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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application. Claim 16 has been added.
Amendments to the claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 13, filed on 30 January 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 30 January 2026, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 30 January 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 30 January 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections made of record over Jin, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection has been made over Jin in view of He as presented below. In that applicants' arguments still pertain to the new grounds of rejections presented herein, they have been addressed below in an effort to promote compact prosecution.
Applicants argue that because Jin already teaches that the window member has chamfered edges at least in the folding area, it would not have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to further change the edges to have different shapes (rounded) with different profiles (asymmetric) so as to improve bending performance. That is, because Jin already has the chamfered edges, it would already possess improved bending performance. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Jin teaches that providing one or both the edges with a chamfer structure is to improve the impact resistance of the cover window ([0066] of Jin). He discloses that by changing the shape of one or both edges to be the same or different to improved bending performance (figure 6 and [0052] of He). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the edges of different shapes disclosed by He with the first edge and second edge of the electronic device disclosed by Jin, from the stand-point of improving bending performance of the glass ([0052] of He). (In the instant case, such a change to the first edge and the second edge of Jin to another shape (i.e., an arc-shaped corner [ref. #205]) as disclosed by He (figure 6 and [0052] of He), would have amounted to a mere change in shape. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Specifically, He provides the rational to modify one edge/corner to have one shape, and to modify another edge/corner to have a different shape/profile (i.e., asymmetric edges).)
Applicants argue that He alone or in view of Jin does not teach an asymmetrical edge-pair in a folding-area, or that they address folding-specific stress behavior. That He only teaches an edge taking various generic shapes, of which do not disclose that shapes for opposing edges of a folding-area are asymmetric. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the first edge and the second edge are asymmetrical with respect to one another only in the folding area) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants further argue that selection of the first edge and the second edge being asymmetrical is for the purpose of addressing fold-induced stress differences (folding-specific stress behavior); wherein by forming the folding-area edge region with asymmetry between two opposing edges, the stress imbalance (i.e., different tensile stresses generated at inner and outer sides depending on curvature) can be mitigated. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: the results must fairly compare with the prior art, the claims must be commensurate in scope, and the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP §716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. MPEP §716.02(b). Applicants showing of allegedly unexpected results is not commensurate in scope and Applicant does not explain (via showing) why the results are unexpected and significant. The Applicant provides no working examples in the specification to show unexpected results. The figures relied upon do not show mitigation of a stress imbalance. Furthermore, the claims are broader in that they do not explicitly recite or limit the first edge and the second edge of the window member as being only asymmetrical with respect to one another in the second portion of the window member (corresponding to the folding area of the display panel). Because claims are broader than the showing and there is no explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the mitigation of stress imbalance to only occur when the first edge and the second edge are asymmetrical only in the folding area, the showing of unexpected results is unpersuasive.
Therefore, in light of applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the rejections made over Jin view of He are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Regards to Claim 16: Claim 16 recites --the window member further includes a non-bendable portion having a thickness that is larger than a thickness of the bendable portion-- in lines 15 to 16. The instant specification is silent with regards to the non-bendable portion of the window member having a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the bendable portion of the flexible display (i.e., the bendable portion of the display panel and the bendable portion of the window member). The instant specification appears to only provide support for a thickness of the non-bendable portion of the window member to be larger than a thickness of the bendable portion of the window member (see figures 10B to 14 and [0015]-[0016] of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the limitation fails the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 2020-0070904 A) in view of He et al. (US 2018/0101253 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Jin teaches an electronic device comprising a housing and a flexible display (ref. #100 and #200), wherein the flexible display comprises a display panel (ref. #120; "flexible display panel"), at least a portion of which is bendable, and a window member (ref. #130; "cover window") formed on an exterior of the display panel (figures 1 to 4, [0001]-[0002], and [0053]-[0082] of Jin). Jin also discloses that the cover window is made of glass (which is considered equivalent to the claimed "transparent material") and comprises a first portion (i.e., the NFA) having a first thickness and a second portion (i.e., the FA) extending from the first portion in a first direction, at least a portion of the second portion having a thickness a thickness substantially equal to the first thickness (figure 1 to 3, [0062]-[0065] of Jin). It is also disclose by Jin that at least the second portion comprises an edge area extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and having a second thickness less than the first thickness (figure 2 and [0066] of Jin). (In the instant case, the housing comprises the resin (ref. #140) to the outer frame (ref. #290) disclosed by Jin.) Specifically, Jin provides for --an electronic device comprising: a housing; and a flexible display comprising a display panel, at least a portion of which is bendable, and a window member comprising a transparent material and provided at an exterior of the flexible display, wherein the display panel comprises a folding area, a first area disposed on one side of the folding area, and a second area disposed on an opposite side of the folding area, wherein the window member comprises a first portion having a first thickness and a second portion extending from the first portion in a first direction, wherein the second portion corresponds to the folding area of the display panel, wherein at least a portion of the second portion spaced from an edge thereof has a thickness substantially equal to the first thickness, wherein at least a portion of the second portion comprises an edge area located at a boundary of the second portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the edge area comprises a first edge and a second edge and has a second thickness smaller than the first thickness--.
Jin fails to disclose --the first edge and the second edge are asymmetrical with respect to each other--.
He discloses an electronic device structure comprising an ultra-thin glass (ref. #12), which can have edges that are of different shapes (i.e., a right angle, rounded, chamfered, or semicircle) (figure 6 and [0052] of He).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the edges of different shapes disclosed by He with the first edge and second edge of the electronic device disclosed by Jin in order to have --the first edge and the second be asymmetrical to each other--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the edges of different shapes disclosed by He with the first edge and second edge of the electronic device disclosed by Jin, from the stand-point of improving bending performance of the glass ([0052] of He). (In the instant case, such a change to the first edge and the second edge of Jin to another shape (i.e., an arc-shaped corner [ref. #205]) as disclosed by He (figure 6 and [0052] of He), would have amounted to a mere change in shape. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Specifically, He provides the rational to modify one edge/corner to have one shape, and to modify another edge/corner to have a different shape/profile (i.e., asymmetric edges).)
Regarding Claim 2: Jin in view of He discloses that the second portion includes the bendable portion of the display panel (figures 1 to 3 of Jin).
Regarding Claim 3: Jin in view of He discloses that the first edge is bend in one direction and the second edge is bent in an opposite direction (figures 2, 4, and [0066] of Jin; figure 6 and [0052] of He).
Regarding Claim 4: Jin in view of He does not explicitly recite that --the second edge has a radius of curvature greater than a radius of curvature of the first edge--. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the radius of curvature of at least the second edge to be greater than the radius of curvature of the first edge, since such a change would have amounted to a mere change in shape. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). (In the instant case, the upper side has a larger radius of curvature and the lower side has a smaller radius of curvature (see figure 6 of He); wherein the edge would be configured such that the second edge is the upper side and the first edge is the lower side when combined with Jin.)
Regarding Claim 5: Jin in view of He discloses that the second thickness of the edge area of the second portion decreases as a distance from a portion of the second portion adjacent to the first portion increases (figures 2 and 3 of Jin). (In the instant case, as the distance along the transverse direction of the edge area increases, the thickness of the edge area decreases.)
Regarding Claim 6: Jin in view of He discloses that the housing further comprises a side surface structure (ref. #290; "outer frame") configured to protect the flexible display, the side surface structure being disposed to correspond to the second portion of the window member (figures 1 to 4, [0060], and [0068]-[0071] of Jin).
Regarding Claim 7: Jin in view of He discloses that the housing further comprises an impact absorbing material (ref. #140; "resin") disposed to correspond to the second portion of the window member (figures 1 to 4 and [0079] of Jin).
Regarding Claim 8: Jin in view of He discloses that the housing further comprises a waterproof member (ref. #150; "thin film metal layer") comprising a water blocking material disposed to correspond to the second portion of the window member (figures 1 to 4 and [0079] of Jin).
Regarding Claim 9: Jin in view of He discloses that the waterproof member further comprises a portion filling a gap between a top surface of the window member and the housing (figures 1 to 4 and [0069]-[0070] of Jin).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 2020-0070904 A) in view of He et al. (US 2018/0101253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seonghoon et al. (KR 2020-0108754 A).
Jin in view of He is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 10: Jin in view of He fails to disclose --a hinge structure including a hinge, wherein the housing comprises: a first housing connected to the hinge structure and comprising a first surface and a second surface facing opposite to the first surface; and a second housing connected to the hinge structure and comprising a third surface and a fourth surface facing opposite to the third surface, the second housing structure configured to be folded with the first housing about the hinge structure--.
Seonghoon discloses a foldable electronic device including a hinge structure, a first housing structure (ref. #110) and a second housing structure (ref. #120) connected in opposite direction to each other in the hinge structure (ref. #164), and a flexible display arranged to span the first housing structure and the second housing structure when opened 180°, wherein the first housing structure includes a first surface (ref. #111) arranged to face the front of the electronic device, a second surface (ref. #112) facing in an opposite direction to the first surface, and a first side member (ref. #113) surrounding at least a portion of a space between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the second housing structure includes a third surface (ref. #121) arranged to face the front of the electronic device, a fourth surface (ref. #122) facing in an opposite direction to the third surface, and a second side member (ref. #123) surrounding at least a portion of a space between the first surface and the second surface (figures 1 to 3, [0005], and [0021]-[0025] of Seonghoon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the foldable electronic device of Seonghoon with the electronic device of Jin in vie of He in order to have --a hinge structure including a hinge, wherein the housing comprises: a first housing connected to the hinge structure and comprising a first surface and a second surface facing opposite to the first surface; and a second housing connected to the hinge structure and comprising a third surface and a fourth surface facing opposite to the third surface, the second housing structure configured to be folded with the first housing about the hinge structure--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the foldable electronic device of Seonghoon with the electronic device of Jin in view of He, from the stand-point of having a flexible display arranged to receive support from at least a portion of the second housing through the hinge module from at least a portion of the first housing ([0014] of Seonghoon).
Regarding Claim 11: Jin in view of He and Seonghoon discloses that the flexible display is visible from outside through at least one surface of the housing and extends from the first surface of the first housing to the third surface of the second housing (figures 1, 2, and [0048] of Seonghoon).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 2020-0070904 A) in view of He et al. (US 2018/0101253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2018/0049328 A1).
Jin in view of He is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 12: Jin in view of He fails to disclose --the housing comprises a first surface, a second surface facing away from the first surface, a first side surface surrounding at least a portion of a space between the first surface and the second surface, and a second side surface facing away from the first side surface, and at least a portion of the housing is configured to slide such that a distance between the first side surface and the second side surface is variable--.
Choi discloses a sliding display device (ref. #100) comprising a housing (ref. #120) and a flexible display (ref. #140), wherein the housing includes a first edge region (ref. "FER"), a second edge region (ref. "SER"), a display region (ref. "DR"), and that the housing can be expanded such that a distance between the FER and the SER is variable (figures 1 to 2, and [0024]-[0031] of Choi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the sliding display device of Choi as the housing of the electronic device disclosed by Jin in view of He in order to have --the housing comprises a first surface, a second surface facing away from the first surface, a first side surface surrounding at least a portion of a space between the first surface and the second surface, and a second side surface facing away from the first side surface, and at least a portion of the housing is configured to slide such that a distance between the first side surface and the second side surface is variable--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the sliding display device of Choi as the housing of the electronic device disclosed by Jin in view of He, from the stand-point of having a housing that is expanded or contracted in a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, wherein a flexible display panel slides out from the housing when expanded, and contracted when the housing is contracted ([0004] of Choi).
Regarding Claim 13: Jin in view of He and Choi discloses that the flexible display comprises a first area visible from outside through at least one surface of the housing and a second area extending from the first area, and based on sliding of the portion of the housing, at least a portion of the second area is visible from outside through at least one surface of the housing (figures 1 to 2, and [0024]-[0031] of Choi).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 2020-0070904 A) in view of He et al. (US 2018/0101253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ran (US 2020/0029451 A1).
Jin in view of He is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 14: Jin in view of He fails to disclose that --the housing surrounds at least a portion of the flexible display, and the housing includes an opening at one side thereof to accommodate the flexible display and to allow the flexible display to be extracted from the housing, and the housing comprises a guide configured to guide the flexible display--.
Ran discloses a portable electronic apparatus (ref. #100) comprising a housing (ref. #20), a flexible display screen (ref. #62), a rotating shaft (ref. #64), and a support strap (ref. #624), wherein the flexible display screen is wound around the rotating shaft, wherein the flexible display screen can be drown out and unfolded from the housing, and wherein the support strap is wound or unfolded on the rotating shaft along with the flexible display screen, the support strap being configured to support the flexible display screen (figures 1 to 4, [0047]-[0057] of Ran). Ran also discloses a strip-shaped slot (ref. #2252) through which the flexible display screen passes (figure 3 and [0052] of Ran).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the portable electronic apparatus of Ran with the electronic device of Jin in view of He in order to have --the housing surrounds at least a portion of the flexible display, and the housing includes an opening at one side thereof to accommodate the flexible display and to allow the flexible display to be extracted from the housing, and the housing comprises a guide configured to guide the flexible display--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the portable electronic apparatus of Ran with the electronic device of Jin in view of He, from the stand-point of having a large portable screen that occupies less space ([0003] and [0007] of Ran).
Regarding Claim 15: Jin in view of He and Ran discloses that the flexible display comprises a first area, at least a portion of which is exposed outside the housing, and a second area extending from the first area and configured to be at least partially rolled around the guide, wherein the first area is extendible based on the second area being unrolled from the guide (figures 1 to 4 and [0047]-[0057] of Ran).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cavallaro et al. (US 2008/0202167 A1) discloses a glass sheet wherein opposing edges are asymmetrical rounded edges (figure 1C, [0002], [0009], and [0027] of Cavallaro).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights