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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lius et al. (11,869,883).
Re claim 9, Lius et al. disclose (Fig. 7) a first substrate (32) having a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface extending between the first surface and the second surface, the first substrate (32 comprises a rigid material (Col. 4, lines 20-25); a second substrate (31) on the first surface of the first substrate and comprising a flexible material (Col. 5, lines 48-49), the second substrate covering at least a part of the first side surface of the first substrate (32) (Fig. 7); and an emission material layer (22- pixels R/G/B contain emission material) on the second substrate (31) and comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements (22) (Col. 5, lines 49-51); wherein the first substrate (32) has an opening (34) exposing the second substrate (31~ Fig. 7).
Re claim 11, Lius et al. disclose wherein an end of the second substrate (31) is on the second surface (Fig. 7).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lius et al. in view of Lou et al. (10,395,615).
Re claim 1, Lius et al. disclose (Fig. 7) a first substrate (32) having a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface extending between the first surface and the second surface, the first substrate (32 comprises a rigid material (Col. 4, lines 20-25); a second substrate (31) on the first surface of the first substrate and comprising a flexible material (Col. 5, lines 48-49), the second substrate covering at least a part of the first side surface of the first substrate (32) (Fig. 7); and an emission material layer (22- pixels R/G/B contain emission material) on the second substrate (31) and comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements (22) (Col. 5, lines 49-51);
Lius et al. does not disclose wherein the first substrate has a first inclined surface extending between the first side surface and the first surface.
Notwithstanding, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions/shape/inclination because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re claim 3, the combination disclose wherein the second substrate (31) covers the first inclined surface (Lius et al. covers the whole area of the first substrate 32).
Re claim 10, Lius et al. disclose wherein the second substrate (31) covers at least a part of the second surface of the first substrate (32).
Re claim 12, Lius et al. does not disclose further comprising an adhesive layer between the first side surface of the first substrate and the second substrate
Lou et al. disclose further comprising an adhesive layer between the first side surface of the first substrate and the second substrate (Col. 4, lines 43-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lius et al. and Lou et al. to implement the adhesive layer of Lou et al. in Lius et al. for its own intended purpose.
Re claim 13, Lius et al. disclose wherein an angle between the first side surface and the second surface is 90 degrees (Fig. 7).
Re claim 14, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to end the second substrate on the first side substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re claim 15, Lou et al. disclose wherein a total length of the second substrate is greater than a total length of the first substrate (Col. 4, lines 49-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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.
Pending the correction of issues outlined in the rejection above, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following in combination the remaining limitations called for in each claim:
wherein the first substrate has a second side surface extending between the first surface and the second surface at an edge of a bending area where the second substrate is bent, and wherein a shape of the first side surface is different from a shape of the second side surface, as recited in claim 4;
wherein the second substrate does not cover the second side surface, as recited in claim 5;
wherein the second side surface is an inclined surface, and wherein an acute angle between the second side surface and the first surface is greater than an acute angle between the first inclined surface and an extension direction of the first surface, as recited in claim 6;
wherein an angle between the second side surface and the first surface is an acute angle, and wherein an angle between the second side surface and the second surface is an obtuse angle, as recited in claim 7;
wherein the first inclined surface extends along an edge of the first substrate, and wherein the second side surface extends along an edge of the bending area, as recited in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 October 1, 2026
