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 .
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “a display panel of claim 1”, which should have been “the display panel of claim 1” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“at least a portion of the transition support surface is connected in sequence by multiple segments of cambered surfaces that are smoothly transitioned” in claims 3 and 14,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites “… a support structure disposed on a side of the support body away from the panel layer…”. However, the support structure 12 is used to support the bend portion of the panel layer 40, so it’s actually disposed toward the panel layer 40 in all the embodiment. Thus, it’s unclear what claim 1 is claiming. In order to examine this application, examiner will assume the limitation as “…a support structure disposed on a side of the support body toward the panel layer…” instead.
Claim 1 also recites “…the support structure disposed on an inner side of an edge of the support layer…”. It’s unclear what this means, since support layer 10 is solid and not hollow, and the inner side of 10 cannot be reached. Furthermore, claim 1 appears to be generic to all the embodiment based on the dependent claims, but all the embodiment shows support structure 12 is located at an edge of the support layer 10. For example, Fig. 4 shows 12 is located at an edge of 10, and Fig. 7 shows “support structure” or bent plate-shaped structure (claim 6) to be at edge of 10. Thus, it’s unclear what claim 1 is claiming. In order to examine this application, examiner will assume the limitation is “… the support structure disposed at an edge of the support layer”.
Claims 2-20 depends on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “the thickness direction”. There is a lack of antecedent basis. It’s unclear if claim 9 should have recite “a thickness direction” or that claim 9 should have depend on claim 8.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9.
Claim 18 has similar issue as above claim 9. Claim 18 recites “the thickness direction”. There is a lack of antecedent basis. It’s unclear if claim 18 should have recite “a thickness direction” or that claim 18 should have depend on claim 17.
Claim 19 depends on claim 18.
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 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 9,379,355).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Lee discloses a display panel (Figs. 3A, 4, 6A-6D, 17A-18B), comprising:
a panel layer (106, Fig. 4) comprising a panel area (flat area of 106, Fig. 4) and a bending area (such as left or right bending areas in Fig. 4) disposed on a side of the panel area in a first direction (left and right direction in Fig. 4);
a support layer (top 108, bottom 108, and/or 116, Fig. 4) disposed on a back side of the panel area (back/rear side of 106, Fig. 4), the support layer comprising a support body (main body of 116, Fig. 4) and a support structure (such as left end portion of 116, top 108 and/or bottom 108, Fig. 4) disposed on a side (left side of 116) of the support body toward the panel layer (toward bend portion of 106), the support structure being disposed at an edge of the support layer (left edge all lined up as shown in Fig. 4) corresponding to the bending area, so that the bending area, when being bent, is fixed to the support layer through the support structure (as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1, and Lee further discloses wherein the support structure comprises a transition support surface (transition between curve and straight of 116) disposed at an edge of the display panel, and in the first direction, at least a portion of the transition support surface is a convex smooth curved surface (see left rounded end portion of 116, which is a convex smooth curved surface).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1, and Lee further discloses wherein the support structure is integrally formed with the support body (main body of 116 and left end curved portion of 116 is integral as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1, and Lee further discloses wherein the support structure is one layer of plate-shaped structure or composed of multi-layer plate-shaped structures stacking (top 108 and bottom 108 can be considered as plate-shaped structures stacking, refer to Figs. 3A and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 7, and Lee further discloses wherein the support structure is composed of multi-layered plate-shaped structures stacking, and in a thickness direction of the display panel, of two adjacent layers of the plate-shaped structures, a size of the plate-shaped structure (top 108, Fig. 4) close to the panel layer (106) in the first direction (left and right direction in Fig. 4) is greater than a size of the plate-shaped structure (bottom 108 is farther away from right bend portion of 106 in Fig. 4; note bottom 108 is smallest in size when compare with top 108 in Fig. 4) away from the panel layer in the first direction, where the thickness direction of the display panel is perpendicular to the first direction.
Regarding claim 9 as best understood, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1, and Lee further discloses wherein the support structure is a structure continuously extending in a second direction, or the support structure comprises multiple segments of support portions at intervals in the second direction, where the second direction is perpendicular to both the first direction and the thickness direction of the display panel (note that structure of top 108, bottom 108 and/or 116 are either inherently continuously extending or segmented at intervals in the second direction).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses the display panel of claim 1, and Lee further discloses a display device (100, Fig. 4), wherein the display device comprises the display panel of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the display device of claim 12, and Lee further discloses wherein the support structure comprises a transition support surface (transition between curve and straight of 116) disposed at an edge of the display panel, and in the first direction, at least a portion of the transition support surface is a convex smooth curved surface (see left rounded end portion of 116, which is a convex smooth curved surface).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the display device of claim 12, and Lee further discloses wherein the support structure is one layer of plate-shaped structure or composed of multi-layer plate-shaped structures stacking (top 108 and bottom 108 can be considered as plate-shaped structures stacking, refer to Figs. 3A and 4), when the support structure is composed of multi-layered plate-shaped structures stacking, and in a thickness direction of the display panel, of two adjacent layers of the plate-shaped structures, a size of the plate-shaped structure (top 108, Fig. 4) close to the panel layer (106) in the first direction (left and right direction in Fig. 4) is greater than a size of the plate-shaped structure (bottom 108 is farther away from right bend portion of 106 in Fig. 4; note bottom 108 is smallest in size when compare with top 108 in Fig. 4) away from the panel layer in the first direction, where the thickness direction of the display panel is perpendicular to the first direction.
Regarding claim 18 as best understood, Lee discloses the display device of claim 12, and Lee further discloses wherein the support structure is a structure continuously extending in a second direction, or the support structure comprises multiple segments of support portions at intervals in the second direction, where the second direction is perpendicular to both the first direction and the thickness direction of the display panel (note that structure of top 108, bottom 108 and/or 116 are either inherently continuously extending or segmented at intervals in the second direction).
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 3, 11 , 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the display panel of claim 2. Lee does not teach wherein in the first direction, at least a portion of the transition support surface is a segment of cambered surface, or at least a portion of the transition support surface is connected in sequence by multiple segments of cambered surfaces that are smoothly transitioned. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein in the first direction, at least a portion of the transition support surface is a segment of cambered surface, or at least a portion of the transition support surface is connected in sequence by multiple segments of cambered surfaces that are smoothly transitioned in Lee, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in form and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). In this case, making cambered surface on a curve surface of Lee yields predict results of supporting the bending area. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In this case, having multiple segments of a curve or camber surfaces from a single integral structure yields predict results of simplifying manufacturing and reduce cost.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the display panel of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness direction size h1 of the support structure and a thickness direction size h2 of the support layer satisfies the following relationship: h1≤4h2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness direction size h1 of the support structure and a thickness direction size h2 of the support layer satisfies the following relationship: h1≤4h2 in Lee, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, the thickness of the support structure can be optimized depending on the bending area of the panel layer, and this can be easily optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the display device of claim 13. Lee does not teach wherein in the first direction, at least a portion of the transition support surface is a segment of cambered surface, or at least a portion of the transition support surface is connected in sequence by multiple segments of cambered surfaces that are smoothly transitioned. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein in the first direction, at least a portion of the transition support surface is a segment of cambered surface, or at least a portion of the transition support surface is connected in sequence by multiple segments of cambered surfaces that are smoothly transitioned in Lee, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in form and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). In this case, making cambered surface on a curve surface of Lee yields predict results of supporting the bending area. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In this case, having multiple segments of a curve or camber surfaces from a single integral structure yields predict results of simplifying manufacturing and reduce cost.
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the display device of claim 12. Lee does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness direction size h1 of the support structure and a thickness direction size h2 of the support layer satisfies the following relationship: h1≤4h2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness direction size h1 of the support structure and a thickness direction size h2 of the support layer satisfies the following relationship: h1≤4h2 in Lee, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, the thickness of the support structure can be optimized depending on the bending area of the panel layer, and this can be easily optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, and further in view of Raff et al. (US 10,698,449; hereinafter “Raff”).
Regarding claim 4. Lee teaches the display panel of claim 2. Lee does not teach wherein the support structure comprises a fixed bonding surface in the transition support surface disposed closer to a middle of the support layer, the fixed bonding surface facing away from the panel layer and in a straight shape, and connection between the fixed bonding surface and the transition support surface transitions smoothly. However, Raff teaches a support structure (34, Fig. 8) comprises a fixed bonding surface (straight part of 34 bonding with 78 and bottom straight portion of 14E) in the transition support surface disposed closer to a middle of the support layer (middle of 34, Fig. 8), the fixed bonding surface facing away from the panel layer and in a straight shape (as shown in Fig. 8), and connection between the fixed bonding surface and a transition support surface (curve surface of 34, Fig. 8) transitions smoothly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fixed bonding surface in the transition support surface disposed closer to a middle of the support layer, the fixed bonding surface facing away from the panel layer and in a straight shape, and connection between the fixed bonding surface and the transition support surface transitions smoothly in Lee, as taught by Raff, in order to further reduce stress in the display panel.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the display device of claim 13. Lee does not teach wherein the support structure comprises a fixed bonding surface in the transition support surface disposed closer to a middle of the support layer, the fixed bonding surface facing away from the panel layer and in a straight shape, and connection between the fixed bonding surface and the transition support surface transitions smoothly. However, Raff teaches a support structure (34, Fig. 8) comprises a fixed bonding surface (straight part of 34 bonding with 78 and bottom straight portion of 14E) in the transition support surface disposed closer to a middle of the support layer (middle of 34, Fig. 8), the fixed bonding surface facing away from the panel layer and in a straight shape (as shown in Fig. 8), and connection between the fixed bonding surface and a transition support surface (curve surface of 34, Fig. 8) transitions smoothly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fixed bonding surface in the transition support surface disposed closer to a middle of the support layer, the fixed bonding surface facing away from the panel layer and in a straight shape, and connection between the fixed bonding surface and the transition support surface transitions smoothly in Lee, as taught by Raff, in order to further reduce stress in the display panel.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, and further in view of Park (US 2023/0189441).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the display panel of claim 5. Lee does not teach wherein the support structure is a solid structure formed by a die casting process; or, the support body is a plate-shaped structure, and the support structure is formed by bending a plate-shaped structure connected to the support body. However, Park teaches a support body (main body 200, Fig. 6) is a plate-shaped structure (200 is a plate structure), and a support structure (210, Fig. 6) is formed by bending a plate-shaped structure connected to the support body (as shown in Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support structure is a solid structure formed by a die casting process; or, the support body is a plate-shaped structure, and the support structure is formed by bending a plate-shaped structure connected to the support body in Lee, as taught by Park, in order to provide heat dissipation generated from the display panel and also support the bending area.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the display device of claim 13, and Lee further teaches wherein the support structure is integrally formed with the support body (as shown in Fig. 4).
Lee does not teach the support structure is a solid structure formed by a die casting process; or, the support body is a plate-shaped structure, and the support structure is formed by bending a plate-shaped structure connected to the support body. However, Park teaches a support body (main body 200, Fig. 6) is a plate-shaped structure (200 is a plate structure), and a support structure (210, Fig. 6) is formed by bending a plate-shaped structure connected to the support body (as shown in Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support structure is a solid structure formed by a die casting process; or, the support body is a plate-shaped structure, and the support structure is formed by bending a plate-shaped structure connected to the support body in Lee, as taught by Park, in order to provide heat dissipation generated from the display panel and also support the bending area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re claim 10, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the display panel of claim 10, in particular, wherein when the support structure comprises multiple segments of support portions at intervals in the second direction, a sum L of sizes of the multiple segments of support portions in the second direction satisfies the following relationship with a size L0 of the support layer in the second direction: L≥0.9L0.
Re claim 19, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the display device of claim 19, in particular, wherein when the support structure comprises multiple segments of support portions at intervals in the second direction, a sum L of sizes of the multiple segments of support portions in the second direction satisfies the following relationship with a size L0 of the support layer in the second direction: L≥0.9L0.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841