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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 12/31/2025 has been considered and entered into the record. Claims 2–20 have been canceled and as such all previous rejections of those claims are hereby withdrawn. New claims 21–43 have been added. Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous indefinite and prior art rejections. Accordingly, those rejections are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 21–43 are examined below.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires a material of a first layer comprising silver and a material of a second layer comprising nickel. Rejected claim 23 requires at least one of a material of the first layer of claim 1 is silver and a material of the second layer of claim 1 is nickel. The use of the terms “a material of the first layer” and “a material of the second layer” in claim 23 makes the claim confusing as to whether Applicant is attempting to further limit the first and second layer materials of claim 1, or is referring to additional “materials.” If Applicant is intending to refer to the materials of the first and second layers required in claim 1, then the term “a material” should be replaced with “the material” in claim 23 to clarify their antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by the limitations “is silver” and “is nickel.” If Applicant is intending to limit the materials to their elemental compositions, this should be clarified. Lastly, if Applicant would like to limit the material to consist of silver in the first layer and nickel in the second layer, this too should be clarified. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 39 is similarly rejected.
Claims 26 and 27 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. Here, claim 26, from which claim 27 depends, requires “the first support member and the second support member comprises a plurality of fiber layers comprising the at least one fiber layer.” The antecedent basis appears to be backwards as a new limitation of “a plurality of fiber layers” cannot comprise “the at least one fiber layer” of claim 1. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 22–24, 28–32, 35, and 37–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2016018198 A) in view of Nakanishi (US 2022/0097353 A1).
Sato discloses a foldable display device comprising a substrate layer that includes first and second support members 4a disposed side-by-side, and a bendable connecting member 4b connected to and disposed between the support members, and a flexible display panel 2. Sato abstract, Fig. 2. The first and second support members 4a are rigid and may be made from carbon fiber-reinforced plastic. Id. Description of Embodiments. The display device may further comprise a functional layer that includes thin film transistors, which are electrically conductive and an impact-resistant layer 12. Id. The bendable connecting member 4b may be an organic flexible material, such as hydrogenated styrene thermoplastic elastomers. Id.
Sato fails to teach a composite structure comprising an electrically conductive layer comprising a multi-layer structure comprising first and second layers, wherein a material of the first layer comprises silver, and a material of the second layer comprises nickel.
Nakanishi teaches the use of a shock absorbing laminate 100 for use with a display device, wherein the laminate comprises a thermally diffusive layer 20 that includes graphene sheets or carbon fiber sheet of woven or unidirectional fibers. Nakanishi abstract, ¶¶ 21, 158–169, Fig. 1A. The laminate further comprises shock absorbing layers 10–13, wherein a bonding layer 30 adheres the shock absorbing layers to shield layer 40 having electromagnetic interference shielding characteristics. Id. ¶¶ 31–41, 47–106, 179–180, Figs. 2A–2D. The shield layer may comprise nickel or silver. Id. ¶ 172.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art have included a shield layer between the impact-resistant layer and the substrate layer of Sato to provide the foldable display device with electromagnetic interference shielding. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have used two shielding layers to provide further shielding to the display. The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Here, Nakanishi teaches the use of a shield layer comprising metals such as nickel and silver. See Nakanishi ¶172. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have selected silver and nickel as the shield layer materials because the artisan is merely selecting from a finite list of number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Nakanishi fails to teach that the metal, shield layers are electrically conductive. However, the Examiner takes the position that since silver and nickel are electrically conductive metals, the shield layers of Nakanishi would necessarily be electrically conductive. Claims 21–23 are rejected as obvious as the order of the two electrically conductive shield layers relative to the substrate layer of Sato is a mere design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 26, 27, 33, 34, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Nakanishi as applied to claims 1, 28, and 35 above, and further in view of Hamburgen (US 2020/0171784 A1).
Sato fails to teach that the first and the second support members comprise a plurality of fiber layers, wherein each of the plurality of fiber layers is a unidirectional fiber fabric that are stack at different angles.
Hamburgen teaches an apparatus comprising first and second layers of unidirectional fiber fabrics, wherein the layers are adhered to each other and are oriented at different angles. Hamburgen abstract, ¶¶ 44, 56. The apparatus may be incorporated into a foldable display to support the display. Id. ¶ 11, Fig. 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the support members of Sato out of the multiple layers of unidirectional fiber fabrics of Hamburgen to support the display of Sato while allowing the display to be bent in a small radius. See Hamburgen ¶ 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 25, 36, and 41 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786