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Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species A (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I-XI do not lack unity of invention because the technical feature of a heat dissipation structure is a special technical feature as the prior art (e.g. Liu CN 114333589) does not teach claim 1. This is not found persuasive because Liu teaches, by reasonable broadest interpretation, all the recitations of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4-5 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.
Claims 4-5 recite “the heat dissipation sub-layers” and “a plurality of heat dissipation sub-layers” which renders claims 4-5 indefinite as it is unclear if said recitations refer to the same elements. Claims 4-5 are interpreted such that both recitations of “the heat dissipation sub-layers” and “a plurality of heat dissipation sub-layers” refer to the same elements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN114333589).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to annotated Fig. 7, Liu teaches a heat dissipation structure, comprising: a first heat dissipation layer 10, a support layer (e.g. only the specific layer defined by only the first specific region 21), and a second heat dissipation layer (e.g. only the specific layer defined by only the first specific region 22), wherein the support layer and the second heat dissipation layer are arranged on a same side of the first heat dissipation layer (e.g. the side facing gap 210), and an orthographic projection of the support layer onto the first heat dissipation layer and an orthographic projection of the second heat dissipation layer onto the first heat dissipation layer do not overlap (e.g. as gap 210 exists between the layers).
PNG
media_image1.png
748
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4-5,
Liu teaches wherein the second heat dissipation layer comprises a plurality of heat dissipation sub-layers, and the heat dissipation sub-layers are arranged in a stack (see pars. 65-66 wherein said layer can comprise combinations of multiple alloys) wherein the heat dissipation sub-layers are made of a same material, or the plurality of heat dissipation sub- layers are made of different materials (see pars. 65-66).
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.
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(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
Regarding claim 2,
Liu teaches wherein the support layer and the second heat dissipation layer have a gap 210 therebetween but does not teach wherein the gap is between 0.1 mm and 0.45 mm.
Liu does, however, disclose that the width of a gap between the support layer and the second heat dissipation layer may affect the weight of the support component, making the flexible display device containing it lighter, and enhancing the heat dissipation performance of a support component (see par. 59). Therefore, the width of a gap between the support layer and the second heat dissipation layer is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that an enhancement in a weight of the support component, making the flexible display device containing it lighter, and enhancing the heat dissipation performance of a support component. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the width of a gap between the support layer and the second heat dissipation layer was disclosed in the prior art by Liu, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to provide the gap between 0.1 mm and 0.45 mm.
Regarding claim 3,
Liu does not teach wherein a thickness of the support layer is the same as a thickness of the second heat dissipation layer.
Liu does, however, disclose that the ratio of the thickness of the support layer to the thickness of the second heat dissipation layer affects the performance requirements of flexible display devices in terms of excellent display effect, thinness, and foldability (see pars. 14, 32) as well as thickness reduction and heat dissipation (see par. 41). Therefore, the thickness of the support layer relative to the thickness of the second heat dissipation layer is recognized as a results effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is the performance requirements of flexible display devices in terms of excellent display effect, thinness, and foldability (see pars. 14, 32) as well as thickness reduction and heat dissipation (see par. 41). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a ratio of the thickness of the support layer to the thickness of the second heat dissipation layer was disclosed in the prior art by Liu, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Liu such that the thickness of the support layer is the same as a thickness of the second heat dissipation layer.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Wang (WO2021035569).
Regarding claims 6-7,
Liu does not teach wherein the first heat dissipation layer comprises a copper foil layer and a meshed adhesive layer, the second heat dissipation layer and the support layer are arranged on a same side of the copper foil layer, and the meshed adhesive layer is located on a side of the copper foil layer facing away from the support layer, wherein the first heat dissipation layer further comprises a foam layer, and the foam layer is located between the copper foil layer and the meshed adhesive layer.
Wang, directed to a heat dissipation structure, teaches wherein a first heat dissipation layer comprises a copper foil layer and a meshed adhesive layer (see par. 157), wherein the first heat dissipation layer further comprises a foam layer (e.g. a buffer layer, see par. 157, 184), and the foam layer is located between the copper foil layer and the meshed adhesive layer (see pars. 157, 184).
Since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Liu by Wang and arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide a known material with advantageous buffering and dissipation properties.
Further, as Wang teaches that the mesh adhesive layer is disposed on a side… away from a display substrate (see pars. 25, 157), Wang provided teaching such that the second heat dissipation layer and the support layer are arranged on a same side of the copper foil layer and the meshed adhesive layer is located on a side of the copper foil layer facing away from the support layer so that the mesh adhesive layer is disposed on a side away from the display substrate of Liu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763