DETAILED ACTION
This Final action is in response to an amendment filed 10/30/2025. Currently claims 1 and 30-54 are pending.
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 Objections
Claims 30 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 30 and 31 recite “the main portion”, but parent claim 1 recites a “first main portion” and a “second main portion”, thus the “main portion” of claims 30 and 31 lack antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the term “main portion” in claims 30 and 31 was interpreted as “the first main portion or the second main portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 30-54 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the specification fails to provide support for the amended limitation “the first conductive layer configured into: a first touch sensor element …comprising first sensing regions electrically connected to each other, and a second touch sensor element …comprising second sensing regions electrically connected to each other,… wherein one of the first or second conductive layers forms the first and second sensing regions in the first and second touch sensor elements, and the other of the first or second conductive layers forms a bridge connecting a plurality of the first or second sensor regions”, as follows:
Claim 1 at the beginning recites “a first conductive layer disposed on the substrate, a first insulating layer disposed on the first conductive layer; and a second conductive layer disposed on the first insulating layer”. These elements appear to map in Fig. 2 as follows: first conductive layer maps to second touch electrode 150, first insulating layer maps to 140, and second conductive layer maps to first touch electrode 120. Note that Fig. 8 does not disclose the stacking of the conductive layers.
Subsequently claim 1 recites “the first conductive layer configured into: a first touch sensor element …comprising first sensing regions…, and a second touch sensor element…comprising second sensing regions”. These elements appear to map in Fig. 8 as follows: the first touch sensor element is TP1, the first sensing regions are P1, the second touch sensor element is TP2, the second sensing regions are P2. In the disclosure, the first sensing regions P1 are connected by a bridge B1A/B1B that overlaps a “neck” B2 of the second touch sensor element TP2 and the bridges B1A/B1B are separated from the neck by an insulator IN.
The disclosure fails to explain on what layers are TP1 and TP2 formed. However, following the language in the specification, TP1 and 120 are both referred to as “first touch electrode”, and TP2 and 150 are both referred to as “second touch electrode”. Thus, one of ordinary skill would assume sensor TP1 (Fig. 8) is formed in layer 120 (Fig. 2) and TP2 (Fig. 8) is formed in layer 150 (Fig. 2). Consequently, the disclosure fails to provide support for the first conductive layer 150 [second touch electrode] configured into a first touch sensor element [TP1]… comprising first sensing regions [P1]. The disclosure also does not provide support for the bridges B1A/B1B formed on the other of the first 150 or second conductive layer 120, partly because the disclosure is silent regarding on what layer are the bridges B1A/B1B formed, it only discloses that they are formed insulated by an insulator IN from the neck B2, but the disclosure does not explain whether B1A/B1B are formed on the same layer as P1, the same layer as P2 or a different layer.
Dependent claims 30-54 inherit the issues of parent claim 1.
Claim 49 recites “a plurality of bending portions” which is supported by Figs. 4A-4B but only include one main portion. However, claim 1 requires a first and second main portions. Thus, the combination is not supported.
Claim 50 recites “a third main portion” but the disclosure fails to support this limitation. Furthermore, parent claim 49 recites a plurality of bending portions which finds support in Figs. 4 and 11, but these figures only disclose one central main portion.
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.
Claims 1, 30-45, 49-50 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. in US 2018/0033831 (hereinafter An) in view of Park et al. in US 2016/0170523 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, An disclose an electronic device (An’s par. 2), comprising:
a substrate (An’s Figs. 1-2 and par. 64: see substrate PM of DD) comprising a bending portion (An’s Figs. 1 and par. 57: see BA) and a first main portion and a second main portion connected to the bending portion (An’s Figs. 1 and par. 57: see NBA1 and NBA2), the first main portion and the second main portion and the bending portion comprising a continuous display region (An’s Figs. 1, 4B);
a display layer (An’s Fig. 2 and par. 62: see DP of DM);
a first conductive layer disposed on the substrate (An’s Figs. 2, 8 and par. 133: TS-CL1);
a first insulating layer disposed on the first conductive layer (An’s Figs. 2, 8 and par. 133: TS-IL1); and
a second conductive layer disposed on the first insulating layer (An’s Figs. 2, 8 and par. 133: TS-CL2),
wherein in a cross-sectional view of the electronic device (An’s Fig. 8), the first conductive layer is fabricated as a different layer from the second conductive layer on the bending portion of the substrate (An’s Fig. 8 and par. 133: the layering is shown for all the display DD in Figs. 1),
further wherein the first and second conductive layers are configured to perform a touch sensing function of the electronic device (An’s Figs. 8-9 and par. 133-135) in a touch region (An’s Fig. 9 and par. 150),
further wherein the first conductive layer (An’s Fig. 8: TS-CL1) is configured into:
a first touch sensor element (An’s Fig. 9 and par. 157: see TE1 which includes SP1, OR TE2 which includes SP2) extending in a first direction (An’s Fig. 9: DR1, OR DR2) and comprising first sensing regions electrically connected to each other (An’s Fig. 9 and par. 154: see SP1, OR SP2), and
a second touch sensor element (An’s Fig. 9 and par. 157: see TE2 which includes SP2 OR TE1 which includes SP1) extending in a second direction (An’s Fig. 9: DR2, OR DR1) and comprising second sensing regions electrically connected to each other (An’s Fig. 9 and par. 155: see SP2, OR SP1),
further wherein the first and second direction are substantially perpendicular to each other (An’s Fig. 9: DR1 vs. DR2), the second direction being substantially parallel to a bending axis of the bending portion (An’s Fig. 1C and par. 57: see DR2 parallel to BX, OR Fig. 4A: see DR1 parallel to the axis of bending of BA),
further wherein one of the first or second conductive layers forms the first and second sensing regions (An’s Fig. 10C and par. 157, 163: S1 and SP2 are formed on e.g. TSCL1) in the first and second touch sensor elements (An’s Fig. 9 and par. 154-155: SP1 and SP2 in TE1 and TE2 respectively), and the other of the first or second conductive layers forms a bridge connecting a plurality of the first or second sensing regions (An’s Fig. 10A and par. 157, 159, 163: CP2 formed on e.g. TS-CL2).
An fails to disclose wherein in the bending portion, the bridge has portions which extend in a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor of folding displays, Park discloses wherein in the bending portion (Park’s Fig. 5 and par. 72: see TA2), the bridge has portions which extend in a third direction different from the first direction and the second direction (Park’s Fig. 3 and par. 75-76: see bridge 412 tilted from the X and from the y).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that An’s bridges are tilted in the bending region (as disclosed by Park), in order to obtain the benefit of reducing the stress applied to the bridge during bending such that failures is reduced (Park’s par. 82).
By doing such combination, An in view of Park disclose:
wherein in the bending portion (An’s Figs. 1: see BA equivalent to TA2 in Park’s Fig. 5), the bridge (An’s Fig. 9: CP2 equivalent to 412 in Park’s Fig. 3) has portions which extend in a third direction (Park’s Fig. 3 and par. 75-76: see 412 extending in direction m) different from the first direction and the second direction (Park’s Fig. 3: see XY equivalent to DR1/DR2 of An’s Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 30, An in view of Park further disclose wherein in the main portion (An’s Fig. 1: see NBA1 or NBA2 equivalent to TA1 in Park’s Fig. 5), the bridge has portions which extend in the third direction (An’s Figs. 2-3 and par. 76: when the angle A is equal to 45 degrees and the when the Angle B is also equal to 45 degrees).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the bridge portion in the main portion would be inclined the same angle as in the bending portion, in order to obtain the predictable result of meeting the ranges disclosed (An’s par. 76).
Regarding claim 31, An in view of Park further disclose wherein in the main portion (An’s Fig. 1: see NBA1 or NBA2 equivalent to TA1 in Park’s Fig. 5), the bridge has portions which extend in a different direction from the third direction (An’s Figs. 2-3 and par. 76: when the angle B is larger than the angle A).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the bridge portion in the main portion would extend in a direction different from the third direction (An’s Figs. 2-3), in order to obtain the predictable result of meeting the ranges disclosed (An’s par. 76).
Regarding claim 32, An in view of Park disclose wherein the bridge (An’s Figs. 9, 10A: CP2) connects only the plurality of the first sensing regions (An’s Fig. 9: SP2, when the first touch sensor elements are TE2), and pluralities of the second sensing regions are connected in the same conductive layer which makes up the second sensing regions (An’s Figs. 9, 10C: see CP1 connected SP1 in the same layer, when the second touch sensor elements are TE1).
Regarding claim 33, An in view of Park disclose wherein the bridge (An’s Figs. 9, 10A: CP2) connects only the plurality of the second sensing regions (An’s Fig. 9: SP2, when the second touch sensor elements are TE2), and pluralities of the first sensing regions are connected in the same conductive layer which makes up the first sensing regions (An’s Figs. 9, 10C: see CP1 connected SP1 in the same layer, when the first touch sensor elements are TE1).
Regarding claim 34, An in view of Park disclose wherein the display region in each of the first main portion and the second main portion is substantially planar (An’s Fig. 1C and par. 57: see NBA1 and NBA2), and the display region in the first main portion is configured to be able to face opposite to the display region in the second main portion when the bending portion is bent (An’s Fig. 1C: see NBA1 facing up which is opposite NB2 facing down).
Regarding claim 36, An in view of Park disclose further comprising a second insulating layer (An’s Figs. 5B, 7, 11 and par. 96-97: encapsulation TFE) disposed between the substrate and the first conductive layer (An’s Fig. 11: see TFE between SUB and TE), the first conductive layer being fabricated directly on the second insulating layer without using adhesive (An’s Fig. 5B and par. 69: TS disposed directly on panel DP [top layer TFE] without adhesive) thereby forming a touch on display structure on the substrate (An’s Fig. 5B and par. 69), the substrate being bendable (An’s Figs. 1).
Regarding claim 37, An in view of Park disclose wherein the display layer is disposed between the substrate and the second insulating layer (An’s Figs. 5B, 11 and par. 91: see layer DP-OLED of DP between SUB and TFE), the second insulating layer acting as a barrier layer configured to block gas and water from reaching the display layer (An’s par. 96).
Regarding claim 38, An in view of Park disclose wherein the second insulating layer is a multilayer structure (An’s par. 96: inorganic and organic layers).
Regarding claim 39, An in view of Park disclose wherein the second insulating layer comprises at least one inorganic layer and one organic layer (An’s par. 96: inorganic and organic layers).
Regarding claim 40, An in view of Park disclose wherein at least one of the at least one inorganic layers comprises silicon nitride (An’s par. 96).
Regarding claim 41, An in view of Park disclose wherein at least one of the at least one inorganic layers comprises silicon oxy-nitride (An’s par. 96).
Regarding claim 42, An in view of Park disclose wherein the second insulating layer comprises at least two inorganic layers and one organic layer, the organic layer being between two of the at least two inorganic layers (An’s par. 96).
Regarding claim 43, An in view of Park disclose wherein the second insulating layer also comprises an encapsulation layer (An’s Fig. 11 and par. 96: TFE) covering a sidewall of the display layer in the display region (An’s Fig. 11: see TFE covering sidewall of DP-OLED in region DA).
Regarding claim 44, An in view of Park disclose wherein the organic layer has a thickness h1 and at least one of the at least two inorganic layers has a thickness h2, further wherein h1 is greater than h2 (An’s Fig. 7A and par. 126: organic OL1 thickness greater than inorganic IOL1-IOLn thickness).
Regarding claims 35 and 45, An in view of Park disclose wherein a first portion of the first conductive layer is overlapped with the second conductive layer (An’s Figs. 9, 10C and par. 157, 159, 163: portion of CP1 in layer TS-CL1 overlapped with CP2 in TS-CL2), and a second/another portion of the first conductive layer is not overlapped with the second conductive layer in the bending portion of the substrate (An’s Figs. 9, 10C and par. 157, 159, 163: see SP1 in layer TS-CL1 not overlapped with CP2 in TS-CL2).
Regarding claim 49, An in view of Park further disclose wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of bending portions (An’s Fig. 4B: see BA1 and BA2). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that An would include a plurality of bending portions (An’s Fig. 4B) in addition to a plurality of non-bending portions (An’s Figs. 1B-1C), in order to obtain the predictable result of obtaining envisioned configurations (An’s par. 59).
Regarding claim 50, An in view of Park fail to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises a third main portion. However, An does disclose multiple main portions (Figs. 1A-1C) and multiple bending portions (An’s Fig. 4B and par. 59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the substrate comprises a third main portion (e.g. adjacent to the left side of BA1 or adjacent to the right side of BA2 in Fig. 4B) , in order to obtain the predictable result of obtaining envisioned configurations (An’s par. 59).
Regarding claim 52, An in view of Park disclose wherein a driving structure for a pixel in the display region comprises at least six transistors plus one capacitor (An’s Fig. 6A).
Claims 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Park as applied above, in further view of Gupta et al. in US 2014/0225838 (hereinafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 46, An in view of Park fail to disclose wherein the second insulating layer isolates the first touch sensor element from the second touch sensor element so that the first touch sensor element is not in direct contact with the second touch sensor element.
However, in the related field of endeavor of touch LED displays, Gupta discloses the cathode electrode (Gupta’s Fig. 7A and par. 52) serving also as a touch sensing electrode (Gupta’s Fig. 6 and par. 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that An in view of Park’s cathode (An’s Fig. 6B and par. 121: see CE) serves as one of the touch sensor elements (An’s Fig. 9: TE1 or TE2), in order to obtain the benefit of the desirable in-cell touch panel where the touch circuitry is integrated into the OLED panel (Gupta’s par. 32). As such, An’s Fig. 8 first conductive layer TS-CL1 is equivalent to the cathode layer, and the insulation layer TS-IL1 is equivalent to TFE. By doing such combination, An in view of Park and Gupta disclose:
wherein the second insulating layer (An’s Fig. 11: TFE equivalent to TFE-1 in Gupta’s Fig. 11B-2) isolates the first touch sensor element (An’s Figs. 8-9: TE1/TS-CL1 equivalent to cathode 1115 of Gupta’s Figs. 11B per par. 61) from the second touch sensor element (An’s Figs. 9, 11: see TE2 which is formed in TS above TFE, and where TFE is equivalent to TFE-1 in Gupta’s Fig. 11B-2) so that the first touch sensor element is not in direct contact with the second touch sensor element (upon combination by the insulator TFE, which is equivalent to TS-IL1).
Regarding claim 47, An in view of Park fail to disclose wherein one of the first or the second conductive layers is also a conductive layer in the display layer.
However, in the related field of endeavor of touch LED displays, Gupta discloses the cathode electrode (Gupta’s Fig. 7A and par. 52) serving also as a touch sensing electrode (Gupta’s Fig. 6 and par. 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that An in view of Park’s:
first or second conductive layer (An’s Figs. 9-10: TE1 or TE2) is also a conductive layer in the display layer (Gupta’s Figs. 6, 7A and par. 52, 61: cathode as touch electrode),
in order to obtain the benefit of the desirable in-cell touch panel where the touch circuitry is integrated into the OLED panel (Gupta’s par. 32).
Regarding claim 48, An in view of Park fail to disclose wherein one of the first or the second conductive layers is an electrode layer in the display layer.
However, in the related field of endeavor of touch LED displays, Gupta discloses the cathode electrode (Gupta’s Fig. 7A and par. 52) serving also as a touch sensing electrode (Gupta’s Fig. 6 and par. 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that An in view of Park’s:
first or second conductive layer (An’s Figs. 9-10: TE1 or TE2) is an electrode layer in the display layer (Gupta’s Figs. 6, 7A and par. 52, 61: cathode as touch electrode),
in order to obtain the benefit of the desirable in-cell touch panel where the touch circuitry is integrated into the OLED panel (Gupta’s par. 32).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Park as applied above, in further view of An et al. in US 2014/0253823 (hereinafter An823).
An in view of Park fail to disclose wherein the touch region is larger than the display region.
However, in the same field of endeavor of touch displays, An823 discloses wherein the touch region is larger than the display region (An823’s par. 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that An in view of Park’s touch region is larger than the display region (as taught by An823’s par. 51), in order to obtain the benefit of detecting touch events in an area that is broader than the display area (An823’s par. 51).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Park as applied above, in further view of Wu et al. in US 2015/0220201 (hereinafter Wu).
An in view of Park disclose wherein a driving structure for a pixel in the display region comprises at least seven transistors (An’s Fig. 6A), but An in view of Park fail to disclose the pixel comprising two capacitors.
However, in the same field of endeavor of LED display pixels, Wu discloses a driving structure of a pixel in the display region comprises seven transistors and tow capacitors (Wu’s Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that An in view of Park’s pixel comprises seven transistor and two capacitors (Wu’s Fig. 3), in order to obtain the benefit of pr3eventing an entire image form displaying non-uniformly due to threshold voltage drift (Wu’s par. 3-4).
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Park as applied above, in further view of Zhou in US 2014/0162522 (hereinafter Zhou).
An in view of Park fail to disclose wherein the display layer comprises quantum dots. However, in the same field of endeavor of flexible displays, Zhou discloses using quantum dots LEDs (Zhou’s par. 99). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that An’s pixel LEDs (An’s Fig. 6A) is quantum dot (Zhou’s par. 99), in order to obtain the predictable result of using known types of LEDs for flexible displays (Zhou’s par. 99).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
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 Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621