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 Group I, claims 1-17 in the “Response To Restriction Required” filed on March 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on November 22, 2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
on line 5, “second area,” should be “second area, and”; and
on line 6, “the bending area” should be “further wherein the bending area”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 8, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 7, lines 1-3 recite: “wherein at least one of the first attachment layer, the second attachment layer, and the outer peripheral film has a brightness quality different from a brightness quality of the panel support member.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear what “brightness quality” means. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-3 of claim 7 as reciting “wherein at least one of the first attachment layer, the second attachment layer, and the outer peripheral film has a quality different from a quality of the panel support member” because of this ambiguity. Claim 8 is indefinite because it depends from claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, lines 1-3 recite: “wherein the support layer has a hardness quality greater than a hardness quality of the first attachment layer, the second attachment layer, and the outer peripheral film.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear what “hardness quality” means. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-3 of claim 17 as reciting “wherein the support layer has a quality different than a quality of the first attachment layer, the second attachment layer, and the outer peripheral film” because of this ambiguity.
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 1, 2, 7, 9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0059430 A1 (Ham).
Regarding claim 1, Ham discloses, A display device (display device (ED); FIG. 1A; [0050]), comprising:
a display panel (display panel (DP); FIG. 3A; [0056]) including light emitting elements ([0069]);
PNG
media_image1.png
526
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a panel support member (panel support member (PLT); FIG. 3A; [0097]) disposed on a surface (annotated FIG. 3A, above) of the display panel (DP); and
a spacer (spacer (SPC); FIG. 3B; [0061]) disposed on a surface (annotated FIG. 3A, above) of the panel support member (PLT), the spacer (SPC) including:
PNG
media_image2.png
542
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first attachment layer (first attachment layer (ALS1); FIG. 3B; [0118] and [0133]);
a support layer (support layer (RD); FIG. 3B; [0118]) disposed on the first attachment layer (ALS1);
an outer peripheral film ([0122] of Ham—the transparent adhesive on first attachment layer (ALS1) and second attachment layer (ALS2) and [0133] of Ham— first attachment layer (ALS1) and second attachment layer (ALS2) may be form (or structure); [0199] of Applicant’s application—“the outer peripheral film CCF may be defined as an adhesive”) disposed on the first attachment layer (ALS1) and surrounding the support layer (RD), and
a second attachment layer (second attachment layer (ALS2); FIG. 3B; [0118] and [0133]) disposed on the support layer (RD) and the outer peripheral film ([0122] and [0133] of Ham; [0199] of Applicant’s application).
Regarding claim 2, Ham discloses, The display device (ED) of claim 1, wherein outer surfaces of the first attachment layer (ALS1), the second attachment layer (ALS2), and the outer peripheral film ([0122] and [0133] of Ham; [0199] of Applicant’s application) are aligned with each other (see, e.g., FIG. 3B).
Regarding claim 7, Ham discloses, The display device (ED) of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first attachment layer (ALS1), the second attachment layer (ALS2), and the outer peripheral film ([0122] and [0133] of Ham; [0199] of Applicant’s application) has a brightness quality different from a brightness quality of the panel support member (PLT) ([0122]—first attachment layer (ALS1) and second attachment layer (ALS2) may include a transparent adhesive and [0102]—panel support member may be stainless steel which is not transparent).1
Regarding claim 9, Ham discloses, The display device (ED) of claim 1, wherein an entirety of a lower surface of the support layer (RD) is in direct contact with an upper surface of the first attachment layer (ALS1) (annotated FIG. 3B, above).
Regarding claim 11, Ham discloses, The display device (ED) of claim 1, wherein
the display panel (DP) includes:
a first area (first area (AA1); FIG. 3A; [0074]);
a second area (second area (AA2); FIG. 3A; [0074])); and
a bending area (bending area (BA); FIG. 3A; [0074]) between the first area (AA1) and the second area (AA2), the bending area (BA) is bent so that the second area (AA2) is disposed below (FIG. 3B) the first area (AA1), and the spacer (SPC) is disposed to overlap (FIG. 3B) the first area (AA1) and the second area (AA2) in a thickness direction (annotated FIG. 3B, above).
Regarding claim 12, Ham discloses, The display device (ED) of claim 11, further comprising a panel protection member (panel protection member (PPL); FIG. 3B; [0097]) disposed between the display panel (DP) and the panel support member (PLT), wherein
the panel protection member (PPL) includes a first panel protection member (first panel protection member (PPL-1); FIG. 3B; [0100]) and a second panel protection member (second panel protection member (PPL-2); FIG. 3B; [0100]) that are spaced apart from each other (FIG. 3B),
the first panel protection member (PPL-1) is disposed on the first area (AA1),
the second panel protection member (PPL-2) is disposed on the second area (AA2), and
the first panel protection member (PPL-1) and the second panel protection member (PPL-2) overlap (FIG. 3B) the outer peripheral film ([0122] and [0133] of Ham; [0199] of Applicant’s application) and the support layer (RD) in the thickness direction (annotated FIG. 3B, above).
Regarding claim 13, Ham discloses, The display device (ED) of claim 12, wherein the second panel protection member (PPL-2) is disposed between (FIG. 3B) the spacer (SPC) and the second area (AA2).
Regarding claim 14, Ham discloses, The display device (ED) of claim 11, wherein
a size (FIG. 3B) of the spacer (SPC) is smaller than a size of the panel support member (PLT), and
the spacer (SPC) overlaps (FIG. 3B) a portion of the panel support member (PLT) in the thickness direction (annotated FIG. 3B, above) and is disposed adjacent (FIG. 3B) to the bending area (BA).
Regarding claim 15, Ham discloses, The display device (ED) of claim 1, further comprising:
a panel lower member (panel lower member (LM); FIG. 2B; [0065]and [0089]) disposed between the display panel (DP) and the panel support member (PLT),
wherein the panel lower member (LM) includes at least one of a barrier layer (barrier layer (BRL); FIG. 3B; [0097]) and a cushion layer.
Regarding claim 16, Ham discloses, The display device (ED) of claim 1, wherein the panel support member (PLT) includes a metal plate ([0102]).
Regarding claim 17, The display device (ED)of claim 1, wherein the support layer (RD) has a hardness quality ([0121]—support layer (RD) may include copper) greater than a hardness quality of the first attachment layer (ALS1), the second attachment layer (ALS2), and the outer peripheral film ([0122] and [0133] of Ham; [0199] of Applicant’s application; the transparent adhesive of the outer peripheral film per [0122] of Ham and the form or structure of (ALS1) and (ALS2) per [0133] of Ham are different materials (i.e., quality) than the copper of support layer (RD) of Ham).2
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant may argue that Ham does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first attachment layer and the second attachment layer have an area greater in size than an area of the support layer in plan view.
However, there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding a size of an area of the first attachment layer and the second attachment layer relative to an area of the support layer in plan view—i.e., a size of an area of the first attachment layer and the second attachment layer can be: (i) smaller than an area of the support layer, (ii) the same as an area of the support layer, or (iii) greater than an area of the support layer—and, absent 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 try each of these possible solutions, one of which is recited in claim 3. See, MPEP 2143(E)—“Obvious To Try”—Choosing From A Finite Number Of Identified, Predicable Solutions, With A Reasonable Expectation Of Success.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant may argue that Ham does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein outer surfaces of the first attachment layer and the second attachment layer protrude beyond an outer surface of the support layer.
However, there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding protrusion of outer surfaces of the first attachment layer and the second attachment layer relative to an outer surface of the support layer —i.e., outer surfaces of the first attachment layer and the second attachment layer can: (i) not protrude beyond an outer surface of the support layer or (ii) protrude beyond an outer surface of the support layer—and, absent 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 try each of these possible solutions, one of which is recited in claim 4. See, MPEP 2143(E), above.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant may argue that Ham does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the first attachment layer, the second attachment layer, and the outer peripheral film includes a dye or a pigment having an opaque color.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teaching of Ham before him/her that at least one of the first attachment layer (ALS1), the second attachment layer (ALS2), and the outer peripheral film ([0122] and [0133] of Ham; [0199] of Applicant’s application) includes a dye or a pigment having an opaque color to prevent transmission of light therethrough. See also, MPEP 2144(I)—The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham in view of US 2024/0176390 A1 (Lee).
Regarding claim 10, Ham does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the support layer includes an SUS metal.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a flexible display device (flexible display device (100) FIG. 2A; [0049] and [0084]) may utilize a SUS metal to improve impact resistance characteristics ([0152]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Ham and Lee before him/her that the support layer (RD) of Ham includes an SUS metal, as taught Lee, to improve the impact resistance characteristics of the display device (ED) of Ham, as also taught by Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0032211 A1 (Zhou)—Discloses a flexible display device that includes a display panel including light emitting elements; a panel support member disposed on a surface of the display panel; and a spacer disposed on a surface of the panel support member.
CN 114550598 A (Tomohiro)—Discloses a flexible display device that includes a display panel including light emitting elements; a panel support member disposed on a surface of the display panel; and a spacer disposed on a surface of the panel support member.
US 2021/0215976 A1 (LEE)—Discloses that SUS metals have good thermal conductivity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Please see the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 7 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
2 Please see the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 17 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
Prosecution Insights