CTNF 18/542,571 CTNF 87937 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 7-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0190265, “Park) in view of Du (US 2020/0413551, “Du”) . Regarding claims 1 and 10, Park teaches a foldable or flexible display apparatus (e.g., Fig. 5, [0087]) comprising a display panel comprising a display area (see, e.g., Fig. 4, DA, having [0050]) having a plurality of sub-pixels ([0051], [0003]) and a non-display area surrounding the display area (e.g., Fig. 4, NDA, [0050]) and having a bending area (see Fig. 4, below). Park teaches the inclusion of a first back plate and a second back plate (see Fig. 4, PF1 under display portion and PF1 under DD portion [0071], separated by open area OP1, [0058]). PNG media_image1.png 384 646 media_image1.png Greyscale While Park teaches that the layers may include intervening layers, including to couple the layers to one another ([0043]), Park fails to teach that the layer PF1 is connected to the substrate layer via an adhesive. However, in the same field of endeavor of flexible display devices (e.g., [0004]), Du teaches to use an adhesive having first and second sublayers wherein the second sublayer has a greater storage moduluses than that of the first sublayer and that doing so may improve the ability of the adhesive to restore to an original state after being bent (e.g., [0008] - [0012]). It therefore would have been obvious to have used the adhesive layers described by Du in order to adhere the back sheet of the display of Park to the display in order to improve the ability of the display to restore to an original state after being bent (e.g., [0008] - [0012]). Regarding claim 2, modified Park (Du) additionally teaches that the adhesive layers may have varying adhesiveness (i.e. the first and second sub-layers may have different adhesive strengths and therefore may be considered variable, see Du, [0014], [0015]). Regarding claim 3, modified Park (Du) additionally teaches that the adhesive layers may have varying adhesiveness (i.e. the first and second sub-layers may have different adhesive strengths and therefore may be considered variable, see Du, [0014], [0015]). Regarding claim 4, modified Park (Du) additionally teaches that the first adhesive layer may have a storage modulus on the range of from 100 to 200 Kpa (i.e., from 0.1 to 0.2 MPa, [0013]) and the second adhesive layer may have a storage modulus on the range of from 20 to 100 KPa (i.e., 0.02 to 0.1 MPa, [0013]). Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Park (Du) additionally teaches that the first adhesive layer may have a thickness greater than that of the second adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer may have a thickness range of from 5 to 15 micrometers (e.g., Du, [0012]). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 9, modified Park (Du) additionally teaches that the adhesives may be acrylic-silicone adhesive (which would function to be hydrophobic, see, e.g., Du, [0021]). Regarding claim 11, modified Park (Du) additionally teaches that the adhesive layers may have varying adhesiveness (i.e. the first and second sub-layers may have different adhesive strengths and therefore may be considered variable, see Du, [0014], [0015]). Regarding claim 12, modified Park (Du) additionally teaches that the first adhesive layer may have a storage modulus on the range of from 100 to 200 Kpa (i.e., from 0.1 to 0.2 MPa, [0013]) and the second adhesive layer may have a storage modulus on the range of from 20 to 100 KPa (i.e., 0.02 to 0.1 MPa, [0013]). Regarding claim 15, modified Park (Du) additionally teaches that the first adhesive layer may have a thickness greater than that of the second adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer may have a thickness range of from 5 to 15 micrometers (e.g., Du, [0012]). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 16, modified Park (Du) additionally teaches that the adhesives may be acrylic-silicone adhesive (which would function to be hydrophobic, see, e.g., Du, [0021]). Regarding claim 17, Park additionally teaches that the flexible display panel comprises a display area and non-display area surrounding the display area (see Fig. 4, NDA and DA, [0050])and wherein the first backplate may be disposed in the display area (see PF1 in Fig. 4) and the second backplate may be disposed in the non-display area and a pad may be provided thereon (see Fig. 5, lower PF1 component having DD disposed thereon [0046]). Regarding claim 18, Park additionally teaches that the display may further comprise a cover window and protection film on or over the display panel (see, e.g., Fig. 5, window layer and TFE layers, [0085], [0091] [0092]). Regarding claim 19, Park teaches that the end of the first back plate is closer to the bending area of the display than the end of the window and protective film (or TFE layer, see Fig. 4 wherein PF1 layer abuts bending area “BA”) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 6, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Du as applied to claim s 1 and 10 , above, and further in view of Narutaki et al. (US 2022/0089922, “Narutaki”) . Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Park fails to teach the inclusion of a dye or pigment in the second adhesive layer, however, in the same field of endeavor of adhesive layers for use in display devices ([0172]), Narutaki teaches that it is known to include pigments as common additives in adhesive (e.g., [0121], [0114]), including black, blue, green, and red pigments, in order to effectively color an adhesive (e.g., to color or obscure bezel or non-display portions of the device). It therefore would have been obvious to have included pigment additives in the adhesives of modified Park as doing so is conventional in the art (e.g., Narutaki, [0114], [0121]). Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Park fails to teach the inclusion of a dye or pigment in the second adhesive layer, however, in the same field of endeavor of adhesive layers for use in display devices ([0172]), Narutaki teaches that it is known to include pigments as common additives in adhesive (e.g., [0121], [0114]), including black, blue, green, and red pigments, in order to effectively color an adhesive (e.g., to color or obscure bezel or non-display portions of the device). It therefore would have been obvious to have included pigment additives in the adhesives of modified Park as doing so is conventional in the art (e.g., Narutaki, [0114], [0121]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/542,571 Page 2 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/542,571 Page 3 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/542,571 Page 4 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/542,571 Page 5 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/542,571 Page 6 Art Unit: 1782
