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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign benefit based on KR10-2022-0169520 filed on 12/07/2022.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 20200208013 A1 - hereinafter Heo) in view of Chang et al. (US 20230282788 A1 - hereinafter Chang) and in further view of Shin (US 20220209144 A1 – hereinafter Shin).
Regarding Claim 1, Heo teaches a flexible display device (see the entire document; Fig. 3; specifically, [0040]-[0068], and as cited below), comprising:
a flexible cover window (Fig. 3) including a base film (BF) (310 – [0045]), an anti-glare layer (AG), an anti-reflection layer (AR) and an anti-fingerprint layer (AF) (330 – [0046] – “The first coating layer 330 may have at least one of an anti-glare, anti-reflective, and anti-fingerprint characteristic or function for preventing (or reducing) at least fingerprints from appearing on the window 300”),
a light-blocking layer (210 – [0040] – “A light blocking layer 210”) disposed on and along an edge of a lower surface of the base film (310) of the flexible cover window;
a display module (DM) (100 – [0041] – “the display panel 100”) disposed under the flexible cover window;
a support plate (400 – [0068] – “a housing 400”) disposed under the display module (100).
But Heo as applied above does not expressly disclose wherein the anti-glare layer, the anti-reflection layer and the anti- fingerprint layer are sequentially stacked on an upper surface of the base film and a heat-dissipating plate disposed under the support plate.
However, in a related art, Chang teaches an optical film 120 being a multilayer structure and has “anti-glare, anti-reflection, anti-fingerprint functions” as indicated in [0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming of an optical layer having multilayer structure of anti-glare, anti-reflection, anti-fingerprint functions as is taught by Chang into Heo. Furthermore, it would be also obvious to arrange the anti-glare, anti-reflection, anti-fingerprint layers in this order commensurate with the design needs.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Chang structure into Heo structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of improved Readability, Reduced Eye Strain, enhance touch performance and increased life.
But the combination of Heo and Chang does not expressly disclose a heat-dissipating plate disposed under the support plate.
In a related art, Shin teaches heat-dissipation members disposed below a display panel – (Shin – [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming of a heat-dissipating plate disposed under the support plate as is taught by shin into the combination of Chang into Heo and Chang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Shin structure into the combination of Heo and Chang in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of increased life of the display device due to dissipating heat generated by the device.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Heo, Chang and Shin teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the flexible cover window includes: a flat portion, an upper wing extending from an upper side of the flat portion, a left wing extending from a left side of the flat portion, and a right wing extending from a right side of the flat portion.
However, Chang teaches in Fig. 4 a display device having a flat portion (top of {120, 220}), an upper wing (right 130) extending from an upper side of the flat portion {120, 220}, a left wing (left 130) extending from a left side of the flat portion {120, 220}, and a right wing (230) extending from a right side of the flat portion {120, 220}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming a flat portion, an upper wing extending from an upper side of the flat portion, a left wing extending from a left side of the flat portion, and a right wing extending from a right side of the flat portion as is taught by shin into the combination of Chang into Heo and Chang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Shin structure into the combination of Heo, Chang and Shin in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of designing a display device according to a specific requirement.
Claims 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Chang and Shin and in further view of Feng et al. (US 20240373731 A1 – hereinafter Feng).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Heo, Chang and Shin teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the flexible display device further comprises: a chip-on film connected to a display panel of the display module; and a filling film filling a space defined between the chip-on film and the flexible cover window.
However, it is well known in the art to connect an IC chip to a display and a filling film filling a space defined between the chip-on film and the flexible cover window as is also taught by Feng (Feng – Fig. 11 – [0130] teaches “chip 54 is configured to provide data signals for the flexible display substrate 50” and [0140] – “The thermal insulation adhesive 70 is located between the support plate 60 and the display driving chip 54”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the flexible display device further comprises: a chip-on film connected to a display panel of the display module; and a filling film filling a space defined between the chip-on film and the flexible cover window as is taught by Feng into the combination of Chang into Heo and Chang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Feng structure into the combination of Heo, Chang and Shin in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of fabricating a working display device.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Heo, Chang, Shin and Feng teaches the flexible display device of claim 7, wherein the filling film is attached to the flexible cover window via an adhesive layer (Feng – [0140]).
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Chang and Shin and in further view of Wu (US 20180007811 A1 – hereinafter Wu).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Heo, Chang and Shin teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the heat-dissipating plate has a plurality of through-holes defined therein, wherein each of the plurality of through-holes has a bent structure in the heat-dissipating plate, and wherein a sidewall and a protrusion extending from the sidewall are formed in each of the plurality of through-holes.
However, it is well known in the art to form a heat-dissipator with holes with bent structures and protrusions as is also taught by Wu (Wu – Figs. 6-7 – [0051] – hole=132, bent and protrusion=142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the heat-dissipating plate has a plurality of through-holes defined therein, wherein each of the plurality of through-holes has a bent structure in the heat-dissipating plate, and wherein a sidewall and a protrusion extending from the sidewall are formed in each of the plurality of through-holes as is taught by Wu into the combination of Chang into Heo and Chang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Wu structure into the combination of Heo, Chang and Shin in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of fabricating a display device where heat is dissipated by a heat-sink to protect the device.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Chang.
Regarding Claim 11, Heo teaches a flexible display device (see the entire document; Fig. 3; specifically, [0040]-[0068], and as cited below), comprising:
a flexible cover window (Fig. 3) including a base film (310 – [0045]), an anti-glare layer, an anti-reflection layer and an anti-fingerprint layer (330 – [0046] – “The first coating layer 330 may have at least one of an anti-glare, anti-reflective, and anti-fingerprint characteristic or function for preventing (or reducing) at least fingerprints from appearing on the window 300”),
a light-blocking layer (210 – [0040] – “A light blocking layer 210”) disposed along and on an edge of a lower surface of the base film (310) of the flexible cover window; and
an adhesive layer (220 – [0071] – “adhesive layer 220”) disposed on a lower surface of the flexible cover window.
But Heo as applied above does not expressly disclose wherein the anti-glare layer, the anti-reflection layer and the anti- fingerprint layer are sequentially stacked on an upper surface of the base film and a heat-dissipating plate disposed under the support plate.
However, in a related art, Chang teaches an optical film 120 being a multilayer structure and has “anti-glare, anti-reflection, anti-fingerprint functions” as indicated in [0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming of an optical layer having multilayer structure of anti-glare, anti-reflection, anti-fingerprint functions as is taught by Chang into Heo. Furthermore, it would be also obvious to arrange the anti-glare, anti-reflection, anti-fingerprint layers in this order commensurate with the design needs.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Chang structure into Heo structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of improved Readability, Reduced Eye Strain, enhance touch performance and increased life.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Heo, Chang teaches claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. But the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the flexible cover window includes: a flat portion, an upper wing extending from an upper side of the flat portion, a left wing extending from a left side of the flat portion, and a right wing extending from a right side of the flat portion.
However, Chang teaches in Fig. 4 a display device having a flat portion (top of {120, 220}), an upper wing (right 130) extending from an upper side of the flat portion {120, 220}, a left wing (left 130) extending from a left side of the flat portion {120, 220}, and a right wing (230) extending from a right side of the flat portion {120, 220}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming a flat portion, an upper wing extending from an upper side of the flat portion, a left wing extending from a left side of the flat portion, and a right wing extending from a right side of the flat portion as is taught by shin into the combination of Chang into Heo and Chang.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Shin structure into the combination of Heo, Chang in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of designing a display device according to a specific requirement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10, 13 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 the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
Regarding claim 3: The flexible display device of claim 2, wherein the upper wing, the left wing and the right wing of the flexible cover window respectively cover upper, left and right side surfaces of the display module.
Regarding claim 4: The flexible display device of claim 2, wherein the light-blocking layer is disposed on the edge of the lower surface of the flat portion of the flexible cover window, and is disposed on a lower surface of each of the upper wing, the left wing, and the right wing of the flexible cover window.
Regarding claim 5: The flexible display device of claim 2, wherein the flexible display device further comprises upper, left and right foam pads respectively disposed between the upper wing, the left wing and the right wing of the flexible cover window and the upper, left and right side surfaces of the display module.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5.
Regarding claim 10: The flexible display device of claim 9, wherein the flexible display device further comprises an adhesive layer disposed between the support plate and the heat-dissipating plate, and wherein at least a portion of the protrusion formed in each of the plurality of through-holes is positioned in the adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 13: The flexible cover window assembly of claim 12, wherein the light-blocking layer is disposed on the edge of the lower surface of the flat portion of the flexible cover window and is disposed on a lower surface of each of the upper wing, the left wing, and the right wing of the flexible cover window.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights