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. Claim s 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al. ( US 20140034994 ) in view of Yamazaki ( US 20030034497 ). Regarding claim 18, (e.g. figs. 2A, 5C and 6B) teaches a flexible display comprising: a flexible substrate 11 [0081]; a transistor [0040] disposed on the flexible substrate ; an inorganic layer 12 including a first inorganic layer [00040; SiN] disposed on the flexible substrate ; a light emitting element 20 disposed on the inorganic la y er [0041] and electrically connected to the transistor [inherent] a thin film encapsulation layer 124 covering the light emitting element [0081] and a crack suppressing layer disposed d irectly on the inorganic layer and along an edge of the flexible substrate ; wherein the crack suppressing layer directly contacts the inorganic layer without contacting the thin film encapsulation layer. Yamane teaches a material at the periphery disposed on a barrier layer (figs. 6b, 5c), corresponding to the claimed crack suppressing layer disposed on an inorganic layer along an edge. Such material reinforces the edge and prevents damage, thereby inherently suppressing crack propagation. The material is positioned outside the encapsulation region and therefore does not contact the encapsulation layer. Alternatively, the relative position of such layers would have been an obvious matter of design choice as a matter of “ o bvious to try” . It is noted that it is not inventive choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success as long as the disclosed layer still located at the dicing area. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) [ MPEP 2143; 2144.04 ]. Moreover, Yamazaki (e.g. figs.3B, 4a, 6b) teaches a well-known in the art light emitting display. The flexible light emitting display includes a flexible substrate 302, a transistor 303 disposed on the flexible substrate, a plurality of inorganic layers 214 interposed between the substrate and the light emitting element 205 [0094] . Yamazaki’s disclosure teaches that the transistor formed on the substrate are electrically to the light emitting device. Yamazaki discloses: ”Specifically, two or more barrier films made of an inorganic material (hereinafter, simply referred to as barrier films) are provided. Furthermore, a stress relaxing film containing a resin (hereinafter, simply referred to as a stress relaxing film) is provided between the barrier films. Then, an OLED is formed on these three or more layers of the insulating films. The OLED is sealed to complete a light emitting device ” [0017]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least four inorganic layer sequentially disposed on the flexible substrate as suggested by Yamazaki because providing a plurality of inorganic layers improves barrier performance, improves reliability . it enhance s moisture resistance and mechanical durability (¶¶ 0068-0070). Moreover, it would have been obvious to electrically connect the light emitting device with the transistors as suggested by Yamazaki to drive and control the light emitting device disclosed by Yamane. Regarding claim 19, Yamane in view of Yamazaki teaches that an edge of the third inorganic layer and an edge of the fourth inorganic layer are spaced apart from the edge of the flexible substrate (i.e. vertically). Regarding claim 20, Yamane in view of Yamazaki teaches that the first inorganic layer and the second inorganic layer extends from a display area of the flexible substrate where the light emitting element is disposed to the edge of the flexible substrate (see Yamazaki’s fig. 6B) Regarding claim 21, Yamane in view of Yamazaki teaches crack suppressing layer is in contact with at least one of a lateral side of the third inorganic layer and a lateral side of the fourth inorganic layer (see Yamazaki’s fig. 6B). Regarding claim 22, Yamane in view of Yamazaki teaches the crack suppressing layer is spaced apart from an edge of the flexible substrate. Note that the crack surprising layer is disposed between devices at the center of the flexible substrate. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 26-37 are allowed. Independent claim 26 is allowed because the prior art of record does not teach a flexible display having an organic material layer disposed directly on the fourth inorganic layer and along an edge of the flexible substrate, wherein the organic material layer directly contacts the fourth inorganic layer without contacting the thin film encapsulation layer, and wherein the organic material layer comprises a same material as at least one of the first organic layer and the second organic layer as claimed. Independent claim 32 is allowed because the prior art of record does not teach a flexible display having an organic material layer disposed directly on the fourth inorganic layer and along an edge of the flexible substrate, wherein the organic material layer directly contacts the fourth inorganic layer without contacting the thin film encapsulation layer, and at least an upper surface of the organic material layer is exposed as claimed. Claims 24 and 24 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. Dependent claims 27 to 31 and 33-37 are allowed because they depend on one of the allowable independent claims discussed above. They include all of the recited limitations of the claim on they depend on. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LEONARDO ANDUJAR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1912 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Thursday 10 AM to 8 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Patricia L Engle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6660 . 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. /LEONARDO ANDUJAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991 Conferees: /LEE E SANDERSON/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991 /Patricia L Engle/ SPRS, Art Unit 3991