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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to claims of foreign priority to Korean application KR10-2023-0039020 filed on March 24th, 2023 and Korean application KR10-2023-0056579 filed on April 28th, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on March 20th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Regarding claim 5;
As set forth in In re Miyazaki, “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008).
The claim language can be interpreted to mean a difference in the widths of the openings in the second stretchable area and the openings in the first stretchable area, or a difference in the widths of the openings of multiple openings in the second area.
For the purposes of expediting prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to mean that the widths of the openings in the second stretchable area may be different from one another as disclosed in [0011] of applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 6;
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as dependent upon a rejected base claim 5 (see 112(b) rejection above).
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 1-2, 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US11309502B2).
Regarding claim 1;
Zhang et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising: a display panel comprising, in a top-plan view, a first display area (e.g. Fig. 1 ref F, detailed description [0040] “the display panel may include a display area and a non-display area. The display area may include a stretchable display area K and a non-stretchable area F.”) and one or more second display areas surrounded by the first display area (e.g. Fig. 1 ref K), wherein the one or more second display areas are stretchable (e.g. Fig. 1 ref K1, K2; detailed description [0040] “The stretchable display area K may include a first stretchable display area K1 and a second stretchable display area K2 adjacent to the first stretchable display area K1.”), wherein the second display area comprises a first stretchable area having a constant stretching rate and a second stretchable area surrounding the first stretchable area and having a stretching rate decreasing away from a center of the first stretchable area (e.g. Detailed Description [0043] “…the stretchable degree of the first stretchable display area K1 may be greater than that of the second stretchable display area K2.”).
Regarding claim 2;
Zhang et al. further teaches in the second display area, the display panel comprises island portions apart from one another (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 10, detailed description [0035] “the stretchable display area K may include a plurality of island-shaped structures 10 and a plurality of stretchable bridges 11”), connectors connecting the island portions to one another (e.g. Fig. 2 ref 11, detailed description [0035] “A stretchable bridge 11 may connect adjacent island-shaped structures 10.”), and openings surrounded and defined by the island portions and the connectors (e.g. Fig. 2 ref Z1, Z2 , Detailed description [0050] “… a number of island-shaped structures 10 and a number of stretchable bridges 11 may enclose an opening (e.g., having an open area that the light can transmit in/out the display panel).”).
Regarding claim 4;
Zhang et al. further teaches the openings in the first stretchable area (e.g. Fig. 2 ref Z1) have a same width (e.g. see examiner markup).
PNG
media_image1.png
787
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7;
Zhang et al. further teaches in the top-plan view, the second stretchable area has a closed-loop shape (e.g. Fig. 2, see examiner markup).
PNG
media_image2.png
787
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8;
Zhang et al. further teaches the one or more second display areas are arranged in parallel (interpreted under BRI to mean that the one or more second display areas are stacked sequentially alongside the first display area) in a first direction (e.g. see Fig. 1, and 4).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (US11309502B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 5;
Zhang et al. teaches a display device as claimed in claims 1 and its dependent claim 2 wherein the openings in the second stretchable area (e.g. Fig. 2 ref Z2) have a different width from the openings in the first stretchable area (e.g. Detailed description [0050] “The degree of the stretch deformation of an opening Z1 (e.g., having an enclosed area within the dotted frame illustrated in FIG. 2) in the first stretchable display area K1 may be greater than that of an opening Z2 in the second stretchable display area K2. In particular, the amount of the deformation of the opening Z1 before and after stretching may be greater than the amount of the deformation of the opening Z2 before and after stretching. Or, the area change of the opening Z1 before and after stretching may be greater than the area change of the opening Z2 before and after stretching.”).
In the alternative, even though Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach that the openings in the second stretchable area have different widths from one another, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing that the openings in the second stretchable area would have different widths from one another due to ordinary manufacturing tolerances and processing variation without changing the intended function of the openings in the resulting display apparatus (e.g. Detailed description [0050]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Zhang et al. (US11309502B2) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. in view of Hong et al. (US11194413B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 3;
Zhang et al. teaches a display device as claimed in claims 1 and 2 wherein a subpixel (under BRI interpreted to mean one of a plurality of pixels) is arranged in each of the island portions (e.g. Detailed description [0036] “at least one pixel may be disposed on an island-shaped structure 10.”).
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach that the subpixel is configured to emit at least one of red light, blue light, and green light as claimed. It is however an inherent property of light-emitting elements in display applications (e.g. Detailed description [0044] “every pixel may include a pixel driving circuit, a pixel electrode 30, a light-emitting element 31, a common electrode 32, and an encapsulation layer 33… the driving circuit may provide a current to the light-emitting element 31 through the thin film-transistor T and the pixel electrode 30 to cause the light-emitting element 31 to emit light and display. The light-emitting element 31 may be a light-emitting diode, or an organic light-emitting diode, etc.”) that the light they emit will be within the visible range (e.g. 380-750nm is the known visible light spectrum; red light being 620-750nm, green light being 495-570nm, and blue light being 380-500nm), therefore the pixels will be configured to emit at least one of red, blue, and green light.
In the alternative, even though Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach the subpixel being configured to emit at least one of red light, blue light, and green light, Hong et al. teaches a pixel structure with sub-pixels configured to emit at least one of red light, blue light, and green light (e.g. detailed description [0061] “A pixel structure (e.g., a thin film transistor, a capacitor, a light emitting device, etc.) may be formed on each island IS. One or more pixel(s) may be formed (e.g., one or more pixel(s) may be formed on each island IS). For example, a first light emitting area EA1, a second light emitting area EA2, and a third light emitting area EA3 included in one pixel may be provided on the island IS (e.g., may be provided on one island). The first to third light emitting areas EA1, EA2, and EA3 may correspond to first to third sub-pixels, respectively. For example, the first, second, and third sub-pixels may emit red light, green light, and blue light, respectively.”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the subpixel taught in Zhang et al. with the pixel structure taught in Hong et al. because one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciate them as known equivalents (e.g. Zhang et al. teaches that the light-emitting element of the pixel structure can be one of a light-emitting diode, organic light-emitting diode or the like, and Hong et al. teaches that the light emitting device of its pixel structure may be an organic light emitting device, or an inorganic light emitting device) and it would have yielded the predictable result a pixel structure capable of emitting light within the visible spectrum (specifically within the red, blue, and green regions). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US11309502B2) in view of Hong et al. (US11194413B2) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 9;
Zhang et al. is silent to a board layer arranged under the display panel, and the board layer comprises a convex portion overlapping the second display area in the top-plan view and protruding in a convex manner toward the display panel as claimed.
However, Hong et al. teaches a pressure sensor comprising a convex portion overlapping the second display area in the top-plan view and protruding in a convex manner toward the display panel (e.g. Fig. 6A ref PS, detailed description [0050] “…the pressure sensor PS may be disposed on the second surface (e.g., the back surface or lower surface) of the stretchable display panel DP.”, see examiner markup).
PNG
media_image3.png
442
663
media_image3.png
Greyscale
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pressure sensor taught in Hong et al. into the stretchable display taught in Zhang et al. to provide a touch-sensing capability to the resulting display apparatus because doing so would allow the resulting device to detect the amount of stretching it is experiencing, reducing the likelihood of device and component damage due to overstretching/deforming and improving device lifetime.
Regarding claim 10;
Hong et al. further teaches that the board layer is arranged apart from the display panel in a thickness direction (e.g. Fig. 6A, see examiner markup).
PNG
media_image4.png
442
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11;
Hong et al. further teaches that the board layer further comprises a gap supporter surrounding the convex portion in the top-plan view and filling a gap between the display panel and the board layer (e.g. Fig. 6A ref SM, detailed description [0068]-[0069] “…The support member SM may provide (or maintain) the protruding shape of the button display area BDA1 and may support the pressure sensor PS…” ).
Regarding claim 13;
Hong et al. further teaches that the board layer further comprises an anti-friction layer disposed between the display panel and the board layer (e.g. Fig. 6A ref IL, detailed description [0075] “… The insulator IL may be disposed on the pressure sensor PS.…”, [0077] “The insulator IL may contact the back surface of the stretchable display panel DP. The insulator IL may function as a friction reducing layer to reduce friction between the support member SM and the stretchable display panel DP.”).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US11309502B2) in view of Lee et al. (US20190036048A1) for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 14;
Zhang et al. teaches the display panel of claim 1 further comprising a first cover film layer disposed on the display panel (e.g. Fig. 3 ref 33, Detailed description [0033] “…encapsulation layer 33”.).
Zhang et al. is silent to first cover layer comprising a first and a second portion with a first and second modulus as claimed.
However, Lee et al. teaches a display device including a first cover film layer comprises a first film portion having a first modulus and overlapping the second display area in the top-plan view and a second film portion having a second modulus and surrounding the first film portion in the top-plan view (e.g. Fig. , ref WM,WM1,WM2; Detailed description [0060] “The window member WM may be located on the display panel PN.”, [0065] “The first member W1 may have a first modulus, and the second member W2 may have a second modulus…”).
At the effective time of filing, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the first cover film taught in Zhang et al. with the first cover layer comprising a first and second portion taught in Lee et al. to protect the display panel from environmental contaminants (e.g. moisture, oxidation, dust, etc.), and damage (e.g. drops, impacts, cracking due to excess stress/strain buildup, etc.) because it provides redundant protective layers (i.e. if one layer is penetrated/damaged, the second layer acts as another barrier to protect the sensitive components contained therein) which predictably improves device longevity and reliability during its lifetime.
Regarding claim 15;
Lee et al. further teaches that the first modulus of the first film portion is less than the second modulus of the second film portion (e.g. Detailed description [0065] “The first member W1 may have a first modulus, and the second member W2 may have a second modulus larger than the first modulus.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 12, and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US20210296599A1) teaches a stretchable device including first display regions having a first stiffness and a second display region between adjacent first regions having a second stiffness that is lower than the first stiffness
Sung et al. (US20210366999A1) teaches a display apparatus including a bending area and a non-bending area with a display panel including first, second, and panel bending portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ROBERT MANN whose telephone number is (571)270-0210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 0800-1800 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/WILLIAM ROBERT MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights