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 .
Please note foreign priority retrieval was unsuccessful, as indicated by document of 7/9/24.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 2/24/26 is acknowledged.
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gu et al (CN 111477670A).
With respect to Claim 1, Gu et al discloses a display device (Figure 16) comprising a display panel (Figure 16, 101, 102 and 103) including a first non-folding area (Figure 16, 101), a second non-folding area (Figure 16, 103), and a folding area (Figure 16, 102) disposed between the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area; a buffer (Figure 14-16, 2032) disposed on the display panel and having a thickness decreasing from a central portion thereof toward an edge (Figures 14-15) thereof overlapping the display panel; and a cover window (Figure 16, 80) disposed on the buffer (Figures 14-16). See Figures 14-16 and corresponding text, especially column 4, last 20 lines; column 5, last 30 lines; column 6, first 30 lines; column 8, last 30 lines and column 9, first 30 lines.
With respect to Claim 3, Gu et al discloses wherein the buffer includes a curable resin. See page 9, lines 15-22.
With respect to Claim 4, Gu et al discloses wherein the buffer includes a urethane acrylate based resin. See page 9, lines 15-22 of Gu et al..
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 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (CN 111477670A).
Gu et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However, Gu et al does not disclose the buffer directly contacts the display panel (Claim 2), the modulus of the buffer (Claim 6) and the thickness of the central portion of the buffer (Claim 7).
With respect to Claim 2 and the limitation “wherein the buffer directly contacts the display panel” , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to arrive at the limitation, “the buffer directly contacts the display panel”, as exclusion of an element is obvious if the function of the element is not needed. See Ex Parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (BPAI 1989). See Figure 16.
With respect to Claim 6 and the limitation “a modulus of the buffer is in a range of about 65Mpa to about Mpa”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to arrive at the modulus of the buffer layer, as Gu et al discloses the same material, and the optimization of the physical characteristics of the known material would be with the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 7 and the limitation “wherein a thickness of the central portion of the buffer is in the range of about 25 micrometers to about 100 micrometers”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to arrive at the claimed dimension, as changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (CN 111477670A) as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-7 above, and further in view of Park et al (US 2020/0266368).
Gu et al is relied upon as discussed above. Moreover, Gu et al discloses a functional layer, 60 in Figure 16.
However, Gu et al does not disclose the display panel includes a circuit element including at least one transistor; a light emitting element layer including at least one light emitting diode and disposed on the circuit element layer; and an encapsulant layer disposed on the light emitting element layer, as required by present Claim 8.
Park et al discloses a foldable display device which comprises a functional layer comprising a circuit element, a light emitting element and an encapsulant element, in order from bottom to top. See paragraphs 57-62 of Park.
With respect to Claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the known components of a functional layer in a display device, for their known function of emitting light in a display device. The use of known components, for their known function, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the Examiner takes Official Notice that transistors are well known circuit elements, and light emitting diodes are well known light emitting elements.
With respect to Claim 9, the combined references make obvious the limitation “wherein the buffer layer directly contacts the encapsulation layer”, as exclusion of an element is obvious if the function of the element is not needed. See Ex Parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (BPAI 1989). Moreover, rearrangement of parts, for their known benefit is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to Claim 10, the combined references make obvious the limitation wherein the display panel further includes: a functional layer disposed on the encapsulation layer. See layer 70, Figure 16 of Gu et al and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 11, the combined references make obvious the limitation “wherein the buffer directly contacts the functional layer”, as exclusion of an element is obvious if the function of the element is not needed. See Ex Parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (BPAI 1989). Moreover, rearrangement of parts, for their known benefit is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 12-19 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
May 11, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights