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 of Group I, claims 1-8 and 17 in the reply filed on December 17, 2025, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the holes in a first area and grooves in a second area (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 requires carbon fiber reinforced plastic. The specification does not include support for this limitation.
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 2-4 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the first area includes a plurality of hinge parts, wherein the hinge parts are defined as a hole formed by penetrating a first end region of the one surface and a second end region of the other surface in a width direction of the substrate.” It is unclear how a hole can penetrate one surface and another surface in a width direction. Based on the description of the surfaces in claim 1, a single hole would penetrate both surfaces by extending through the entire thickness of the substrate. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that two separate holes are lined up in the width direction. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected for being dependent on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/101149 Kang et al (cited by US 2022/0399521 Kang et al) in view of US 10,056,443 Shyu et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a substrate for display (claim 1) comprising:
one surface and the other surface opposite to the one surface (claim 1); and
a first area and a second area (claim 1),
wherein the substrate for display includes a first layer and a second layer (claim 1) disposed on the first layer (figure 6) and an adhesive layer between the first layer and the second layer (paragraph 0184),
wherein the first area of the first layer comprises a plurality of holes (claim 1),
wherein the first layer comprises a metal (paragraph 0115),
wherein the second layer comprises a polymer (paragraph 0115),
wherein the hole has a depth of 500 microns (paragraph 0123 teaching a total depth of 1 mm and paragraph 0124 teaching that the first and second layers may be of equal thickness).
Kang does not explicitly teach a second area with grooves or the hole diameter. Shyu teaches a substrate for display with a first area and a second area where the first area of the first layer (column 5, lines 15-18) comprises a plurality of holes (column 5, lines 25-30), and wherein the second area of the first layer (column 5, lines 15-18) comprises a plurality of grooves (column 5, lines 25-30 and column 5, lines 57-63 teaching “and/or” regarding the existence of both through-holes and recesses). Shyu further teaches that the hole has a diameter (width) of 10 microns to 500 microns (X1, column 5, lines 35-42).
The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the presence of grooves with the holes or hole diameter of the claim performs differently when combined with the other elements than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results. (MPEP 2141, Part III KSR A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 2, Kang teaches that the first area includes a plurality of hinge parts, wherein the hinge parts are defined as a hole formed by penetrating a first end region of the one surface and a second end region of the other surface in a width direction of the substrate (claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kang teaches that the hinge part and the hole overlap in the width direction of the substrate (figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Kang teaches that the holes are disposed irregularly (paragraph 0143).
Regarding claim 5, Kang teaches that an inorganic filler is disposed inside the second layer (paragraph 0121).
Regarding claim 6, Kang teaches that the second layer does not include a hole or a groove (claim 21).
Regarding claim 7, Kang teaches that a thickness of the first layer is greater than a thickness of the second layer (claim 25).
Regarding claim 8, Kang teaches that a resin material is filled in the hole or the groove (claim 26).
Regarding claim 9, Kang teaches an intermediate layer disposed between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the intermediate layer is an adhesive (paragraph 0184).
Regarding claim 10, Kang teaches that the intermediate layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive (paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 11, Kang teaches that the intermediate layer includes an alloy material of a metal included in the first layer and a metal material included in the second layer (paragraph 0103).
Regarding claim 12, Kang teaches that the first layer reacts with a first etchant, and the second layer does not react with the first etchant (claim 15).
Regarding claim 13, Kang teaches that the second layer includes a non-metallic material (paragraph 0115).
Regarding claim 14, Shyu further teaches that various layers may include a composite material including carbon fiber reinforced plastic (column 6, lines 62-67, where any layers including the second layer may include this material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include carbon fiber reinforced plastic in the second layer of Shyu in the product of Kang because carbon fiber matrix materials exhibit strength and flexibility (column 6, lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 17, Kang teaches a display device comprising; a touch panel disposed on the substrate for display of claim 1 (paragraph 0044); and
a cover window disposed on the panel (paragraph 0059).
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,056,443 Shyu et al in view of US 2020/0389986 Tsuchihashi et al.
Regarding claim 1, Shyu teaches a substrate for display 14 (column 2, lines 32-36) comprising:
one surface and the other surface opposite to the one surface (figure 6); and
a first area and a second area (figure 7),
wherein the substrate for display includes a first layer 14-1, a second layer 14-5 disposed on the first layer (figure 8) and an adhesive layer 14-2 between the first layer and the second layer (column 4, lines 46-48),
wherein the first area of the first layer (column 5, lines 15-18) comprises a plurality of holes (column 5, lines 25-30),
wherein the second area of the first layer (column 5, lines 15-18) comprises a plurality of grooves (column 5, lines 25-30 and column 5, lines 57-63 teaching “and/or” regarding the existence of both through-holes and recesses),
wherein the first layer comprises a metal (column 4, lines 42-46),
wherein the second layer comprises a polymer (column 5, lines 2-6),
wherein the hole has a diameter (width) of 10 microns to 500 microns (X1, column 5, lines 35-42).
Shyu does not explicitly teach the thickness of the layers. However, Shyu’s silence regarding this feature suggests that Shyu is not particularly concerned with the thickness, and the thickness of layers conventional in the art would be suitable. Tsuchihashi teaches a substrate for display including a layer with holes where the thickness of the layer is 150 microns (paragraph 0039).
The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the layer thickness of the claim performs differently when combined with the other elements than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results. (MPEP 2141, Part III KSR A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 2, Shyu teaches that the first area includes a plurality of hinge parts, wherein the hinge parts are defined as a hole formed by penetrating a first end region of the one surface and a second end region of the other surface in a width direction of the substrate (figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, Shyu teaches that the hinge part and the hole overlap in the width direction of the substrate (figure 9).
Regarding claim 4, Shyu teaches that the holes are disposed irregularly (column 5, lines 49-56).
Regarding claim 5, Shyu teaches that an inorganic filler is disposed inside the second layer (column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 4, air).
Regarding claim 6, Shyu teaches that the second layer does not include a hole or a groove (column 5, lines 15-18 teaching that any layers may or may not include the flexibility enhancement regions).
Regarding claim 8, Shyu teaches that a resin material is filled in the hole or the groove (column 5, line 64 – column 6, line 4).
Regarding claim 9, Shyu teaches an intermediate layer 14-4 disposed between the first layer and the second layer (figure 8), wherein the intermediate layer is an adhesive (column 4, lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 10, Shyu teaches that the intermediate layer comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive (column 4, lines 66-67).
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,056,443 Shyu et al in view of US 2020/0389986 Tsuchihashi et al.
Regarding claim 1, Shyu teaches a substrate for display 14 (column 2, lines 32-36) comprising:
one surface and the other surface opposite to the one surface (figure 6); and
a first area and a second area (figure 7),
wherein the substrate for display includes a first layer 14-1, a second layer 14-3 disposed on the first layer (figure 8) and an adhesive layer 14-2 between the first layer and the second layer (column 4, lines 46-48),
wherein the first area of the first layer (column 5, lines 15-18) comprises a plurality of holes (column 5, lines 25-30),
wherein the second area of the first layer (column 5, lines 15-18) comprises a plurality of grooves (column 5, lines 25-30 and column 5, lines 57-63 teaching “and/or” regarding the existence of both through-holes and recesses),
wherein the first layer comprises a metal (column 4, lines 42-46),
wherein the second layer comprises a polymer (column 5, lines 2-6),
wherein the hole has a diameter (width) of 10 microns to 500 microns (X1, column 5, lines 35-42).
Shyu does not explicitly teach the thickness of the layers. However, Shyu’s silence regarding this feature suggests that Shyu is not particularly concerned with the thickness, and the thickness of layers conventional in the art would be suitable. Tsuchihashi teaches a substrate for display including a layer with holes where the thickness of the layer is 150 microns (paragraph 0039).
The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the layer thickness of the claim performs differently when combined with the other elements than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results. (MPEP 2141, Part III KSR A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 17, Shyu teaches a display device 10 comprising; a touch panel 14-5 disposed on the substrate for display of claim 1 (figure 8); and
a cover window 14-7 disposed on the panel (column 4, lines 57-64).
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0389986 Tsuchihashi.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuchihashi teaches a substrate for display (paragraph 0001) comprising:
one surface and the other surface opposite to the one surface (figure 2); and
a first area and a second area (figure 2),
wherein the substrate for display includes a first layer 32, a second layer 33 disposed on the first layer (figure 5A) and an adhesive layer between the first layer and the second layer (paragraph 0042),
wherein the first area of the first layer comprises a plurality of holes (paragraph 0039 and figure 4),
wherein the first layer may alternatively comprise a plurality of grooves (paragraph 0054 and figure 8),
wherein the first layer comprises a metal (paragraph 0039),
wherein the second layer comprises a polymer (paragraph 0041, carbon sheet including a matrix resin),
wherein the hole has a diameter 500 microns or smaller (paragraph 0039) and a depth of 150 microns (paragraph 0039).
Tsuchihashi does not explicitly teach both the holes and the grooves in the same sheet. However, Tsuchihashi does teach that the holes provide a smooth bending operation (paragraph 0007) and that recesses are equally sufficient (paragraph 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to allow for holes or recesses to exist across the sheet or in different portions of the sheet to allow for the appropriate bending operation.
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 500 microns or less reads on the claimed range of 10 to 500 microns.
Regarding claim 6, Tsuchihashi teaches that the second layer does not include a hole or a groove (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuchihashi teaches that a thickness of the first layer (150 microns, paragraph 0039) is greater than a thickness of the second layer (30 microns, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 12, Tsuchihashi teaches that the first layer reacts with a first etchant (paragraph 0054), and the second layer does not react with the first etchant (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Tsuchihashi teaches that the second layer includes a non-metallic material, a composite material including carbon fiber reinforced plastic (paragraph 0041).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781