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
Claims 28 – 34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/24/2026.
Applicant’s remark on page 8 note “Applicant agrees that the above groups of claims are independent and/or distinct”.
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. See MPEP 802.
Because Invention I, II and III are distinct inventions and classify to separate CPC classification. Therefore, each distinct invention required different field of search.
Each distinct invention requires separate field of search.
When search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely result in finding art to the other inventions.
Different inventions required search different class/subclasses or employing different search queries.
Different independent claims required search different class/subclasses or employing different search queries.
The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
Thus, there is a serious burden on examiner to have to search for three of the claimed inventions. See MPEP 808.02.
Search prior art for three distinct claimed inventions would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required.
Furthermore, A U.S. national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 has different
standards than U.S. restriction practice. See MPEP 1850(I) - (II).
Applicant is welcome to file divisional applications to non-elected claims.
The election/restrictions is maintained and make final.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 19 – 24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20190251875 A1, Assignee: Samsung) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20210050549 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses “A flexible electronic-display device comprising:
an electrically conductive support layer; (Figs 1, 2, electrode 210, [0051] – [0064])
a display layer (Figs 1, 2, display panel 100, adhesive layer 130, [0051] – [0064]) including an electrically conductive sublayer, (Figs 1, 2, electrode 210, [0051] – [0064]) wherein the display layer is arranged slidably relative to the electrically conductive support layer; (Figs 1, 2, [0051] – [0064] )
a layer arranged intermediate the electrically conductive support layer and the electrically conductive sublayer; (Figs 1, 2, 3 [0051] – [0064] electroactive polymer 230 between electrode 210 and electrode 220) and
a drive circuit configured to charge the electrically conductive sublayer relative to the electrically conductive support layer, (Fig 19, processor, [0176] – [0185]) “thereby urging the display layer toward the electrically conductive support layer”. (Fig 19, processor, [0176] – [0185] if there is voltage differences applied to the electrodes 210 and 220, inevitably these two electrodes will start to somewhat attract and thus inevitably the display layer D1 will be urged toward the conductive support layer. )
Park does not use the term “a dielectric layer”.
Wang discloses “a dielectric layer”. ([0075])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dielectric layer by Wang into device of Park. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve efficiency. (Wang: [0075])
Regarding claim 2, Park and Wang disclose wherein the electrically conductive sublayer comprises a microfoil backing of the display layer. (Park Figs 1, 2, electrode 210, [0051] – [0064])
Regarding claim 3, Park and Wang disclose wherein the electrically conductive sublayer comprises a common electrode of the display layer. (Park Figs 1, 2, electrode 210, [0051] – [0064])
Regarding claim 4, Park and Wang disclose wherein the display layer comprises an organic light-emitting diode layer. (Park [0003] [0051] – [0064])
Regarding claim 19, Park and Wang disclose further comprising an elastic layer arranged between the electrically conductive sublayer and the dielectric layer. (Wang [0075] [0076] – [0081])
Regarding claim 20, Park and Wang disclose further comprising an elastic layer arranged between the electrically conductive support layer and the dielectric layer. (Wang [0075] [0076] – [0081])
Regarding claim 21, Park and Wang disclose wherein the electronic-display device is foldable. (Park [0003] [0004])
Regarding claim 22, Park and Wang disclose wherein the drive circuit is configured to supply a varying electrical bias between the electrically conductive sublayer and the electrically conductive support layer. (Park Fig 19, processor, [0176] – [0185]
Regarding claim 23, Park and Wang disclose wherein the drive circuit is further configured to reverse the electrical bias between the electrically conductive sublayer and the electrically conductive support layer. (Park Fig 19, processor, [0176] – [0185])
Regarding claim 24, Park and Wang disclose further comprising a sensor responsive to deformation of the display layer, wherein the drive circuit is further configured to vary the electrical bias in dependence on an output of the sensor. (Park [0053] [0176] – [0185])
Regarding claim 26, Park and Wang disclose wherein the display layer includes opposing plane sections separated by an opening angle, and wherein the output of the sensor is responsive to the opening angle. (Park Fig 19 [0176] – [0185]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 27 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190273212 A1 discloses flexible display on abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN-NAN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 6pm.
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, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at 571-2722963. 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.
/CHUN-NAN LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights