DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Invention I (semiconductor device), species A, reflected in claims 1-16, 19 in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142 (b), as being drawn to the nonelected group.
Applicant's traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited art doesn’t teach the special technical feature. The applicant’s attention is being drawn to the rejection of independent claim 1 in the next pages of this action which contains the limitataion of special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang (US 20210100092 A1, hereinafter Fang’092)
Regarding independent claim 1, Fang’092 teaches, “A display panel (fig. 1-6; ¶ [0025] - ¶ [0099]), comprising
a display region (12), and a bonding region (11) located on a side of the display region (12) in a first direction,
wherein the bonding region (11) comprises a bending region (bending part of element 11) and a composite circuit region (remaining part of element 11, accommodating driving circuits, see ¶ [0042], ‘driving circuit …is disposed on an edge of the bending region (11)’) arranged sequentially in a direction away from the display region (12),
the bending region (bending part of element 11) is configured to flip the composite circuit region to a back of the display region by being bent;
the display region (12) is provided with a first functional hole (K1), and
the bonding region (11) is provided with a second functional hole (K2),
an orthographic projection of the first functional hole (K1) on a plane of the display region (12) at least partially overlaps an orthographic projection of the second functional hole (K2) on the plane of the display region”.
Regarding claim 2, Fang’092 further teaches, “The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the orthographic projection of the first functional hole (K1) on the plane of the display region is within a range of the orthographic projection of the second functional hole (K2) on the plane of the display region (fig. 3 and fig. 6)”.
Regarding claim 5, Fang’092 further teaches, “The display panel according to claim 1, wherein the display panel (10, fig. 3(1)) has a center line (a center line can be drawn) extending along the first direction (horizontal), the center line bisects the display panel in a second direction (vertical direction), the orthographic projection of the first functional hole (K1) on the plane of the display region at least partially overlaps an orthographic projection of the center line on the plane of the display region, the orthographic projection of the second functional hole (K2) on the plane of the display region at least partially overlaps the orthographic projection of the center line on the plane of the display region, and the second direction intersects the first direction”.
Regarding claim 19, Fang’092 further teaches, “A display device (¶ [0002]), comprising the display panel according to claim 1”.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang’092.
Regarding claim 3, “The display panel according to claim 2, wherein an area of the orthographic projection of the first functional hole on the plane of the display region is 70% to 90% of an area of the orthographic projection of the second functional hole on the plane of the display region”. Fang’092 further teaches, wherein an area of the orthographic projection of the first functional hole (K1, fig. 3) on the plane of the display region is 0% (fig. 3(3)) to 100% (fig. 3(2)) of an area of the orthographic projection of the second functional hole (K2) on the plane of the display region. The teachings therein would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to discover the claimed value during routine experimentation and optimization.
The Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed values are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed values produce a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, because it has been held that where “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1955)), it would have been obvious to add the claimed values to the rest of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang’092 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20200380893 A1, hereinafter Park’893).
Regarding claim 4, Fang’092 teaches all the limitations described in claim 2.
Fang’092 further teaches, wherein, in a direction away from the first functional hole (K1, fig. 3), a distance between an edge of the orthographic projection of the first functional hole (K1) on the plane of the display region and an edge of the orthographic projection of the second functional hole (K2) on the plane of the display region is zero (fig. 3(2), aligned) or width/length/diameter of the functional hole (K2).
But Fang’092 is silent upon the provision of wherein the distance is 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm.
However, Park’893 teaches a similar device with holes (HLE1/HL2/HLE3, fig. 5) having a diameter 4 mm or less (¶ [0100]).
The Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed values are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed values produce a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, because it has been held that where “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1955)), it would have been obvious to add the claimed values to the rest of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang’092 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 20220397937 A1, hereinafter Sun’937).
Regarding claim 6, Fang’092 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
Fang’092 further teaches, the first functional hole (K1, fig. 3) is located on the fixed display region (12), and the second functional hole (K2) is located on the composite circuit region in the bonding region.
But Fang’092 is silent upon the provision of wherein the display region comprises a fixed display region and a rollable display region connected to each other, the bonding region is located on a side of the fixed display region in the first direction, the rollable display region is located on a side of the fixed display region in an opposite direction of the first direction, the first functional hole is located on the fixed display region, and the second functional hole is located on the composite circuit region in the bonding region.
However, Sun’937 teaches a similar display panel comprising a fixed display region (right side part of element 1, fig. 1) and a rollable display region (part of element 1 in contact with element 3) connected to each other, the bonding region is located on a side of the fixed display region in the first direction, the rollable display region is located on a side of the fixed display region in an opposite direction of the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Fang’092 and Sun’937 to include rollable portions in the display panel according to the teachings of Sun’937 with a motivation of exploiting the advantages of the rollable display i.e., space saver, convenient storage etc. as described by Sun’937 in ¶ [0003] - ¶ [0004].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang’092 as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 111834397 A, hereinafter Zhu’397).
Regarding claim 7, Fang’092 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Fang’092 is silent upon the provision of wherein, on a plane perpendicular to the display region, a display panel in an overlapping region between the display region and the bonding region comprises: a display substrate, a display structural layer disposed on the display substrate, a reinforcement structural layer disposed on a side of the display substrate away from the display structural layer, a bonding substrate disposed on a side of the reinforcement structural layer away from the display substrate, a bonding structural layer disposed on a side of the bonding substrate away from the display substrate, and the first functional hole is a via penetrating through the display substrate and the display structural layer, the second functional hole is a via penetrating through the bonding substrate and the bonding structural layer, the reinforcement structural layer is provided with a first structural hole penetrating through the reinforcement structural layer, and the first structural hole is communicated with the first functional hole and the second functional hole.
However, Zhu’397 teaches a similar display panel, wherein, on a plane perpendicular to the display region, a display panel in an overlapping region between the display region and the bonding region comprises: a display substrate (10a, fig. 6), a display structural layer (30a) disposed on the display substrate (10a), a reinforcement structural layer (300, fig. 2) disposed on a side of the display substrate away from the display structural layer, a bonding substrate (10b, fig. 7, element 200 is flipped while connected to element 300 in fig. 2) disposed on a side of the reinforcement structural layer (300) away from the display substrate, a bonding structural layer (30b) disposed on a side of the bonding substrate (10b) away from the display substrate, and the first functional hole (101, fig. 2) is a via penetrating through the display substrate (10a) and the display structural layer (30a), the second functional hole (3011) is a via penetrating through the bonding substrate (10b) and the bonding structural layer (30b), the reinforcement structural layer (300) is provided with a first structural hole penetrating through the reinforcement structural layer, and the first structural hole is communicated with the first functional hole and the second functional hole (fig.2).
Fang’092 and Zhu’397 are analogous art because they both are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Fang’092 with the features of Zhu’397 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Fang’092 and Zhu’397 to include a display substrate, a display structural layer, a reinforcement structural layer, a bonding substrate etc. according to the teachings of Zhu’397 as these are essential and conventional components in a display panel of a foldable display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 8, the prior arts of record do not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the feature of: wherein the reinforcement structural layer comprises: a first adhesive layer disposed on a side of the display substrate away from the display structural layer, a first reinforcement layer disposed on a side of the first adhesive layer away from the display substrate, a second adhesive layer disposed on a side of the first reinforcement layer away from the display substrate, a second reinforcement layer disposed on a side of the second adhesive layer away from the display substrate, and a bending spacer layer disposed on a side of the second reinforcement layer away from the display substrate, wherein the bonding substrate is attached to a side of the bending spacer layer away from the display substrate.
Claims 9-16 are also objected as they depend on claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights