DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 04/20/2026 after final rejection on 01/23/2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission has been entered.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are now pending in this application. Claims 1 and 18 and 20, as currently amended, are presented for examination. Claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19, as previously presented, are now presented again for examination. Claim 11 was canceled.
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, 18 and 20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites (and Claims 18 and 20 substantially the same) “wherein the physically crosslinked organogel is an active material of the battery or a separator of a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the battery and is configured to act as an adhesive that attaches a lower structure of the display apparatus to the battery.” The only location in the specification that describes the physically crosslinked organogel is paragraph 0071. The drawings show the batteries 170a, 170b attached to the underside of the display apparatus but do not show details of the internal battery layers/components. See Figures 2, 4 and 5. Paragraph 0071 describes how the physically crosslinked organogel has its adhesive force increased by “emitting an electron beam (E-beam) to the organogel.” This presumably facilitates attaching the battery to the underside of the support structure of the display apparatus. However, it is unclear how this can be achieved since the physically crosslinked organogel is an active layer of the battery (e.g. electrolyte) between the cathode and the anode. The specification does not describe the claimed subject matter in such a way as to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Applicant’s disclosure merely states the desired result of using a flexible battery as an adhesive. It does not disclose a battery structure or manufacturing method by which the physically crosslinked organogel simultaneously performs an internal electrochemical function as an active material or separator while also being positioned and configured to provide an external adhesive interface for attachment to a lower side of the display apparatus.
For example, where the organogel is a separator between a positive electrode and a negative electrode, the specification does not explain how the separator is exposed to be placed in adhesive contact with the lower side of the display while still maintaining separation of the electrodes, electrical conductivity and isolation, battery sealing and battery operability. Similarly, where the organogel is an active material of the battery, the specification does not explain how such active material is arranged to adhere the battery to the lower side of the display without interfering with battery function or requiring additional structural features not described in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that the 112 enablement rejection to prior Claim 11 (now canceled and incorporated into Claims 1, 18 and 20) “is premised on an assumption that is not required by the claims.” Applicant’s Arguments, p. 5. More specifically “[t]he Examiner’s enablement concern assumes that, because the physically crosslinked organogel may serve as an active material or a separator of the battery, it must necessarily be confined to an interior region of the battery in a manner that prevents contact with external components.” Id. at p.6. I respectfully disagree. It is not an assumption that the physically crosslinked organogel MUST be confined to an interior region of the battery but rather a question as to HOW it can simultaneously function as an active material or separator while also functioning as an adhesive maintaining the battery to the lower side of the display structure (as claimed). Applicant notes that the claims do not require the physically crosslinked organogel to be confined to an interior region of the battery and that, in certain battery architectures, an electrochemically functional layer including the physically crosslinked organogel may be positioned at a boundary region of the battery while remaining operative as an active material or separator. Id. But this logic is flawed. The asserted boundary region configuration is not disclosed in the specification or drawings. The specification does not disclose exposing an active material or separator at a boundary of the battery, does not disclose HOW such exposed material would maintain the required electromechanical relationship between the positive and negative electrodes, and does not disclose HOW battery sealing, electrical isolation, and adhesion to the lower structure of the display are simultaneously achieved. Thus, applicant’s proposed implementation relies on explanation supplied in argument rather than on an enabling disclosure in the application as filed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are allowable over the prior art of record and would be patentable but for the 112 rejections above.
The specific limitations of “wherein the physically crosslinked organogel is an active material of the battery or a separator of a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the battery and is configured to act as an adhesive that attaches a lower structure of the display apparatus to the battery” in Claim 1, and similarly in Claims 18 and 20, are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
For example, Park et al. (US Publication 2020/0042042) discloses a display apparatus, comprising: a first display area UFR, a second display area UFR, and a foldable area FR disposed between the first display area and the second display area; a display panel 110; a first support member 120 disposed under the display panel; and a battery disposed under the first support member (paragraph 0041). However, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery includes a physically crosslinked organogel.
Daniels (US Publication 2004/0041800) discloses a battery 12 that is flexible and comprises a physically crosslinked organogel by disclosing an electrolyte layer comprising microencapsulated organic electrolyte material. Daniels, paragraph 0067. Microencapsulation inherently forms a physically constrained gel network maintained by non-covalent structural confinement rather than chemical crosslinking, such that the electrolyte layer is reasonably interpreted as a “physically crosslinked organogel” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Daniels also discloses a printing method of manufacture (similar as applicant) which is consistent with a physically constrained organogel. See Daniels, paragraphs 0009, 0067-0069, 0084-0085. However, Daniels does not disclose wherein the physically crosslinked organogel is an active material of the battery or a separator of a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the battery and is configured to act as an adhesive that attaches a lower structure of the display apparatus to the battery.
Yeon-Bok Jeong et al, The Role of an Adhesive Gel-Forming Polymer Coated on Separator for Rechargeable Lithium Metal Polymer Cells, 176 Solid State Ionics 47-51 (2005) (hereinafter Jeong) discloses an adhesive gel-forming polymer coated on a polyethylene separator for improving electrolyte retention, lithium-ion transport and adhesion between electrodes and the separator. However, Jeong does not disclose wherein a physically crosslinked organogel is an active material of a battery or a separator of a positive electrode and a negative electrode of a battery and is configured to act as an adhesive that attaches a lower structure of a display apparatus to a battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights