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 .
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 20 is 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 20 recites “the electrodeformable layer comprises a piezoelectric electroactive polymer film.” Claim 8, the claim from which claim 20 depends, recites “the electrodeformable layer further comprising electrodeformable material.” Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “electrodeformable material” limitation from claim 8 is in reference to the same element defined as “piezoelectric electroactive polymer film” from claim 20 or not. Upon further review of the instant specification, specifically paragraph [0035] from the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant application (US 2024/0241398), it appears the claimed “piezoelectric electroactive polymer film” from claim 20 is a species from the claimed “electrodeformable material” genus from claim 8. Therefore, to further prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the intent of the applicant was to have this portion of claim 20 recite “the electrodeformable material comprises a piezoelectric electroactive polymer film,” which overcomes this indefiniteness issue, and will be examined on the merits as such.
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.
Claims 8, 9, 11-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0251875 (hereinafter “Park”).Regarding claims 8 and 20 Park teaches a flexible display device (bendable electronic display) including a display panel (display layer) configured to display an image (abstract). Park teaches the display panel (display layer) 100 includes opposing plane sections and a flex section bridging the opposing plane sections (Figures 1-5, including Annotated Figure 3, shown below; and paragraphs [0052], [0053], and [0074] – [0076]).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park teaches a strain gauge layer (angle sensor) 150 which senses a stress applied to the side of the display panel when folded (paragraphs [0019] – [0021], [0081] – [0085] and [0179]), which corresponds to an angle sensor configured to provide an output responsive to an opening angle. Park teaches an electrical actuation part (electrodeformable layer) 200 which is configured to be compressed (deform dimensionally) under varying electrical bias (paragraphs [0062] – [0064]). Park also teaches the electrical actuation part (electrodeformable layer) 200 includes two electrodes 210, 220 configured to receive the varying electrical bias (paragraph [0064]). Park teaches the electrical actuation part (electrodeformable layer) 200 extends through the flex section and comprises an electro-active polymer (EAP) 230 (electrodeformable material) that generates a force in response to the electric field being applied thereto (paragraphs [0026] and [0064], and Annotated Figure 3, shown above). Park also teaches the EAP (electrodeformable material) includes a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (piezoelectric electroactive polymer film) (Table 1). Park teaches tensile stress values sensed by the strain gauge layer (angle sensor) 150 are supplied to a processor (drive circuit), and the processor (drive circuit) calculates the tensile stress value and applies a voltage corresponding to a required compressive force to an electrode of the electrical actuation part (paragraphs [0180] – [0184]). Park also teaches the application of the compressive force reduces the tensile stress present, which is caused by folding of the display panel (display layer) (paragraphs [0064], [0084] and [0185]). These teachings correspond to a drive circuit configured to supply the varying electrical bias to the two electrodes, thereby inducing a dimensional change in the electrodeformable layer that relieves bending strain in the display layer, wherein the drive circuit is configured to vary the electrical bias responsive to the output of the angle sensor, such that the electrical bias is dependent on the opening angle.Regarding claim 9 In addition, Park teaches tensile stress (expansion strain) occurs when the device is folded (caused by bending), and the electrical actuation part (electrodeformable layer) 200 provides a compressive force (configured to contract) from a voltage provided to electrodes to reduce the tensile stress (paragraphs [0183] – [0185]), which corresponds to the bending strain is an expansion strain and the electrodeformable layer is configured to contract in response to the varying electrical bias.Regarding claim 11 In addition, Park teaches the flexible display device (bendable electronic display) further comprises a plurality of adhesive layers (one or more elastic layers) 130, which includes a flexible pressure-sensitive adhesives to alleviate bending stresses (paragraphs [0024], [0052], [0056] and [0193]).Regarding claim 12 In addition, Park teaches adhesive layers (elastic layers) 130 may be applied to attach the electrical actuation part (electrodeformable layer) 200 to: the display panel (display layer) 100; and the base film 110 (paragraphs [0058] – [0059]). Park illustrates the electrical actuation part (electrodeformable layer) 200 is sandwiched between the display panel (display layer) 100 and the base film 110 (Figures 1 and 3-5). These teachings correspond to two elastic layers that sandwich the electrodeformable layer.Regarding claim 13 In addition, Park teaches an embodiment where a pair of electrical actuation parts 200 are included with a pair of strain gauge sensors 150, where each strain gauge sensor 150 is located on opposite sides of the display panel 100 (Figure 20 and paragraphs [0192] – [0193]). As previously noted - Park teaches the strain gauge layer (sensor) 150 senses a stress applied to the side of the display panel (display layer) 100 when folded (paragraphs [0019] – [0021], [0081] – [0085] and [0179]), which corresponds to a sensor responsive to stress or strain in the display layer. Park teaches tensile stress values sensed by the strain gauge layer (sensor) 150 are supplied to a processor (drive circuit), and the processor (drive circuit) calculates the tensile stress value and applies a voltage corresponding to a required compressive force to an electrode of the electrical actuation part (paragraphs [0180] – [0184]), which corresponds to the drive circuit being configured to vary the electrical bias in dependence on an output of the sensor. Park also teaches the application of the compressive force reduces the tensile stress present, which is caused by folding of the display panel (display layer) (paragraphs [0064], [0084] and [0185]). The additional electrical actuation part 200 and its corresponding strain gauge layer 150 correspond to the sensor and drive circuit as presented in claim 13.Regarding claim 14 In addition, Park teaches the strain gauge layer (angle sensor) 150 measures the tensile stress applied to an adjacent layer and sends a signal to the processor (electromechanical sensor) (paragraphs [0179] – [0181]).Regarding claim 15 In addition, Park teaches the display layer may undergo in-folding or out-folding bending conditions (paragraphs [0088] and [0133] – [0137]; and Figures 1-3, 5, 11-13 and 17), which corresponds to the display layer is foldable such that the opening angle is greater than 180°.Regarding claim 16 In addition, Park teaches the processor (drive circuit) calculates the tensile stress value and applies a voltage corresponding to a required compressive force to an electrode of the electrical actuation part (paragraphs [0180] – [0184]), where the compressive force reduces tensile stress in the display layer (paragraphs [0064] and [0185] – [0186]), which corresponds to the processor (drive circuit) is a strain-relieving drive circuit. Park also teaches an embodiment where a pair of electrical actuation parts 200 are included with a pair of strain gauge sensors 150, where each strain gauge sensor 150 is located on opposite sides of the display panel 100 (Figure 20 and paragraphs [0192] – [0193]). With regard to the second electrical actuation part 200 (the flexible display device (bendable electronic display) further comprising a second electrical actuation part), Park teaches the electrical actuation part 200 comprises a lower electrode (electrically conductive support layer) 210, an upper electrode (electrically conductive sublayer) 220, and an electro-active polymer (EAP) 230 provided therebetween (paragraphs [0064]). Park teaches the EAP comprises a dielectric elastomeric material (Table 1), which corresponds to the upper electrode (electrically conductive sublayer) 220 being arranged slidably to the lower electrode (electrically conductive support layer) 210. These teachings also correspond to the EAP (dielectric layer) 230 being arranged between the lower electrode (electrically conductive support layer) 210 and the upper electrode (electrically conductive sublayer) 220. Park teaches tensile stress values sensed by the strain gauge layer (angle sensor) 150 are supplied to a processor (drive circuit), and the processor (drive circuit) calculates the tensile stress value and applies a voltage (configured to charge the electrically conductive sublayer) corresponding to a required compressive force to an electrode of the electrical actuation part (paragraphs [0180] – [0184]), which corresponds to a slack-reducing drive circuit, and urging the display layer 100 toward the lower electrode (electrically conductive support layer) 210.
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0155081 (hereinafter “Zeng”).Regarding claim 10 The limitations for claim 8 have been set forth above. In addition, Park teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel is suitable for a flexible display panel (display layer) 100 (paragraph [0053]). Park does not explicitly teach the organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel (display layer) includes a thin-film transistor sublayer. Zeng teaches an OLED layer applied to a thin-film-transistor (TFT) substrate (thin-film transistor sublayer) (abstract and paragraph [0080]), which corresponds to a display layer including a thin-film transistor sublayer. Zeng teaches the TFT is used for driving the OLED layer (paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the OLED display panel of Park with the TFT substrate (thin-film transistor sublayer) of Zeng to provide a conventional driving means for controlling the pixels of an OLED display panel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 11 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 16 under 35 USC §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued the instant claims require the electrodeformable material to extend through the flex section which is not anticipated by Park because Park teaches their electrodeformable material, EAP 230 in this case, are partitioned/segmented by seal members 240. However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims fail to include limitations which would require the electroformable material to extend across an entirety of the flex section; but rather, merely requires “the electrodeformable layer further comprising electrodeformable material extending through the flex section.” In other words, the claims do not require: any degree of extension of the electrodeformable material with regards to the flex section; and/or any particular continuity or discontinuity of the electrodeformable material within the flex section.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights