bonding area in RF is larger than bonding area in R1 or R2). Further, Wu teaches the bonding pad is larger to ensure sustained bonding during folding (see spec regarding Figure 4). It would also have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing a larger surface for bonding would increase the likelihood of continued attachment. Therefore, based on the teaching in Wu, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide larger light emitting elements, and therefore a larger light emitting area in the folding area of the display in order to ensure proper bonding between the substrate and the light emitting elements.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon and Wu teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, and Kwon further teaches a width in the first direction of the first light emitting area is greater than a width in the first direction of each of the grooves (see Figures 3 and 15, multiple grooves in the space of fewer pixels).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon and Wu teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, and Kwon further teaches an encapsulation layer between the first and second pixels and the window (Figure 6, TFE).
Regarding claim 10, Kwon and Wu teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 9, and Kwon further teaches a buffer layer between the encapsulation layer and the window (Figure 5, RPL).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Wu and further in view of Kim, KR 20140104844 and further in view of Lee et al., US 2021/0242432.
Regarding claim 4, Kwon and Wu teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, but are silent as to the interval between the first pixels gradually decreases toward the non-folding area. However, in the same field of endeavor of foldable displays, Kim teaches the interval between the pixels in the folding area is larger than the interval between the pixels in the non-folding area (Figures 5 and 6, d5 interval in folding area is larger than d4 interval in non-folding area). Further, it would have been well known to those in the art at the time of filing that a larger interval between pixels would ensure no damage to the pixels from touching each other during bending. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to space the first pixels farther apart than the second pixels. Kwon, Wu and Kim fail to teach the interval decreases gradually toward the non-folding area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Lee teaches that decreasing and/or increasing the interval between pixels gradually ensures that the user doesn’t see harsh lines or abrupt changes in the image ([0146]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to decrease the pixel interval gradually from the folding area to the non-folding area in order to avoid abrupt changes in emission.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Wu and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 5, Kwon and Wu teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 1, but are silent as to a plurality of diffraction patterns. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Lee teaches a plurality of diffraction patterns on the first pixels and spaced apart from each other ([0146]). Further, Lee teaches the diffraction patterns serve to reduce the sharpness of the display in the area with fewer pixels to mitigate the impact on display quality (id). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a diffraction pattern on the first area of the display to prevent any negative impact on the emission quality due to the lower density of pixels in the first area.
Regarding claim 8, Kwon, Wu and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 5, but Kwon and Wu are silent as to the positioning of the diffraction patterns. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Lee teaches the diffraction patterns are on the first surface of the window (see Figure 12 for example, DIP on front surface of display window). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing the diffraction patterns on the front surface of the window would achieve the appropriate diffraction of light to reduce display sharpness by a predictable amount. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a diffraction pattern on the front of the window in the first area of the display to prevent any negative impact on the emission quality due to the lower density of pixels in the first area.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Wu and further in view of Lee and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Kwon, Wu and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 5, and Lee further teaches the interval between diffraction patterns gradually increases toward the area of greater pixel density ([0146] and Figure 15 for example). Kwon, Wu and Lee are silent as to the pixel density being greater in the non-folding region of the display. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Kim teaches the density of pixels in the folding area is smaller than the density of pixels in the non-folding area (Figures 5 and 6, d5 interval in folding area is larger than d4 interval in non-folding area). Further, it would have been well known to those in the art at the time of filing that a larger interval between pixels would ensure no damage to the pixels from touching each other during bending in the folding area. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to space the first pixels farther apart than the second pixels.
Regarding claim 7, Kwon, Wu and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 5, and Lee further teaches the heights of the diffraction patterns adjacent to the high density pixel area are different from each other (see Figure 15). Kwon, Wu and Lee are silent as to the pixel density being greater in the non-folding region of the display. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Kim teaches the density of pixels in the folding area is smaller than the density of pixels in the non-folding area (Figures 5 and 6, d5 interval in folding area is larger than d4 interval in non-folding area). Further, it would have been well known to those in the art at the time of filing that a larger interval between pixels would ensure no damage to the pixels from touching each other during bending in the folding area. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to space the first pixels farther apart than the second pixels.
Claims 11, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 11, Kwon teaches a display device comprising: a substrate including a folding area and a non-folding area adjacent to the folding area; and a window on the substrate and including a plurality of grooves repeatedly arranged along a first direction in the folding area, and wherein each of the grooves includes a first groove formed from a first surface of the window toward a second surface of the window facing the first surface and a second groove formed from the second surface toward the first surface, and the first groove and the second groove are alternately arranged. Kwon is silent as to a plurality of diffraction patterns. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Lee teaches a plurality of diffraction patterns on the first pixels and spaced apart from each other ([0146]). Further, Lee teaches the diffraction patterns serve to reduce the sharpness of the display in the area with fewer pixels to mitigate the impact on display quality (id). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a diffraction pattern on the first area of the display to prevent any negative impact on the emission quality due to the lower density of pixels in the first area.
Regarding claim 14, Kwon and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11, but Kwon is silent as to the positioning of the diffraction patterns. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Lee teaches the diffraction patterns are on the first surface of the window (see Figure 12 for example, DIP on front surface of display window). Further, it would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing the diffraction patterns on the front surface of the window would achieve the appropriate diffraction of light to reduce display sharpness by a predictable amount. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a diffraction pattern on the front of the window in the first area of the display to prevent any negative impact on the emission quality due to the lower density of pixels in the first area.
Regarding claim 19, Kwon and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11, and Kwon further teaches an encapsulation layer between the first and second pixels and the window (Figure 6, TFE).
Regarding claim 20, Kwon and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 19, and Kwon further teaches a buffer layer between the encapsulation layer and the window (Figure 5, RPL).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Lee and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 12, Kwon and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11, and Lee further teaches the interval between diffraction patterns gradually increases toward the area of greater pixel density ([0146] and Figure 15 for example). Kwon and Lee are silent as to the pixel density being greater in the non-folding region of the display. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Kim teaches the density of pixels in the folding area is smaller than the density of pixels in the non-folding area (Figures 5 and 6, d5 interval in folding area is larger than d4 interval in non-folding area). Further, it would have been well known to those in the art at the time of filing that a larger interval between pixels would ensure no damage to the pixels from touching each other during bending in the folding area. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to space the first pixels farther apart than the second pixels.
Regarding claim 13, Kwon and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 5, and Lee further teaches the heights of the diffraction patterns adjacent to the high density pixel area are different from each other (see Figure 15). Kwon and Lee are silent as to the pixel density being greater in the non-folding region of the display. However, in the same field of endeavor of display devices, Kim teaches the density of pixels in the folding area is smaller than the density of pixels in the non-folding area (Figures 5 and 6, d5 interval in folding area is larger than d4 interval in non-folding area). Further, it would have been well known to those in the art at the time of filing that a larger interval between pixels would ensure no damage to the pixels from touching each other during bending in the folding area. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to space the first pixels farther apart than the second pixels.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Lee and further in view of Wu.
Regarding claim 15, Kwon and Lee teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 11, but are silent as to the light emitting areas in the first area having a different size from the light emitting areas in the second area. However, in the same field of endeavor of foldable display devices, Wu teaches the bonding pad of the light emitting elements in the first area is larger than the bonding pad of light emitting elements in the second area (see Figure 4, bonding area in RF is larger than bonding area in R1 or R2). Further, Wu teaches the bonding pad is larger to ensure sustained bonding during folding (see spec regarding Figure 4). It would also have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing a larger surface for bonding would increase the likelihood of continued attachment. Therefore, based on the teaching in Wu, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide larger light emitting elements, and therefore a larger light emitting area in the folding area of the display in order to ensure proper bonding between the substrate and the light emitting elements.
Regarding claim 16, Kwon, Lee and Wu teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 15, but Kwon and Lee fail to teach the size of the first light emitting area is larger than the size of the second light emitting area. However, in the same field of endeavor of foldable display devices, Wu teaches the bonding pad of the light emitting elements in the first area is larger than the bonding pad of light emitting elements in the second area (see Figure 4, bonding area in RF is larger than bonding area in R1 or R2). Further, Wu teaches the bonding pad is larger to ensure sustained bonding during folding (see spec regarding Figure 4). It would also have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that providing a larger surface for bonding would increase the likelihood of continued attachment. Therefore, based on the teaching in Wu, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide larger light emitting elements, and therefore a larger light emitting area in the folding area of the display in order to ensure proper bonding between the substrate and the light emitting elements.
Regarding claim 17, Kwon, Lee and Wu teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 15, and Kwon further teaches a width in the first direction of the first light emitting area is greater than a width in the first direction of each of the grooves (see Figures 3 and 15, multiple grooves in the space of fewer pixels).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Lee and further in view of Wu and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 18, Kwon, Lee and Wu teach the invention as explained above regarding claim 15, and Lee further teaches decreasing and/or increasing the interval between pixels gradually ensures that the user doesn’t see harsh lines or abrupt changes in the image ([0146]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to decrease the pixel interval gradually from the folding area to the non-folding area in order to avoid abrupt changes in emission. Kwon, Wu and Lee are silent as to the interval between the first pixels being larger than the interval between the second pixels. However, in the same field of endeavor of foldable displays, Kim teaches the interval between the pixels in the folding area is larger than the interval between the pixels in the non-folding area (Figures 5 and 6, d5 interval in folding area is larger than d4 interval in non-folding area). Further, it would have been well known to those in the art at the time of filing that a larger interval between pixels would ensure no damage to the pixels from touching each other during bending. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to space the first pixels farther apart than the second pixels. Kwon, Wu and Kim fail to teach the interval decreases gradually toward the non-folding area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones et al., US 2018/0217639 teaches a foldable display comprising a window having alternating grooves on a first and second side of the window. Hyun et al., US 2022/0209165 teaches a foldable display comprising a window having grooves and diffraction patterns on the grooves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY-ELLEN BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday; 7:00 am-5:00 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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
MARY ELLEN BOWMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/MARY ELLEN BOWMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875