DETAILED ACTION
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 1-12 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 the limitation "non-folding areas disposed at two opposite sides in the folding area" in line 4 of the claim. It is unclear to the examiner how the non-folding areas of the display are able to be disposed in the folding area of the display. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an end of a bonding layer between a bonding layer" in lines 1-2 of the claim as well as “a bonding layer” in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the same bonding layer as disclosed in claim 1 or if these are three new bonding layers being claimed. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claims 2-12 inherit the same deficiencies as claim 1 and therefore are considered rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for at least for same reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (2020/0136067).
Regarding Claim 1: Kim teaches a foldable display device comprising: a display panel (DP in fig. 3) including a display area (DA, fig. 3) and a non-display area (NDA, fig. 3) configured to surround the display area (fig. 3), the display panel including a folding area (FA in fig. 2) defined in the display area and the non-display area (fig. 2) and non-folding areas (NFA1, NFA2) disposed at two opposite sides in the folding area (fig. 2); a cover window (WD in fig. 2) disposed on the display panel (fig. 2) and having a size smaller than the display panel (in the portion shown in fig. 8 WD is smaller than DP); and a bonding layer (AD1) disposed between the cover window and the display panel (fig. 2) and configured to adjoin a bottom surface of the cover window (fig. 2), wherein an end of the bonding layer (AD1 in FA in fig. 2) in the folding area protrudes beyond an end of the bonding layer disposed in the non-folding areas (AD1 in NFA1 and NFA1 shown in fig. 2) in a direction of a folding direction (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2: Kim teaches the end of the bonding layer in the folding area is coincident with an end of the cover window (fig. 5 shows AD1 and WD are flush together), and the end of the bonding layer in the non-folding areas is positioned to be closer to inside the cover window than the end of the cover window (fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3: Kim teaches an area in which the end of the bonding layer in the folding area is coincident with the end of the cover window is an area corresponding to a folding axis (figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding Claim 4: Kim teaches an end of the bonding layer, which is disposed in the folding area so as to be closest to the non-folding areas (figs. 2 and 5), is disposed to be closer to the outside of the cover window than an end of the bonding layer disposed in the non- folding areas (figs. 2, 5, and 7), and wherein the end of the bonding layer disposed in the folding area is disposed to be closest to the non-folding areas (figs. 2-8) and is disposed to be closer to the inside of the cover window than an end of the bonding layer disposed in the area corresponding to the folding axis (figs. 2-8).
Regarding Claim 5: Kim teaches an end of a bonding layer between a bonding layer (figs. 2-8), which is disposed in the folding area so as to be closest to the non-folding areas (figs. 2-8), and a bonding layer, which is disposed to correspond to the folding axis (figs. 2-8), is disposed to be gradually close to the inside of the cover window between the end of the bonding layer disposed to be closest to the non-folding areas and the end of the bonding layer disposed to correspond to the folding axis (figs. 2-8).
Regarding Claim 13: Kim teaches a foldable display device comprising: a display panel (DP in fig. 3) including a folding area (FA in fig. 2) associated with a folding axis (FX in fig. 2) and non-folding areas (NFA1 and NFA2 in fig. 2) at two sides of the folding area (fig. 2); a cover window (WD in fig. 2) disposed on the display panel (fig. 2); and a bonding layer (AD1 in fig. 2) disposed between the cover window and the display panel (figs. 2-8) and adjoining a bottom surface of the cover window (figs. 2-8), wherein, in a direction of the folding axis, a length of the bonding layer in the folding area (figs. 2-8) is greater than a length of the bonding layer in the non-folding areas (figs. 2-8).
Regarding Claim 14: Kim teaches a foldable display device comprising: a display panel (DP in fig. 3) including first and second non-folding areas (NFA1 and NFA2 in fig. 2) and a folding area (FA in fig. 2) disposed between the first and second non-folding areas (fig. 2); a cover window (WD in fig. 2) disposed on the display panel (figs. 2-8) and having a size smaller than the display panel; and a bonding layer (AD1 in fig. 2) disposed between the cover window and the display panel (figs. 2-8) and including a first folding stress reducing part (figs. 2-8) extended from side edges of a peripheral of the bonding layer in the folding area (figs. 2-8), wherein at least a portion of the first folding stress reducing part is flush with an edge of the cover window disposed in the folding area (figs. 1-8), and wherein the bonding layer has a size smaller than the cover window in the first and second non-folding areas (figs. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 15: Kim teaches the first folding stress reducing part is a rectangular shape or a partial circular shape (figs. 2-8).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (2020/0136067) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Park (2021/0120683).
Regarding Claim 6: Kim lacks a specific teaching of the bonding layer includes an optical clear adhesive (OCA).
Park teaches the bonding layer includes an optical clear adhesive (OCA) (paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim by having the bonding layer includes an optical clear adhesive (OCA) as disclosed by Park in order to allow for a strong integral connection between the layering of the display components while allowing for a clear visual between the layers to increase the quality of the coloring of the light through the layers which in turn increases the quality of the image on the display device.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (2020/0136067) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Kim (12,399,306).
Regarding Claim 7: Kim lacks a specific teaching of a protective film disposed on the cover window; and a black matrix layer disposed on a bottom surface of the protective film to correspond to the non-display area.
Kim ‘306 teaches a protective film (SWP1, SWP2) disposed on the cover window (figs. 4a-4b); and a black matrix layer (WP-BZ) disposed on a bottom surface of the protective film to correspond to the non-display area (fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim ‘067 by having a protective film disposed on the cover window; and a black matrix layer disposed on a bottom surface of the protective film to correspond to the non-display area as disclosed by Kim ‘306 in order to for a better overall quality of the visual representation of the images on the display panel which allow for a higher quality overall product and decreases the chances of allowing external lights to effect the visual display which can affect the actual integrity of the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8: Kim lacks a specific teaching of the end of the bonding layer in the folding area is disposed to overlap the black matrix layer.
Kim ‘306 teaches the end of the bonding layer (PSA) in the folding area is disposed to overlap the black matrix layer (fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim ‘067 by having the end of the bonding layer in the folding area is disposed to overlap the black matrix layer as disclosed by Kim ‘306 in order to for a better overall quality of the visual representation of the images on the display panel which allow for a higher quality overall product and decreases the chances of allowing external lights to effect the visual display which can affect the actual integrity of the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 9: Kim lacks a specific teaching of the protective film comprises: a first protective film disposed on the cover window and configured to define a front surface; and a second protective film disposed between the first protective film and the cover window and including an anti-scattering layer.
Kim ‘306 teaches the protective film comprises: a first protective film (SWP1) disposed on the cover window (figs. 4a-4b) and configured to define a front surface (figs. 4a-4b); and a second protective film (SWP2) disposed between the first protective film and the cover window (figs. 4a-4b) and including an anti-scattering layer (RPP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim ‘067 by having the protective film comprises: a first protective film disposed on the cover window and configured to define a front surface; and a second protective film disposed between the first protective film and the cover window and including an anti-scattering layer as disclosed by Kim ‘306 in order to for a better overall quality of the visual representation of the images on the display panel which allow for a higher quality overall product and decreases the chances of allowing external lights to effect the visual display which can affect the actual integrity of the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10: Kim lacks a specific teaching of the second protective film has a size larger than the cover window.
Kim ‘306 teaches the second protective film has a size larger than the cover window (figs. 4a-4b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim ‘067 by having the second protective film has a size larger than the cover window as disclosed by Kim ‘306 in order to for a better overall quality of the visual representation of the images on the display panel which allow for a higher quality overall product and decreases the chances of allowing external lights to effect the visual display which can affect the actual integrity of the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 16: Kim lacks a specific teaching of further comprising: a protective film disposed on the cover window; and a black matrix layer disposed on a bottom surface of the protective film.
Kim ‘306 teaches further comprising: a protective film (SWP1 and SWP2) disposed on the cover window (figs. 4a-4b); and a black matrix layer (WP-BZ) disposed on a bottom surface of the protective film (fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim ‘067 by having further comprising: a protective film disposed on the cover window; and a black matrix layer disposed on a bottom surface of the protective film as disclosed by Kim ‘306 in order to for a better overall quality of the visual representation of the images on the display panel which allow for a higher quality overall product and decreases the chances of allowing external lights to effect the visual display which can affect the actual integrity of the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 17: Kim lacks a specific teaching of the folding stress reducing part of the bonding layer overlaps the black matrix layer.
Kim ‘306 teaches the folding stress reducing part of the bonding layer (PSA) overlaps the black matrix layer (fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim ‘067 by having the folding stress reducing part of the bonding layer overlaps the black matrix layer as disclosed by Kim ‘306 in order to for a better overall quality of the visual representation of the images on the display panel which allow for a higher quality overall product and decreases the chances of allowing external lights to effect the visual display which can affect the actual integrity of the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 18: Kim lacks a specific teaching of the protective film comprises: a first protective film disposed on the cover window; and a second protective film disposed between the first protective film and the cover window and including an anti-scattering layer.
Kim ‘306 teaches the protective film comprises: a first protective film (SWP1) disposed on the cover window (figs. 4a-4b); and a second protective film (SWP2) disposed between the first protective film and the cover window (figs. 4a-4b) and including an anti-scattering layer (RPP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim ‘067 by having the protective film comprises: a first protective film disposed on the cover window; and a second protective film disposed between the first protective film and the cover window and including an anti-scattering layer as disclosed by Kim ‘306 in order to for a better overall quality of the visual representation of the images on the display panel which allow for a higher quality overall product and decreases the chances of allowing external lights to effect the visual display which can affect the actual integrity of the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 19: Kim lacks a specific teaching of the second protective film has a size larger than the cover window.
Kim ‘306 teaches the second protective film has a size larger than the cover window (figs. 4a-4b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim ‘067 by having the second protective film has a size larger than the cover window as disclosed by Kim ‘306 in order to for a better overall quality of the visual representation of the images on the display panel which allow for a higher quality overall product and decreases the chances of allowing external lights to effect the visual display which can affect the actual integrity of the overall apparatus.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (2020/0136067) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Bok (2022/0399418).
Regarding Claim 11: Kim lacks a specific teaching of further comprising a bottom plate disposed below the display panel to support the display panel, wherein the bottom plate includes a plurality of hole patterns to reduce folding stress.
Bok teaches further comprising a bottom plate (33) disposed below the display panel (fig. 3A) to support the display panel (fig. 3A), wherein the bottom plate includes a plurality of hole patterns (33POP) to reduce folding stress (fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim by having further comprising a bottom plate disposed below the display panel to support the display panel, wherein the bottom plate includes a plurality of hole patterns to reduce folding stress as disclosed by Bok in order to all for a reduced amount of stress in the folding area which in turn will decrease the chances of damage to the display panel over time of the device being folded and unfolded and lowering the chances of needing to replace components of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 12: Kim lacks a specific teaching of further comprising a polarizing plate disposed between the bonding layer and the display panel, wherein the bonding layer bonds the cover window and the polarizing plate.
Bok teaches further comprising a polarizing plate (paragraph [0081]) disposed between the bonding layer and the display panel (paragraph [0081]), wherein the bonding layer bonds the cover window and the polarizing plate (paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim by having further comprising a polarizing plate disposed between the bonding layer and the display panel, wherein the bonding layer bonds the cover window and the polarizing plate as disclosed by Bok in order to allow for a more clear and better visual on the display device while decreasing the amount of glare which can cause problem to the images contrast decreasing the actual integrity of the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 20: Kim lacks a specific teaching of further comprising a second folding stress reducing part in a bottom plate disposed below the display panel, wherein the a second folding stress reducing part is formed of a plurality of holes.
Bok teaches further comprising a second folding stress reducing part (33POP) in a bottom plate (33) disposed below the display panel (fig. 3A), wherein the a second folding stress reducing part is formed of a plurality of holes (fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Kim by having further comprising a second folding stress reducing part in a bottom plate disposed below the display panel, wherein the a second folding stress reducing part is formed of a plurality of holes as disclosed by Bok in order to all for a reduced amount of stress in the folding area which in turn will decrease the chances of damage to the display panel over time of the device being folded and unfolded and lowering the chances of needing to replace components of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the PTO-892 notice of references cited is related in that the art teaches display devices including the layering and bonding layers of the foldable displays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights