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 .
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 and 8 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 different from a brightness 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” definitively means because brightness is a subjective factor related to a particular viewer. 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 is different from the panel support member” because of this ambiguity. Claim 8 is indefinite because it depends from claim 7.
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 (FIG. 3B; [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 a form (or structure); [0199] of Applicant’s application—“The outer peripheral film CCF may include material having adhesiveness” or “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 different from a brightness 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), and
further wherein 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, Ham discloses, The display device (ED)of claim 1, wherein the support layer (RD) has a hardness ([0121]—support layer (RD) may include copper) greater than a hardness of the first attachment layer (ALS1), the second attachment layer (ALS2), and the outer peripheral film ([0122]—first attachment layer (ALS1) and second attachment layer (ALS2) may include a transparent adhesive; [0199] of Applicant’s application—“The outer peripheral film CCF may include material having adhesiveness” or “the outer peripheral film CCF may be defined as an adhesive”).
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 and Reasons for Allowance
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. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. Regarding claim 5, Ham discloses, the outer surface of the support layer (RD) is disposed inside an inner surface of the outer peripheral film (FIG. 3B; [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 a form (or structure); [0199] of Applicant’s application—“The outer peripheral film CCF may include material having adhesiveness” or “the outer peripheral film CCF may be defined as an adhesive”); however, Ham in combination with the other recited elements and limitations of claims 1 and 4 from which it depends does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the support layer is spaced apart from the outer peripheral film.2 Claim 6 is objected to because it depends from claim 5.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of claim 11 and remarks on page six (6) of the “Amendment” filed on July 28, 2026 (hereinafter the “Response”) have overcome the objection to claim 11 in the Office Action dated April 29, 2026 (hereinafter the “Office Action”). Also, Applicant’s amendment of claim 17 and remarks on pages six (6)-seven (7) of the Response have overcome the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 7 and remarks on page six (6) of the Response have been fully considered. However, they are not deemed persuasive for at least one or more of the following reasons. For example, page six (6) of the response states:
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the Office argues that the term "brightness quality" is unclear. Without admitting to the propriety of the objection, to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended claim 7 to remove "quality" from the term "brightness quality." As described in the present application, "brightness" is a property of the first attachment layer, the second attachment layer, the outer peripheral film, and the panel support member. Specifically, paragraphs [00210]-[00211] and [00219] of the present specification describe how the first attachment layer, the second attachment layer, and the outer peripheral film may have a brightness different from a brightness of the panel support member. Accordingly, a person skilled in the art would understand the metes and bounds of amended claim 7 and the claims depending therefrom.
The Examiner respectfully notes that a person skilled in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of amended claim 7 and the claims depending therefrom because these quoted paragraphs of Applicant’s application do not provide an objective standard or definition by which these different brightnesses may be determined making claim 7 ambiguous. The Examiner also respectfully notes that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that brightness of a display device is a subjective factor related to a particular viewer.
Applicant’s arguments on pages seven (7)-eight (8) of the Response regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0059430 A1 (Ham) have been fully considered. However, they are not deemed persuasive for at least one or more of the following reasons. For example, pages seven (7)-eight (8) of the Response state:
Applicant respectfully submits that Ham does not disclose every element of independent claim 1 in as complete detail as is contained in the claim. Specifically, Ham does not disclose "an outer peripheral film disposed on the first attachment layer and surrounding the support layer," as recited in independent claim 1.
The Office cites Ham for disclosing a spacer. (Office Action, p. 5). Ham is cited for disclosing that the spacer (spacer SPC) includes a first spacer adhesive layer ALS 1 and a second spacer adhesive layer ALS2 and a base layer RD between the first spacer adhesive layer ALS 1 and the second spacer adhesive layer ALS2. (Office Action, p. 6; Ham, FIG. 3B; para [0122]). The Office cites paragraphs [0122] and [0133] of Ham for allegedly disclosing the claimed outer peripheral film. (Office Action, p. 6-7).
However, paragraphs [0122] and [0133] of Ham do not disclose that the outer peripheral film surrounds the support layer of the spacer. Instead, paragraph [0133] of Ham teaches that the base layer RD of the spacer includes openings OP_R and that the openings OP_R may be filled with an adhesive. (Ham, para. [0133]). Ham goes on to teach that first spacer adhesive layer ALS1 and the second spacer adhesive layer ALS2 may contact each other through the openings OP_R. (Id.) Specifically, Ham states "in the spacer SPC2, openings OP_R may be formed in the base layer RD. The openings OP_R may be defined through the base layer RD. An adhesive layer ALS may fill the openings OP_R. The adhesive layer ALS may correspond to a form (or structure) in which the first spacer adhesive layer ALS1 (see FIG. 3B) and the second spacer adhesive layer ALS2 (see FIG. 3B) contact each other through the openings OP_R to be integral with each other." (Id.)
As described above, Ham discloses that the adhesive is disposed within openings included in the base layer RD. As the adhesive of Ham is disposed within openings in the base layer RD, the adhesive in such openings does not surround the base layer RD. Instead, the base layer of Ham surrounds the adhesive layer that fills the openings. Therefore, Ham does not disclose that the spacer includes "an outer peripheral film disposed on the first attachment layer and surrounding the support layer," as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, Ham does not disclose every feature of independent claim 1 in as complete detail as is contained in the claim.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, the above-quoted language of Ham does not require that ALS1 and ALS2 are located only within openings (OP_R) in RD such that ALS1 and ALS2 cannot also surround RD and that only RD can surround ALS1 and ALS2, as argued by Applicant. Rather, the Examiner respectfully submits, as shown, for example, in FIG. 3B of Ham, ALS1 is below RD and ALS1 is above RD, thereby resulting in ASL1 and ASL2 surrounding RD. The Examiner also respectfully submits that an adhesive layer may include two or more sublayers that are disposed on one another.
PNG
media_image3.png
723
933
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Notwithstanding the above, to advance prosecution, the Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant please consider scheduling an interview with the Examiner to discuss its proposed claim amendments to overcome the rejection of the claims prior to filing a written response to this Final Office Action. For example, perhaps Applicant could please consider amending claim 1 to recite that the outer peripheral film is a separate structure and not part of the first and second attachment layers. The Examiner would welcome a discussion of such proposed claim amendments and is available at the number provided below.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Office Action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this Final Office Action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this Final Office 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.
The following prior art not relied upon in rejecting the claims is nonetheless made of record and is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
US 11,615,740 B1 (Choi)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that brightness is a subjective factor related to a particular viewer (e.g., Col. 3, lines 48-49).
US 2007/0137775 A1 (Bargmann)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an adhesive layer may mean at least two sub-layers which are disposed on one another and which differ from one another where each sub-layer is selected for its ability to bond to one or more particular materials (e.g., Abstract; FIG. 1).
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 For clarity of the written record, the Examiner is interpreting the recited language of “wherein the support layer is spaced apart from the outer peripheral film” as requiring a gap between the support layer and the outer peripheral film. Otherwise, claim 5 would not be objected-to.
Prosecution Insights