DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species I (FIG. 7) in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/2/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paek et al. US 2020/0004295 A1 (Paek).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Paek discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) a display device 10 comprising:
a substrate layer including a substrate 110 defining a hole OP therein and an organic layer 190 (¶ 94) of which at least a portion is disposed in the hole OP; and
a display layer 130+150 on the substrate layer 110,
wherein the hole OP passes through the substrate 110, and the organic layer 190 contacts at least a portion of the display layer 130+150.
In re claim 2, Paek discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) wherein the display device 10 is foldable or bendable with respect to a bending line (in BA), and includes a display area for emitting light (area of display unit 150 in BA) and overlapping the bending line (in BA), and
the bending line (in BA) overlaps the organic layer 190 in a plan view.
In re claim 3, Paek discloses (e.g. FIG. 7C) wherein the substrate 110 has a first thickness, and
the organic layer 190c has a second thickness larger than the first thickness (¶ 126).
In re claim 5, Paek discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the substrate layer 110+190 includes a first (top) surface adjacent to the display layer 130+150 and a second (bottom) surface opposite to the first (top) surface, and
the organic layer 190 includes a first cross-section cut by the first surface and having a first cross-sectional area and a second cross-section cut by the second surface and having a second cross-sectional area larger than the first cross-sectional area (width of OP is larger at the bottom surface and smaller at the top surface).
In re claim 6, Paek discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the display layer 130+150 includes a lowermost insulating layer 130 (¶ 60) directly adjacent to the substrate layer 110+190, and
the organic layer 190 and the lowermost insulating layer 130 contact each other in an area where the hole OP is formed.
In re claim 8, Paek discloses (e.g. FIGs. 2 & 5C & 19) wherein the organic layer 190 includes an undercut area UC disposed in an area adjacent to both the lowermost insulating layer 130 and the substrate 110, and
in the undercut area UC, the organic layer 190 contacts the lowermost insulating layer 130, and contacts the substrate 110.
In re claim 10, Paek discloses (e.g. FIGs. 2, 4 & 8) comprising:
a display area (center DA in FIG. 8) and a non-display area (peripheral area including 200 surrounding center DA) surrounding at least a portion of the display area (center DA); and
a driving chip 230 (¶ 86),
wherein the display layer 130+150 includes a pixel circuit (¶ 65-66) electrically connected to the driving chip 230 (¶ 89),
the substrate 110 includes a first substrate 113 (substrate of a center display area DA in FIG. 8) and a second substrate 111 (part of the substrate attached to driving circuit 200) disposed on a rear surface of the first substrate 113 in the non-display area (the separate substrates are disposed on a rear surface of each other when folded as shown in FIG. 4),
the driving chip 230 is disposed on the rear surface of the first substrate 113 (part of substrate 110 attached to driving circuit 200 is on the rear surface of the part of the substrate of a center display area DA when folded backward as shown in FIG. 4), and
the substrate 110 defines an outer hole (OP closest to 200) between an end of the first substrate 113 (substrate of a center display area DA in FIG. 8) and an end of the second substrate 111 (part of the substrate attached to driving circuit 200).
In re claim 11, Paek disclose (e.g. FIG. 8) wherein the second substrate (leftmost part of the substrate attached to driving circuit 200) does not overlap the organic layer (190 in third hole OP from left) in a plan view.
In re claim 14, Paek discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) further comprising:
an upper layer 170 disposed on the display layer 130+150 and including a window (no specific “window” claimed that would distinguish over transparent “cover film” 170, ¶ 75); and
a lower layer (“touch sensor layer”, ¶ 78) disposed under the substrate layer 110 (when the display is folded, a portion of the touch sensor layer is under an overlying folded substrate layer 110) and including a sensing module (no specific “sensing module” claimed that would distinguish over “touch sensor”, ¶ 78).
In re claim 15, Paek discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2, 4 & 8) a flexible display device 10 foldable with respect to a bending line (in BA), comprising:
a display area (center DA in FIG. 8) and a non-display area (peripheral area including 200 surrounding center DA) surrounding at least a portion of the display area (center DA);
a substrate layer 110 includes a first substrate 113 (substrate of a center display area DA in FIG. 8) defining a first hole therein (OP in center of display, e.g. third hole OP from left in FIG. 8), a second substrate 111 (part of the substrate attached to driving circuit 200) disposed on a rear surface of the first substrate 113 (the separate substrates are disposed on a rear surface of each other when folded as shown in FIG. 4), and an organic layer 190 (¶ 94) of which at least a portion is disposed in the first hole (center OP); and
a display layer 130+150 disposed on the substrate layer 110 and including a light emitting element disposed in the display area (¶ 62-65),
wherein the organic layer 190 overlaps the bending line (in BA) in a plan view,
the first substrate 113 and the second substrate 111 overlap in the non-display area in the plan view (the separate parts of the substrate 110 overlap when folded, see FIG. 4), and
ends of the first substrate 113 (substrate of a center display area DA in FIG. 8) and the second substrate 111 (part of the substrate attached to driving circuit 200) are spaced apart from each other to form a second hole (leftmost OP closest to 200).
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 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paek.
In re claim 4, Paek discloses (e.g. FIG. 2 & 5C) wherein the organic layer 190 includes a tapered surface IP extending in an oblique direction with respect to a major surface of the substrate layer 110 (same surface as 130a), and
an angle θ2 between the tapered surface IP and the major surface 130a of the display layer 110 is an acute angle, e.g. 15 degrees to 70 degrees (¶ 110).
The claimed range of “equal to or more than 60 degrees and less than 90 degrees” is an acute angle and is obvious in view of Paek teaching an acute angle, with explicit example range of 15 degrees to 70 degrees which overlaps the claimed range as meeting suitable “just etching condition” that for preventing damages (¶ 112).
“[W]here 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 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 9, Paek discloses (e.g. FIGs. 5C, 19-20) wherein in the undercut area UC, the substrate 110 and the lowermost insulating layer 130 form an obtuse angle θ3 (e.g. 105 to 145 degrees, ¶ 115; or 164 degrees, ¶ 180) which forms an acute supplementary angle that can be, e.g. 16 degrees (¶ 180).
The claimed angle of less than 15 degrees is obvious in view of Paek teaching an acute angle, e.g. 16 degrees, as meeting suitable “over-etching condition” for preventing damages (¶ 118).
“[W]here 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 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paek as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Seo et al. US 2020/0091446 A1 (Seo).
In re claim 7, Paek discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the display layer 130+150 includes a pixel circuit including a transistor and a light emitting element electrically connected to the pixel circuit (¶ 65-66).
Paek discloses the transistor include TFTs formed on the flexible substrate 130. Paek does not disclose the details of the TFT driving circuit.
Seo discloses a display device (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) comprising a display layer (between 201 and 202) on a substrate layer 201,
wherein the display layer includes a lowermost insulating layer 209 directly adjacent to the substrate layer 201,
wherein the display layer includes a pixel circuit including a transistor TFT and a light emitting element 220 electrically connected to the pixel circuit (¶ 46),
the transistor includes an active layer 210, a gate electrode 215 overlapping the active layer 210 in a plan view, a source electrode 217 electrically connected to a first contact area 212 of the active layer 210, and a drain electrode 218 electrically connected to a second contact area 213 of the active layer 210, and
the lowermost insulating layer 209 is a buffer layer directly adjacent to a lower portion of the active layer 210 (no specific “buffer layer” claim that would structurally distinguish over layer 209 that acts as a physical buffer between the substrate 201 and the active layer 210).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Paek’s display TFT pixel circuit to include the layering structure as taught by Seo to form the driving circuit for the display pixels.
In re claim 13, Paek discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) wherein the substrate 110 includes a glass material (¶ 53), and
the organic layer 190 includes an acryl-based or silicon-based organic resin (¶ 94).
Paek does not explicitly the organic resin is at least one of a group of polyurethane, polyimide, polyethylene, and polypropylene.
Seo discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-4) a display comprising a hole in the glass substrate 201 (including 207,208, ¶ 44) that is filled with an organic bending material 231. Seo teaches the organic bending material include acrylic (acryl-based organic resin), BCB, HMDSO (silicon-based organic resin), or polyimide (¶ 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Paek’s acryl-based or silicon-based organic resin with polyimide as well-known alternative for its suitable purposes as a bendable fill material as taught by Seo. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0373121 A1 teaches a flexible display having a separated substrate 120.
US 2021/0202868 A1 teaches a flexible display having undercut UC between substrate 110,120 and display layer 200.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights