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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeon (KR 20220003774 A) of which Yeon (US 20230255068 A1) is deemed an equivalent disclosure and is cited herein.
Regarding Claim 1, Yeon teaches display device (see Fig. 3), comprising:
a plurality of pixel substrates (115) disposed on a flexible substrate (111) to be spaced apart from each other and whereon at least one pixel (shown) is disposed;
a plurality of connection substrates (700) configured to connect a plurality of adjacent pixel substrates among the plurality of pixel substrates (shown Fig. 3), and include a curved area (Q1, shown Fig. 4) and a straight area (Q2); and
a plurality of connection lines (500) configured to electrically connect pads (see [0074] and Fig. 6) disposed on the plurality of adjacent pixel substrates on the plurality of connection substrates,
wherein the plurality of connection substrates includes a first connection pattern (710 and 500, shown Figs. 4-5, see also paragraph [0012] which cites that the reduction pattern associated with 710 further includes connection pattern 500 as shown in Fig. 5) and a second connection pattern (720) which has a different modulus of elasticity from that of the first connection pattern and is disposed only in the curved area (shown Fig. 5, wherein it is understood that a modulus of elasticity of the combined material structure of 710 and 500 would be different than that of 720).
Regarding Claim 2, Yeon teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein a modulus of elasticity of the second connection pattern is lower than a modulus of elasticity of the first connection pattern (see [0096] which cites that a material of the reduction pattern 700 is one having a flexible characteristic while a material of the connection pattern, described in [0085] as being a metal, would have a modulus of elasticity higher than that of the second connection pattern due to the inclusion of a metal material layer).
Regarding Claim 7, Yeon teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the second connection pattern is disposed along an outer circumferential surface of the first connection pattern (shown Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Yeon teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the connection line is disposed so as to overlap a neutral plane of the connection substrate (shown Figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 15, Yeon teaches the display device according to claim 14, wherein the neutral plane of the connection substrate is disposed to be adjacent of an inner surface of the connection substrate, between the inner surface and an outer surface of the connection substrate, in the curved area (shown Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Yeon teaches a display device (shown Fig. 3), comprising:
a lower substrate (111);
a plurality of pixel substrates (115) on the lower substrate and spaced apart from each other, each of the pixel substrate of the plurality having thereon at least one pixel (shown);
a plurality of connection substrates (700) coupled between adjacent pixel substrates of the plurality of pixel substrates, each connection substrate of the plurality of connection substrates includes a curved area (corresponding to Q1, shown Fig. 4) and a straight area (corresponding to Q2, shown Fig. 4); and
a plurality of connection lines (500) on the plurality of connection substrates (shown Figs. 4, 5),
wherein each connection substrate includes a first connection pattern (710 and 500, see also [0012]) and a second connection pattern (720),
wherein the first connection pattern and the second connection pattern are separate patterns (shown Fig. 4) including different materials (wherein the first connection pattern includes a metal material, see also [0085]), and
wherein second connection pattern does not overlap the straight area from a plan view (shown Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Yeon teaches the display device of claim 16, wherein the first connection pattern is more rigid than the lower substrate (the first connection pattern includes a metal which is known to be more rigid than the flexible materials described in [0096]).
Regarding Claim 19, Yeon teaches the display device of claim 16, wherein a modulus of elasticity of the second connection pattern is lower than a modulus of elasticity of the first connection pattern (see [0096] which cites that a material of the reduction pattern 700 is one having a flexible characteristic while a material of the connection pattern, described in [0085] as being a metal, would have a modulus of elasticity higher than that of the second connection pattern due to the inclusion of a metal material layer).
Regarding Claim 20, Yeon teaches the display device of claim 16, wherein the curved area includes an outer curved area and an inner curved area (shown Fig. 4), and
wherein the second connection pattern is disposed on the outer curved area and the first connection pattern is disposed on the inner curved area (shown Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Kim (US 20210192988 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim teaches a display device (shown Figs. 1 and 15), comprising:
a lower substrate (DS);
a plurality of pixel substrates (ST1 and ST2) on the lower substrate and spaced apart from each other, each of the pixel substrate of the plurality having thereon at least one pixel (shown Fig. 1);
a plurality of connection substrates (CS) coupled between adjacent pixel substrates of the plurality of pixel substrates, each connection substrate of the plurality of connection substrates includes a curved area and a straight area (shown Fig. 15); and
a plurality of connection lines (1520) on the plurality of connection substrates,
wherein each connection substrate includes a first connection pattern and a second connection pattern (corresponding to a straight area pattern and a curved area pattern respectively),
wherein the first connection pattern and the second connection pattern are separate patterns including different materials (wherein the second pattern includes a PT material described in [0156], which may be a different metal than that of connection line 1520), and
wherein second connection pattern does not overlap the straight area from a plan view.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches the display device of claim 16, wherein the first connection pattern includes the same material as the pixel substrate (see [0066]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim teaches the display device of claim 16, wherein the curved area includes an outer curved area and an inner curved area (shown Fig. 15), and
wherein the second connection pattern is disposed on the outer curved area and the first connection pattern is disposed on the inner curved area (shown Fig. 15).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon (US 20230255068 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Yeon teaches the display device according to claim 7, wherein a radius of curvature of an inner circumferential surface of the connection substrate has a first radius R1, a radius of curvature of an inner circumferential surface of the second connection pattern has a second radius R2, and a radius of curvature of an outer circumferential surface of the connection substrate has a third radius R3 (see Figs. 3-4).
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product
not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination
was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. See also MPEP 2144.05.
More specifically to this case, Yeon shows that a radius of curvature (corresponding to a distance D1 and D2 as shown in Fig. 3) of the outer pattern in the curved area and inner pattern in the curved area are result-effective variables because it reveals that optimizing these distances improves an efficiency of transferring a stress of the reduction pattern to the connection line (see [0092]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art using this prior art teaching, therefore, would anticipate and predict the optimal radius of curvature ratio between R1, R2 and R3 to optimize stress transference through the connection pattern. Furthermore, a modification of this kind may be patentable "if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.”(see Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The original disclosure does not describe such a result of unexpected advantageous properties.
More specifically, it would be obvious through routine optimization to configure the second radius R2 to be smaller than an average of the first radius R1 and the second radius R3.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon (US 20230255068 A1) in further view of Kim (US 20210192988 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yeon teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the first connection pattern includes a first part disposed in the straight area (shown Fig. 4) and a second part disposed in the curved area (shown Fig. 4), but is silent regarding a width of the first part and a width of the second part.
Kim teaches a display device wherein a connection pattern (CS) comprises a first width in a straight area (SA, shown Fig. 12, corresponding to CS1) and a second width in a curved area (CA, shown Fig. 12, corresponding to CS2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the first connection pattern of Yeon with connection pattern shown in Kim as providing a connection pattern having a first width of a first part in a straight area and a second width of a second part in a curved area enables minimization of a width in the curved area thus improving an extension rate of the flexible display (see [0012]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yeon as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 3, wherein the width of the second part is smaller than the width of the first part.
Regarding Claim 5, Yeon as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 4.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product
not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination
was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. See also MPEP 2144.05.
More specifically to this case, Kim shows that a width of the connection pattern is a result-effective variable because it reveals that a width of a connection line in a curved area should be minimized to improve an extension rate of the flexible display (see [0012].
A person having ordinary skill in the art using this prior art teaching, therefore, would anticipate and predict the optimal width ratio of the first part to the second part. Furthermore, a modification of this kind may be patentable "if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.”(see Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The original disclosure does not describe such a result of unexpected advantageous properties.
More specifically, it would be obvious through routine optimization to implement the display device of claim 4 wherein the width of the first part is equal to a sum of the width of the second part and a width of the second connection pattern.
Regarding Claim 6, Yeon as modified by Kim teaches the display device according to claim 3, wherein a width of the second part of the first connection pattern is narrower than a width of the second connection pattern.
Claim(s) 9-13, 21-23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon (US 20230255068 A1) in further view of Choi (US 20180124937 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Yeon teaches the display device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the second connection pattern including a plurality of opening grooves.
Choi teaches a display device with a connection pattern (shown Fig. 11) wherein a stress applied in a bendable area (analogous to an outer circumferential curved area of Yeon) in a folded state may be minimized by implementing a multi-joint member (40) including opening grooves (45) on an outer circumferential surface (43) of the bendable area.
It would be obvious to modify the second connection pattern of Yeon to further include opening grooves filled with a soft material portion as taught by Choi as this would ease the tension of the curved area and reduce the generation of defects and permanent deformation of the display device (see [0064]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yeon as modified by Choi teaches the display device according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of opening grooves is disposed to be perpendicular to an outer circumferential surface of the second connection pattern (shown Choi: Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 11, Yeon as modified by Choi teaches the display device according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of opening grooves is disposed along the outer circumferential surface of the second connection pattern (shown Choi: Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 12, Yeon as modified by Choi teaches the display device according to claim 9, further comprising: a filling member (42) which is filled in the plurality of opening grooves (shown Choi: Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 13, Yeon as modified by Choi teaches the display device according to claim 12, wherein a modulus of elasticity of the filling member (described as a soft material) is lower than a modulus of elasticity of the second connection pattern (as modified by Choi, wherein a material of the second connection pattern would be a hard material 41, see also Choi: [0055]).
Regarding Claim 21, Yeon teaches the display device according to claim 20, but does not explicitly teach the second connection pattern including a plurality of opening grooves.
Choi teaches a display device with a connection pattern (shown Fig. 11) wherein a stress applied in a bendable area (analogous to an outer circumferential curved area of Yeon) in a folded state may be minimized by implementing a multi-joint member (40) including opening grooves (45) on an outer circumferential surface (43) of the bendable area.
It would be obvious to modify the second connection pattern of Yeon to further include opening grooves filled with a soft material portion as taught by Choi as this would ease the tension of the curved area and reduce the generation of defects and permanent deformation of the display device (see [0064]). Specifically, this modification would teach the second connection pattern including a plurality of opening grooves, each opening groove extending toward the inner curved area (shown Choi: Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 22, Yeon as modified by Choi teaches the display device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of opening grooves is evenly spaced apart from each other (shown Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 23, Yeon as modified by Choi teaches the display device of claim 21, comprising:
a filling member (42) included in the plurality of opening grooves (shown Choi: Fig. 11),
wherein a modulus of elasticity of the filling member (described as a soft material) is lower than a modulus of elasticity of the second connection pattern (as modified by Choi, wherein a material of the second connection pattern would be a hard material 41, see also Choi: [0055]).
Regarding Claim 25, Yeon as modified by Choi teaches the display device of claim 21, wherein the second connection pattern includes a plurality of first opening grooves (shown Choi: Fig. 11, corresponding to a groove along P4), each first opening groove extending toward the inner curved area, and
wherein the second connection pattern includes a plurality of second opening grooves (45, shown Fig. 11, corresponding to protrusions 44) randomly dispersed within the outer curved area (shown Choi: Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 26, Yeon as modified by Choi teaches the display device of claim 25, wherein the plurality of second opening grooves do not overlap with the plurality of first opening grooves.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210192988 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Kim teaches the display device of claim 20. Kim further teaches an embodiment (shown Figs. 10-11) wherein a second connection pattern (corresponding to a pattern in a curved area CA) includes a plurality of opening grooves (shown Figs. 10-11 where CS is exposed in plan-view), each opening groove having a selected curvature the same as a curvature of the second connection pattern in the outer curved area (shown Fig. 10).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the embodiments of Figs. 10 and 15 of Kim (see also [0041]) by implementing a plurality of opening grooves to the device of Fig. 15 as this would further enable the stretchable display to withstand high stress in the curved area so that the extension rate may be improved (see [0141]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim (US 20200161267 A1) teaches a stretchable display device wherein a connection substrate comprises a pattern with a plurality of air gaps (shown Fig. 8B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY PAUL BOATMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM ET.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/C.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893