DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II and Species I in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the terms “about” in lines 2 and 3 of the claim, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make a clear determination of whether or not a specific value reasonably constitutes as being “about 90 micrometers” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 16 recites the term “about” in line 2 of the claim, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make a clear determination of whether or not a specific value reasonably constitutes as being “about 20 micrometers” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
A. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Kim
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 11-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0209145 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding independent claim 11, Figure 9 of Kim discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel 130 (“display panel”- ¶0099) comprising a light-emitting element (i.e., “light emitting elements”- ¶0050) above a substrate (i.e., “flexible substrate”- ¶0050); and
a support member 510 (“support member”- ¶0099) under the display panel 130, and having an end surface on a virtual plane with an end surface of the display panel 130.
Regarding claim 12, Figure 9 of Kim discloses wherein the support member 510 comprises:
a central portion (i.e., the portion of 510 in areas DA and NDA not including area OEA) having a flat bottom surface; and
an edge portion (i.e., the portion of 510 in area OEA) comprising the end surface of the support member 510, and a connection surface connecting the end surface of the support member 510 and the flat bottom surface of the central portion.
Regarding claim 13, Figure 9 of Kim discloses wherein a thickness of the central portion of the support member 510 is different from a thickness of the edge portion of the support member 510.
Regarding claim 14, Figure 9 of Kim discloses wherein the thickness of the central portion of the support member 510 is greater than the thickness of the edge portion of the support member 510.
Regarding claim 19, Figure 9 of Kim discloses wherein the support member 510 comprises metal (¶0102).
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Kim.
Regarding claim 15, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the thickness of the central portion of the support member is greater than or equal to about 90 micrometers and less than or equal to about 250 micrometers.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness of the central portion of the support member within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 16, Figure 9 of Kim discloses a minimum thickness of the edge portion of the support member 510.
Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the minimum thickness of the edge portion of the support member is less than or equal to about 20 micrometers.
However, it would have been obvious to form the minimum thickness of the edge portion of the support member within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
B. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Yug
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yug (US 2020/0301474 A1).
Regarding independent claim 11, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel 100 (“display panel”- ¶0070) comprising a light-emitting element EML (“light emitting layer”- ¶0074) above a substrate TSL (“touch layer”- ¶0074) (see Fig. 5 as viewed upside down); and
a support member 400_5 (“polymer base layer”- ¶0167) under the display panel 100, and having an end surface on a virtual plane with an end surface of the display panel 100.
Regarding claim 12, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses wherein the support member 400_5 comprises:
a central portion (i.e., the central portion of 400_5) having a flat bottom surface; and
an edge portion (i.e., the side edge portion of 400_5) comprising the end surface of the support member 400_5, and a connection surface (i.e., the diagonal surface of 400_5) connecting the end surface of the support member 400_5 and the flat bottom surface of the central portion.
Regarding claim 13, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses wherein a thickness of the central portion of the support member 400_5 is different from a thickness of the edge portion of the support member 400_5.
Regarding claim 14, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses wherein the thickness of the central portion of the support member 400_5 is greater than the thickness of the edge portion of the support member 400_5.
Regarding claim 17, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses wherein the connection surface of the support member 400_5 has an inclined cross-sectional shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yug in view of Xin et al. (US 2022/0255037 A1, hereinafter “Xin”).
Regarding claim 20, Figure 23 of Yug (as viewed upside down) discloses wherein the support member 400_5 comprises a polymer such as polyimide (¶0088 and Claim 9).
Yug does not expressly disclose wherein the support member comprises fiber reinforced plastic.
Figure 3 of Xin discloses a display device comprising a support member 1 (“base substrate”- ¶0032) which is comprised of a polymer such as polyimide (PI) or fiber reinforced plastic (¶0032).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yug such that the support member comprises fiber reinforced plastic as taught by Xin for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06), specifically utilizing a suitable and well-known type of polymer for the support member (Xin ¶0032).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2019/0341566 A1), which discloses a display device comprising a display panel and a support member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817