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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1, Species 1 (claims 1-3, 9-14, and 18) in the reply filed on July 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-8, 15-17, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 7, 2026.
The Examiner notes that claims 1-3, 9-14, and 18 are examined and claims 4-8, 15-17, and 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“7 precent” should read “7 percent”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to claim of priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0088539, filed on July 07, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 12, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2021/0107251 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Chen teaches in Fig. 8:
A display device comprising:
a display panel (display panel 603) including a first non-folding region, a folding region, and a second non-folding region arranged in a first direction (see annotated Fig. 8 below);
a plurality of panel protection layers (first portion 221 and second portion 231) disposed under the first non-folding region and the second non-folding region;
and a filling part (polymer based portion 241) which is disposed between the plurality of panel protection layers and overlaps the folding region,
wherein a lower surface of the filling part (third contact surface 255) has a height greater than or equal to each of heights of lower surfaces of the plurality of panel protection layers (second outer surface 753).
The Examiner notes for the purposes of measuring the heights of the surfaces and defining relationships of “under” the top surface is considered to be first major surface 615 despite being on the bottom of Fig. 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Chen further teaches:
an adhesive layer (second adhesive layer 507) disposed between the plurality of panel protection layers (221 and 231) and the display panel (603) and between the filling part (241) and the display panel (603).
With respect to claim 3, Chen further teaches:
wherein the filling part (polymer based portion) has a higher elastic modulus (para. [0078] “wherein the elastic modulus of the polymer-based portion is from about 20 MegaPascals to about 3 GigaPascals.”) than a modulus of the adhesive layer (para. [0038] “The foldable apparatus of any one of embodiments 20-24, wherein the second adhesive layer comprises an elastic modulus in a range from about 0.001 MegaPascals to about 0.5 MegaPascals.”)
With respect to claim 12, Chen teaches:
A display device comprising:
a display panel (display panel 603) including a first non-folding region, a folding region, and a second non-folding region arranged in a first direction (see annotated Fig. 8 above);
an adhesive layer (second adhesive layer 507) disposed under the display panel (603);
a plurality of panel protection layers (first portion 221 and second portion 231) disposed under the adhesive layer (507) and spaced apart from each other in the folding region;
and a filling part (polymer based portion 241) which is disposed between the plurality of panel protection layers (221 and 231) and overlaps the folding region,
wherein the filling part has a thickness less than or equal to a sum of a thickness of the plurality of panel protection layers and a thickness of the adhesive layer (see Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 13, Chen further teaches:
wherein a lower surface (third contact surface 255) of the filling part has a height greater than or equal to each of heights of lower surfaces (second outer surface 753) of the plurality of panel protection layers.
With respect to claim 14, Chen further teaches:
wherein the adhesive layer (507) extends from the first non-folding region to the second non-folding region via the folding region, (see annotated Fig. 8 above)
and wherein the filling part (241) is disposed on a lower surface of the adhesive layer (507).
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.
Claims 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2021/0107251 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Chen further teaches:
wherein the filling part (polymer-based portion 241) has an elastic modulus of about 20 megapascals to about 3 gigapascal (para. [0078])
The range taught by Chen overlaps the range of 400 megapascals to 1 gigapascal of claim 9. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Chen teaches in the discussion of the Examples listed in Tables 1-5 that mechanical instability can be prevented by optimizing characteristics of the device including the thicknesses and elastic modulus of various layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an elastic modulus within the claimed range with routine experiment and optimization for the purpose of optimizing the mechanical stability of the device. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 10, Chen further teaches:
wherein the filling part has a thickness (polymer thickness 415) of about 80 μm or less (para [0256])
The ranges taught by Chen overlaps the range of about 80 micrometers to about 110 micrometers of claim 10. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Chen teaches in the discussion of the Examples listed in Tables 1-5 that mechanical instability can be prevented by optimizing characteristics of the device including the thicknesses and elastic modulus of various layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a thickness within the claimed range with routine experiment and optimization for the purpose of optimizing the mechanical stability of the device. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 11, Chen further teaches:
wherein the filling part has a yield strain of about 5 percent or more. (para. [0265])
The range taught by Chen overlaps the range of about 5.5 percent to about 7 percent of claim 11. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a thickness within the claimed range with routine experiment and optimization for the purpose of optimizing the mechanical stability of the device. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 18, Chen teaches:
wherein the filling part (polymer-based portion 241) has an elastic modulus of about 20 megapascals to about 3 gigapascal (para. [0078])
a thickness (polymer thickness 415) of about 80 μm or less
wherein the filling part has a yield strain of about 5 percent or more. (para. [0265])
The ranges taught by Chen overlaps the ranges of 400 megapascals to 1 gigapascal, about 80 micrometers to about 110 micrometers, and about 5.5 percent to about 7 percent of claim 18. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Chen teaches in the discussion of the Examples listed in Tables 1-5 that mechanical instability can be prevented by optimizing characteristics of the device including the thicknesses and elastic modulus of various layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an elastic modulus, thickness, and yield strain within the claimed range with routine experiment and optimization for the purpose of optimizing the mechanical stability of the device. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 5 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, 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.
/A.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights