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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 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.
The indicated allowability of claims 1-13 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered rejection as cited below.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.
Claim 13 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 13 recites a range of “50µm to about 60µm”. The term “about” is not clear if the range will be less than, equal to, or greater than 60µm.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2022/0061169) in view of Tsuchihashi (US 2020/0389986)
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches A display device comprising: a display module (Figs. 3/7 display module) comprising: a folding display part (Figs. 3/7 folding region FA0); a first non-folding display part (Figs. 3/7 non-folding region FA10); and a second non-folding display part (Figs. 3/7 non-folding region FA20) with the folding display part disposed between the first non-folding display part and the second non-folding display part (Figs. 3/7 show folding region FA0 between non-folding regions FA10 and FA20); a support plate disposed below the display module (Figs. 3/7 support plate PLT), and comprising a plurality of openings that overlap the folding display part (Figs. 3/7 opening OP); and a digitizer module comprising: a first digitizer module overlapping the first non-folding display part (Figs. 3/7 DTM for FA10); and a second digitizer module overlapping the second non-folding display part (Figs. 3/7 DTM for FA20), the first digitizer module and the second digitizer module being disposed below the support plate and spaced apart from each other in an area overlapping the folding display part (Figs. 3/7 show the two digitizers spaced apart by area GP associate with the folding part FA0), wherein the digitizer module comprises: a digitizer layer comprising: a base layer(Fig. 5C base layer BL); a first coil disposed on a top surface of the base layer(Fig. 5C coils 510);; and a second coil disposed on a bottom surface of the base layer(Fig. 5C coils 520);; a shield layer disposed below the digitizer layer, and comprising a magnetic metal powder([0143]).Although the Shin teaches the limitations as discussed above, he does not teach a prepreg layer disposed, below the digitizer layer, over or below the shield layer, and comprising glass fibers or carbon fibers.
However in the field of manufacturing a digitizer display panel Tsuchihashi teaches a prepreg layer disposed, below the digitizer layer, over or below the shield layer, and comprising glass fibers or carbon fibers ([0036] and Fig. 3 show support plate 18A and 18 B disposed below digitizer panel 21[0021] and shield layer 31 which is a part of layer 20 [0049]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Shin and the support plate structure as taught Tsuchihashi. This combination would provide a smooth bending operation of a display as taught by Tsuchihashi [0003}.
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches wherein the digitizer module further comprises:a first cover layer covering the first coil and disposed over the base layer ([0168] protective layer PL-D1); and a second cover layer covering the second coil and disposed in a lower portion of the base layer([0168] protective layer PL-D2).
Regarding claim 3, Shin teaches wherein the shield layer is disposed below the second cover layer (With refence to Fig. 3B shield layer EMS is below the digitizer module DTM), and Tsuchihashi teaches a prepreg layer is disposed below the shield layer fibers ([0036] and Fig. 3 show support plate 18A and 18 B disposed below shield layer 31 which is a part of layer 20 [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches wherein the digitizer module further comprises: a metal sheet disposed below the digitizer layer (Figs. 3/7 metal plate MP); and adhesive layers disposed on at least one of a top and bottom of the shield layer, a top and bottom of the prepreg layer, and a top and bottom of the metal sheet (Figs. 3 /7 show adhesive layer AL9 disposed below the shield layer and on top of the metal plate MP).
Regarding claim 7, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 6 where a metal sheet can be disposed in below the digitizer layer, but does not explicitly teach the metal sheet comprises copper. However Tsuchihasi goes on to teach a metal sheet of a digitizer display device can be comprised of copper ([0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Tsuchihasi teach wherein the prepreg layer comprises glass fibers or carbon fibers ([0036] teaches the plate 18A/18B can be fiber-reinforced resin produced by impregnating reinforced fibers such as carbon fibers in a resin.)
Regarding claim 13, Shin in view of Tsuchihashi A discloses the claimed invention except for a thickness of the prepreg layer being a range of 50µm to about 60µm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine a thickness of every layer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 14, 15, 17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2022/0061169) in view of Tsuchihashi (US 2020/0389986)
Regarding claim 14, Shin teaches A display device comprising:
a display module (Fig. 3 display module);
a support plate disposed below the display module (Fig. 3 support plate PLT) ; and
a digitizer module disposed below the support plate (Fig. 3 digitize DTM-1/DTM-2),
wherein the digitizer module further comprises:
a digitizer layer comprising a base layer (Fig. 5C base layer BL);
a first coil disposed on a top surface of the base layer (Fig. 5C coils 510); and
a second coil disposed on a bottom surface of the base layer (Fig. 5C coils 520);
a shield layer disposed below the digitizer layer, and comprising a magnetic metal powder ([0143]). Although the Shin teaches the limitations as discussed above, he does not teach a prepreg layer disposed, below the digitizer layer, over or below the shield layer, and comprising glass fibers or carbon fibers.
However in the field of manufacturing a digitizer display panel Tsuchihashi teaches a prepreg layer disposed, below the digitizer layer, over or below the shield layer, and comprising glass fibers or carbon fibers ([0036] and Fig. 3 show support plate 18A and 18 B disposed below digitizer panel 21[0021] and shield layer 31 which is a part of layer 20 [0049]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the device as taught by Shin and the support plate structure as taught Tsuchihashi. This combination would provide a smooth bending operation of a display as taught by Tsuchihashi [0003}.
Regarding claim 15, Shin teaches wherein the digitizer module further comprises:
a first cover layer covering the first coil and disposed over the base layer ([0168] protective layer PL-D1); and
a second cover layer covering the second coil and disposed in a lower portion of the base layer([0168] protective layer PL-D2).
Regarding claim 17, Shin teaches wherein the shield layer is disposed below the second cover layer (With refence to Fig. 3B shield layer EMS is below the digitizer module DTM), and Tsuchihashi teaches a prepreg layer is disposed below the shield layer fibers ([0036] and Fig. 3 show support plate 18A and 18 B disposed below shield layer 31 which is a part of layer 20 [0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Shin teaches a power supply module; and
electronic module ([0079]).
Regarding claim 22, Shin teaches wherein the display device is a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a vehicle navigation system, a game device, or a wearable device (Fig. 1A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8-11, 18, 20 and 23 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE L MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/ANDRE L MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621