DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claim 8 in the reply filed on June 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1, 5, 10, and 14 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 1 recites “an extension area between the curvature area and the inflection areas” in lines 7-8. That recitation is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “an extension area between the curvature area and each of the inflection areas.”
Claim 1 recites “a continuous plane throughout the extension area, the inflection areas, and the non-folding areas.” The claim is not clear as the claim recites that there is an extension area between the curvature area and the inflection areas, thus, there are two extension areas. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a continuous plane throughout the extension areas, the inflection areas, and the non-folding areas.”
Claim 5 recites “the second plate is not in the folding area.” The claim is not clear since as recited in claim 4 from which claim 5 depends, the second plate is below the first plate, thus, it cannot be “in the folding area” which is above the first plate.
Claim 10 recites “a first non-folding area at a first side of the folding axis and a second non-folding area at a second side of the folding area” in lines 1-3. The claim is confusing. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a first non-folding area at a first side of the folding axis and a second non-folding area at a second side of the folding axis.”
Claim 10 recites “a display circuit board overlapping the first non-folding area and the (2-1)th plate and below the (2-1)th plate.” That recitation is confusing. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a display circuit board overlapping the first non-folding area and the (2-1)th plate, and being located below the (2-1)th plate.”
Claim 14 recites “an extension area between the curvature area and the inflection areas” in lines 7-8. That recitation is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “an extension area between the curvature area and each of the inflection areas.”
Claim 14 recites “a continuous plane throughout the extension area, the inflection areas, and the non-folding areas.” The claim is not clear as the claim recites that there is an extension area between the curvature area and the inflection areas, thus, there are two extension areas. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “a continuous plane throughout the extension areas, the inflection areas, and the non-folding areas.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0201710 A1) (“Kim”).
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses a display device (abstr.) comprising a display panel – element 10 (0059-0061, Figs. 2B, 3, 4) comprising a folding axis, a folding area and a non-folding area on both sides of the folding axis – it has been interpreted that the display panel of Kim includes areas corresponding to the areas of element SM1 - including a folding axis in the middle of the folding area (0018, 0085-0088, Figs. 5A-5D), the display panel being configured to be folding along a folding axis (0084, Figs. 5C and 5D), the folding area including a curvature area, inflection areas on both sides of the curvature area and an extension area between the curvature area and each of the inflection areas – although Kim does not name the areas of the folding area as recited in the claim, the area BA of the display panel in Figs. 5A and 5B corresponding to the folding area as shown in Figs. 5C and 5D includes a curvature area with the folding axis in the middle, and extension areas following the ends of the curvature area, and inflection areas following the ends of each of the extension areas; and a first plate below the display panel – element SM1 – wherein the first plate includes a lattice structure overlapping the curvature area, and is formed as a continuous plane throughout the extension areas and the inflection areas and the non-folding areas (0089-0091, Figs. 5A and 5B).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the device of claim 1, comprising a second plate – SP1 and SP2 - below the first plate, wherein the second plate overlaps a portion of the non-folding areas (0094-0096, Figs. 5A and 5B).
As to claim 5, Kim teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the second plate – SP1 and SP2 - is not in the folding area (Figs. 5C and 5D).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Park (US 2021/0259093 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Kim teaches the device of claim 4. Kim teaches that the first plate includes stainless steel (0087), and that the second plate includes a metal (0087, 0096), but is silent with respect to the second plate including a copper alloy.
Park discloses a display device (abstr.), wherein a second plate – element 710 – includes a copper alloy (0129, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second plate of Kim including a copper alloy as it is known in the art of display devices to form lower plates including a copper alloy. It has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Yoo (US 11042253 B2).
With respect to claim 10, Kim teaches the device of claim 1. Kim teaches the non-folding areas include a first non-folding area at a first side of the folding axis and a second non-folding area at a second side of the folding axis (0095, 0096, Figs. 5A and 5B), the second plate – element SP2 – includes a (2-1)th plate overlapping the first non-folding area and a (2-2)th plate overlapping the second non-folding area (Figs. 5A and 5B). Kim is silent regarding a display circuit board overlapping the first non-folding area and the (2-1)th plate, and being located below the (2-1)th plate. Yoo discloses a display device (abstr.) comprising a display circuit board – element 201 – overlapping a non-folding area and a plate – element 110 - and located below the plate (col. 5, lines 17-38, col. 6, lines 31-46, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a display circuit board overlapping the first non-folding area and the (2-1)th plate, and being located below the plate as such configuration for the display circuit boards is known in the art of display devices.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Yoo, and further in view of Park.
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Yoo teach the device of claim 10. The references are silent with respect to the (2-1)th plate and the (2-2)th plate including different materials. Park discloses a display device (abstr.), wherein a second plate – element 710 - includes a metal alloy (0129) providing a non-limiting example of a copper alloy (0129, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the (2-1)th plate and the (2-2)th plate including different materials – e.g. copper alloys having different compositions as it is known in the art of display devices to form lower plates including a metal alloy. It has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0201710 A1) (“Kim”), in view of Park (US 2019/0334114 A1) (“Park 2”).
With respect to claim 14, Kim discloses a display device (abstr.) comprising a display panel – element 10 (0059-0061) comprising a folding axis and a folding area, and non-folding areas on both sides of the folding axis – it has been interpreted that the display panel of Kim includes areas corresponding to the areas of element SM1 (0018, 0085-0088, Figs. 5A-5D), the display panel being configured to be folded along a folding axis (0084, Figs. 5C and 5D), a folding area including a curvature area, inflection areas on both sides of the curvature area and an extension area between the curvature area and each of the inflection areas – although Kim does not name the areas of the folding area as recited in the claim, the area BA of the display panel in Figs. 5A and 5B corresponding to the folding area as shown in Figs. 5C and 5D includes a curvature area with the folding axis in the middle, and extension areas following the ends of the curvature area, and inflection areas following the ends of each of the extension areas; and a first plate below the display panel – element SM1 – wherein the first plate includes a lattice structure overlapping the curvature area, and is formed as a continuous plane throughout the extension areas and the inflection areas, and the non-folding areas (0089-0091, Figs. 5A and 5B).
Kim is silent regarding a digitizer layer below the first plate. Park 2 discloses a display device (abstr.) comprising a first plate – element 220 (0072-0076, Fig. 4), and a digitizer layer – element 230 - below the first plate (0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the device of Kim a digitizer layer below the first plate as it is known in the art of display devices to include in them a digitizer layer below a first plate.
Regarding claim 17, Kim and Park 2 teach the device of claim 14. Kim discloses a second plate – SP1 and SP2 - below the first plate, wherein the second plate overlaps a portion of the non-folding areas (0094-0096, Figs. 5A and 5B). Yoo discloses a second plate – element 240 – below the digitizer layer – element 230 (0086, Fig. 6).
As to claim 20, Kim and Park 2 teach the device of claim 17. Park 2 discloses a buffer layer – elements 471 and 472 - between the digitizer layer – element 230 – and the second plate – element 240 (0112, Fig. 6).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record fails to teach or suggest the display device of claims 2 and 3, specifically Equation 1 of claim 2 determining a rigidity index of the first plate, and Equation 2 determining a thickness of the first plate.
The Examiner notes as claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1 which is rejected under 35 USC 112(b), they would be allowable if claim 1 is amended to overcome 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record fails to teach or suggest the display device of claims 6 and 7, specifically Equation 1 of claim 6 determining a rigidity index of the second plate, and Equation 3 determining a thickness of the second plate.
The Examiner notes as claims 6 and 7 depend indirectly from claim 1 which is rejected under 35 USC 112(b), they would be allowable if claim 1 is amended to overcome 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record fails to teach or suggest the display device of claims 12 and 13, specifically, a device wherein a modulus of the (2-1)th plate is smaller than a modulus of the (2-1)th plate (claim 12), and a device wherein a portion of the (2-1)th plate, which overlaps the display circuit board, and another portion of the (2-1)th plate, which does not overlap the display circuit board, include different materials.
The Examiner notes as claims 12 and 13 depend indirectly from claim 1 which is rejected under 35 USC 112(b), they would be allowable if claim 1 is amended to overcome 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record fails to teach or suggest the display device of claims 15 and 16, specifically Equation 1 of claim 15 determining a rigidity index of the first plate, and Equation 2 of claim 16 determining a thickness of the first plate.
The Examiner notes as claims 15 and 16 depend indirectly from claim 1 which is rejected under 35 USC 112(b), they would be allowable if claim 1 is amended to overcome 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record fails to teach or suggest the display device of claims 18 and 19, specifically Equation 1 of claim 18 determining a rigidity index of the second plate, and Equation 3 of claim 19 determining a thickness of the second plate.
The Examiner notes as claims18 and 19 depend indirectly from claim 1 which is rejected under 35 USC 112(b), they would be allowable if claim 1 is amended to overcome 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights