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 § 103
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 and 4-9, 12-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US Patent No. 11307613 B2 and Yu hereinafter) in view of Wang et al (US Patent No. 11395425 B2 and Wang hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 1, Yu discloses (figs. 18 and 21) a foldable display device having a folding area and non-folding areas (NFR) adjacent to the folding area (FR), comprising: a first layer (including 931, 932 and 603_2); a back plate (501 and 502) on the first layer; a display panel (200) on the back plate; and a touch sensor on the display panel; wherein the first layer includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion overlapping the folding area and the second portion overlapping the non-folding areas from a plan view.
PNG
media_image1.png
778
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first portion includes a material having a modulus of elasticity greater than that of the second portion, wherein the first layer is integrally formed and the first portion and the second portion are part of a single continuous body of the first layer, wherein the first portion of the first layer and the second portion of the first layer are made from the same material and wherein the first layer is positioned on a rear surface of the display panel which is opposite display surface of the display panel.
However, Wang teaches (fig.1) wherein the first portion (131, harder) includes a material having a modulus of elasticity greater than that of the second portion (132, softer), wherein the first layer is integrally formed and the first portion and the second portion are part of a single continuous body of the first layer, wherein the first portion of the first layer and the second portion of the first layer are made from the same material (Organic material) and wherein the first layer (13) is positioned on a rear surface of the display panel which is opposite display surface of the display panel (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first portion of the first layer and the second portion of the first layer are made from the same material of Wang to device of Yu in order to effectively cushion the stress near the bending area (Wang, and col 5, lines 35-40).
Regarding Claim 4, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 1. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) comprising: a second layer (adhesive layer) disposed between the back plate and the first layer.
Regarding Claim 5, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 1. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) wherein the first portion and the second portion have substantially the same thickness.
Regarding Claim 6, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 1. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) comprising: a first adhesive layer (900) between the back plate and the first layer; and a second adhesive layer (920) between the back plate and the display panel, wherein both the first and second adhesive layers overlap with the first portion from a plan view.
Regarding Claim 7, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 4. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) comprising: a first adhesive layer (900) between the back plate and the first layer; a second adhesive layer (920) between the back plate and the display panel; and a third adhesive layer (910) between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the first, the second, and the third adhesive layers overlap with the first portion from a plan view.
Regarding Claim 8, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 7. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) comprising: a cover window on the touch sensor; a fourth adhesive layer disposed between the touch sensor and the cover window.
Regarding Claim 9, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 8. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) wherein the fourth adhesive layer (not labeled) overlaps with the first portion from a plan view.
Regarding Claim 12, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 1. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) wherein the first portion and the second portion include any one of materials selected from silicone, silicone foam, acrylic foam, polypropylene foam, polyurethane, polyurethane foam, or thermoplastic polyurethane.
Regarding Claim 13, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 1. Wang further teaches wherein the first portion has a thickness of 5-30 μm (Figs 8A-B), which overlaps the range (100 to 1000 μm ) recited in the claim.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified thickness of the first portion of Wang to device of Yu in order to provide flexibility and impact resistance in a bending area [Wang, (0007)].
Regarding Claim 15, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 1. Wang further teaches wherein the first portion has a thickness of 5-30 μm (Figs 8A-B), which overlaps the range (100 to 1000 μm ) recited in the claim.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified thickness of the first portion of Wang to device of Yu in order to provide flexibility and impact resistance in a bending area (0007).
Regarding Claim 16, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 8. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) wherein the cover window and the back plate include at least one material that is common to both the cover window and back plate (material plastic/polymer).
Regarding Claim 17, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 16. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) wherein the at least one material that is common includes a polymer.
Regarding Claim 18, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 4. Yu further discloses (figs.18 and 21) wherein the second layer and the back plate include at least one material that is common to both the second layer and back plate (material plastic/polymer).
Claims 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al in view Wang et al and further in view of Lee et al (US Patent No. 10211421 B2 and Lee hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 10, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the display panel includes: a thin film transistor including a gate electrode, source electrode, a drain electrode, and a semiconductor layer; a light emitting element on the thin film transistor, the light emitting element including an anode, a light emitting unit, and a cathode; and an encapsulation part on the light emitting element, wherein, in operation, the encapsulation part prevents the thin film transistor and the light emitting element from being oxidized or damaged due to moisture. However, Lee teaches (figs. 1-19) wherein the display panel includes: a thin film transistor including a gate electrode (104), source electrode (106a), a drain electrode (106b), and a semiconductor layer; a light emitting element on the thin film transistor, the light emitting element including an anode (111), a light emitting unit (114), and a cathode (112); and an encapsulation part on the light emitting element, wherein, in operation, the encapsulation part (100b) prevents the thin film transistor and the light emitting element from being oxidized or damaged due to moisture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine he first portion includes a material having a modulus of elasticity smaller than that of the second portion of Lee to device of Yu/Wang in order to provide protects the organic light emitting diode from moisture (Lee, col 5, lines 58-62).
Regarding Claim 11, Yu/Wang/Lee discloses the foldable display device of claim 10. Yu discloses (figs. 18 and 21) wherein the touch sensor having electrodes are disposed on the encapsulation part.
Regarding Claim 19, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 1, Yu does not explicitly disclose wherein the display panel includes: a thin film transistor including a gate electrode, source electrode, a drain electrode, and a semiconductor layer; an insulating layer disposed on the thin film transistor; and a light emitting element disposed on the insulating layer, the light emitting element including an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting unit between the anode and the cathode. However, Lee teaches (figs. 1-19) wherein the display panel includes: a thin film transistor disposed on the flexible substrate, the thin film transistor including a gate electrode (104), source electrode (106a), a drain electrode (106b), and a semiconductor layer; an insulating layer disposed on the thin film transistor; and a light emitting element disposed on the insulating layer, the light emitting element including an anode (111), a light emitting unit (114), and a cathode (112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine he first portion includes a material having a modulus of elasticity smaller than that of the second portion of Lee to device of Yu/Wang in order to provide protects the organic light emitting diode from moisture (Lee, col 5, lines 58-62).
Regarding Claim 20, Yu/Wang/Lee discloses the foldable display device of claim 19. Lee further teaches an intermediate electrode (113) within the insulating layer; a first contact hole within the insulating layer; and a second contact hole within the insulating layer, wherein the insulating layer includes a first planarization layer (107) and a second planarization layer (109) disposed over the first planarization layer, and wherein the first contact hole is in the first planarization layer and the second contact hole is in the second planarization layer (fig.19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the claimed limitations of Lee to device of Yu/Wang in order to protect the pixel layer from foreign substances such as dust particles (col 15, lines 30-35).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al in view of Wang et al and further in view of Shin et al (US Pub no. 2020/0119290 A1 and Shin hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 14, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the first portion has a modulus of 1 to 30 MPa. Shin discloses wherein the first portion has a modulus 0.01 Mpa to 500 Mpa (claim 9), which overlaps the range (1 to 30 MPa) recited in the claim.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modulus of the first portion of Shin to device of Yu in order to improved impact absorption member (Shin, [0057]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al in view Wang et al and further in view of Wang et al (US Patent No. 9983424 B2 and Wang-1 hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 21, Yu/Wang discloses the foldable display device of claim 1, but fails to disclose an opening pattern in the first portion of the first layer, wherein the opening pattern is configured to cause the modulus of elasticity of the first portion to be different from that of the second portion. However, Wang-1 teaches (fig.3) an opening pattern (182) in the first portion of the first layer (180), wherein the opening pattern is configured to cause the modulus of elasticity of the first portion to be different from that of the second portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the opening pattern of Wang-1 to device of Yu/Wang in order to improve the restoration force of the high stiffness backplate (Shin, [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of the references 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 ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841