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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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) 1, 3, 6-7, 10, 12, 16, & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0199920) [Hereinafter Kim] & Han et al. (US 2018/0151644) [Hereinafter Han].
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches A display device comprising:
a first substrate [fig. 9, base layer 100a, para 92] comprising a first surface [fig. 9, upper surface 100aUS, para 167] and a second surface [fig. 9, lower surface 100aLS, para 167], which are opposite to each other in a thickness direction thereof [fig. 9],
wherein the first substrate (fig. 9, 100a) includes a rigid material [para 170; wherein exemplary materials are rigid];
a second substrate [fig. 9, base layer 100c, para 170] disposed on the first surface (fig. 9, 100aUS) of the first substrate (fig. 9, 100a), wherein the second substrate (fig. 9, 100c) includes a flexible material [para 170, “the second base layer 100 c may include a siloxane-based material”]; and
a plurality of light-emitting elements [fig. 9, OLED1/OLED2, para 191] disposed on the second substrate (fig. 9, 100c), wherein,
the first substrate (fig. 9, 100a) further comprise:
first side surfaces disposed between the first and second surfaces [annotated fig. 9]; and
first inclined surfaces disposed between the first surface and the first side surfaces [annotated fig. 9],
wherein the first side surfaces and the first inclined surfaces are at edges of the first substrate [annotated fig. 9], and
wherein the display device further comprises
a filler [fig. 9, barrier layer 100b, para 83] disposed between a bottom surface of the second substrate (fig. 9, 100c) and the first side surfaces of the first substrate [annotated fig. 9].
Kim fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first side surfaces and the first inclined surfaces are in a bending area where the second substrate is bent;
a filler in the bending area.
While Kim notes the flexible display is bendable, foldable, and rollable in para 04.
However, Han teaches wherein the first side surfaces and the first inclined surfaces are in a bending area [fig. 5, first area GRA1, para 78, “The display module 1000 may be bent in the first area GRA 1.”] where the second substrate [fig. 5, base substrate 111, para 91] is bent;
a filler [fig. 5, adhesive layer 400, para 83] in the bending area (fig. 5, GRA1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the substrate to comprise inclined surfaces in the bending area of the display to provide structural support and prevent damage when the screen is folded or curved. Furthermore having filler in the bending area to enhance structural support to prevent cracking.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
1284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim, ANNOTATED FIG. 9
Regarding claim 3, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 1, further comprising:
a panel bottom cover [Kim, fig. 4, support substrate SS] disposed on the second surface (bottom surface) of the first substrate (Kim, fig. 4, 100a)
wherein the filler (Kim, fig. 4, 100b) is in contact with a side surface (Kim, fig. 4, top side surface) of the panel bottom cover (Kim, fig. 4, SS).
Regarding claim 6, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 1,
wherein the filler (Kim, fig. 9, 100b) includes an air gap [fig. 9, penetrating portion PNP, para 160-161], and the air gap is disposed within the filler [fig. 9; wherein the penetrating portion PNP is disposed within the filler 100b].
Regarding claim 7, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 6, wherein a shape of the air gap corresponds to a shape of the filler [Kim, fig. 9, wherein the airgap PNP and filler 100b are both rectangular shape.
Regarding claim 10, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 1,
wherein the filler (Han, fig. 4, 400) further includes protrusions [Han, annotated fig. 4], and
the protrusions [Han, annotated fig. 4] are disposed between the first inclined surfaces [Han, annotated fig. 4] and the bottom surface of the second substrate [Han, annotated fig. 4].
PNG
media_image2.png
595
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Han, ANNOTATED FIG. 4
Regarding claim 12, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 1,
wherein a vertical length of the first inclined surfaces is less than a vertical length of the first side surfaces [Kim, annotated fig. 9].
Regarding claim 16, A display Kim teaches A display device comprising:
a first substrate [fig. 9, base layer 100a, para 92] comprising a first surface [fig. 9, upper surface 100aUS, para 167] and a second surface [fig. 9, lower surface 100aLS, para 167], which are opposite to each other; and
first side surfaces disposed between the first and second surfaces [annotated fig. 9],
wherein the first substrate (fig. 9, 100a) includes a rigid material [para 170; wherein exemplary materials are rigid];
a protective layer [fig. 9, barrier layer 100b, para 83] disposed on the first surface [fig. 9, upper surface 100aUS, para 167] of the first substrate (fig. 9, 100a);
a second substrate [fig. 9, base layer 100c, para 170] disposed on the protective layer (fig. 9, 100b),
wherein the second substrate (fig. 9, 100c) includes a flexible material [para 170, “the second base layer 100 c may include a siloxane-based material”]; and
a plurality of light-emitting elements [fig. 9, OLED1/OLED2, para 191] disposed on the second substrate (fig. 9, 100c);
wherein each of the first side surfaces is directly connected to the first surface [annotated fig. 9].
Kim fails to explicitly disclose a filler disposed between a bottom surface of the second substrate [fig. 5, base substrate 111, para 91] and the first side surfaces of the first substrate , in a bending area where the second substrate is bent.
However Han teaches a filler [fig. 5, adhesive layer 400, para 83] disposed between a bottom surface of the second substrate [fig. 5, base substrate 111, para 91] and the first side surfaces [fig. 5, side surface 201, para 85] of the first substrate [fig. 5, film 200, para 85], in a bending area [fig. 5, first area GRA1, para 78, “The display module 1000 may be bent in the first area GRA 1.”] where the second substrate is bent [fig. 5, base substrate 111, para 91].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the bending area to comprise filler to enhance structural support and prevent cracking.
Regarding claim 18,Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 16,
wherein the filler (Kim, fig. 9, 100b) includes an air gap [fig. 9, penetrating portion PNP, para 160-161], and the air gap is disposed within the filler [fig. 9; wherein the penetrating portion PNP is disposed within the filler 100b].
Regarding claim 19, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 18,
wherein a shape of the air gap corresponds to a shape of the filler [Kim, fig. 9, wherein the airgap PNP and filler 100b are both rectangular shape].
Claim(s) 2 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim & Han as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10, 12, 16, & 18-19 and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2018/0346755).
Regarding claim 2, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 1,
Kim/Han fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filler has a hardness of Shore 70D or higher.
While Han notes the filler (fig. 5, adhesive layer 400) may comprise “may include an urethane-based material, an acrylic-based material, or a silicon-based material”.
Oh teaches a polyurethane film nanocomposite film for flexible/stretchable displays which has a hardness of 82 D to about 102 D [para 79].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the filler to have a hardness greater than 70D to enable the screen to bend repeatedly without damage.
Regarding claim 17, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 16,
Kim/Han fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filler has a hardness of Shore 70D or higher.
While Han notes the filler (fig. 5, adhesive layer 400) may comprise “may include an urethane-based material, an acrylic-based material, or a silicon-based material”.
Oh teaches a polyurethane film nanocomposite film for flexible/stretchable displays which has a hardness of 82 D to about 102 D [para 79].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the filler to have a hardness greater than 70D to enable the screen to bend repeatedly without damage.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim & Han as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10, 12, 16, & 18-19 and further in view of Nami et al. (US 2020/0288563) & Park et al. (US 2016/0073528).
Regarding claim 4, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 3.
Kim/Han fails to explicitly disclose an adhesive member disposed on the panel bottom cover, on the second surface of the first substrate,
wherein the filler is in contact with a side surface of the adhesive member.
Nami teaches an adhesive member [para 70] disposed on the panel bottom cover [fig. 5, bottom member 40, para 70], on the second surface of the first substrate [fig. 5, substrate 201, para 68].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply adhesive between the bottom panel cover and the first substrate to absorb mechanical stress during folding and prevents layer separation.
Kim/Han/Nami fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filler is in contact with a side surface of the adhesive member.
However Park teaches wherein the filler [fig. 5, filler 260, para 47] is in contact with a side surface of the adhesive member [fig. 5, double-sided tape 290, para 53].
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the filler material to contact a side surface of the adhesive member to secure the structural stack and absorb mechanical stress to prevent damage to the device.
Regarding claim 5, Kim/Han/Nami/Park teaches The display device of claim 4,
wherein the side surface of the panel bottom cover [Park, fig. 5, buffer member 280, para 52] and the side surface of the adhesive member [Park, fig. 5, double-sided tape 290, para 53] are positioned on a same plane [Park, fig. 5; wherein the side surfaces are positioned on the same x-plane].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim & Han as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10, 12, 16, & 18-19 and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0343824) [Hereinafter Kim_2021].
Regarding claim 20, Kim/Han teaches The display device of claim 16.
Kim/Han fails to explicitly disclose wherein an adhesive force of the protective layer with respect to the first substrate is greater than an adhesive force of the second substrate with respect to the first substrate.
However, Kim_2021 teaches wherein an adhesive force of the protective layer [fig. 6, adhesive layer 270/280, para 88-90; “may be in a range from about 1.5 kgf/in to about 2.5 kgf/in”] with respect to the first substrate [fig. 6, cover layer 242, para 88] is greater than an adhesive force of the second substrate [fig. 6, cover layer 252, para 91, “may be in a range from 0.3 kgf/inch to 1.5 kgf/inch”] with respect to the first substrate.
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control which layer peels cleanly during manufacturing or repair, thereby enhancing the reliability of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-9, 11, & 13-15 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX B ANDREWS whose telephone number is (703)756-1074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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 Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/FELIX B ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights