DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
General Remarks
2. 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection.
3. When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with paragraph numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
4. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
Specification
5. 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.
The following title is suggested:
“Foldable Display Device with Impact Resistance Layer and Method of Manufacturing The Same”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
(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.
7. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park, Seungun et al. (Pub No. US 20230009733 A1) (hereinafter, Park).
Park, Fig 1 – Display panel with display and non-display areas
PNG
media_image1.png
348
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, Park teaches a display device comprising:
a display panel (Display panel; AA/NA; Fig 1; ¶[0036]) including a display area (AA; Fig 1; ¶[0036]) and a non-display area (NA; Fig 1; ¶[0036]) adjacent to the display area;
an impact resistance layer (Third adhesive layer/Polarizing plate; 135/130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0046]; Note: Figure 4 shows components, i.e. polarizer 137, etc. of polarizing plate 130 from Figure 3) in the display area and the non-display area of the display panel (Per ¶[0043] the light blocking layer 150 may be in the non-display area, i.e. display area and non-display area are annotated on Figure 3), wherein the impact resistance layer includes a polymer material (Polarizing plate 135 materials, i.e. includes polarizer 137, wherein polarizer 137 comprises of an oriented polymer film and third adhesive layer 135 comprises of a pressure sensitive adhesive, i.e. polymer-based material; ¶[0058]);
a protective film (Hard coating layer; 160; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) on the impact resistance layer; and
a light-blocking layer (Light blocking layer; 150; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) in the non-display area between the impact resistance layer and the protective film.
Park, Figs 3 & 4 – Cross-sectional view of display device including light-blocking layers, protective film, and impact resistance layer. Figure 4 provides a close-up of 130 and the components therein
PNG
media_image2.png
313
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
244
429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the impact resistance layer (Third adhesive layer/Polarizing plate; 135/130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0046]) directly contacts the light-blocking layer (Light blocking layer; 150; Fig 3; ¶[000038]) and the protective film (Hard coating layer; 160; Fig 3; ¶[0038]).
Re Claim 6, Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the impact resistance layer (Third adhesive layer/Polarizing plate; 135/130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0046]; Note: Figure 4 shows components, i.e. polarizer 137, etc. of polarizing plate 130 from Figure 3) includes:
a first impact resistance layer (Polarizing plate; 130; Fig 3; ¶[0061]) on a surface (Bottom surfaces of 150/160; Fig 3) of each of the light-blocking layer (Light blocking layer; 150; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) and the protective film (Hard coating layer; 160; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) ; and
a second impact resistance layer (Third adhesive layer; 135; Fig 3; ¶[0066]) on the first impact resistance layer.
Re Claim 7, Park teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the first impact resistance layer (Polarizing plate; 130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0061]) includes a pressure sensitive adhesive (Polarizing plate 130 may comprise of adhesive layer 136 which may be a PSA; Figs 3/4; ¶0059]).
Re Claim 9, Park teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein the first impact resistance layer (Polarizing plate; 130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0061]) directly contacts the light-blocking layer (Light blocking layer; 150; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) and the protective film (Hard coating layer; 160; Fig 3; ¶[0038]).
Re Claim 10, Park teaches the display device of claim 6, where in the second impact resistance layer (Third adhesive layer; 135; Fig 3; ¶[0066]) directly contacts the first impact resistance layer (Polarizing plate; 130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0061]).
Re Claim 11, Park teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the display area (Display panel; AA/NA; Fig 1; ¶[0036]) includes a foldable area (Foldable area around folding axis Fx; Fig 1; ¶[0036]) having flexibility (Foldable area may be an area bent with predefined curvature when foldable device is folded; ¶[0036]).
Re Claim 12, Park teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
forming a display panel (Display panel; AA/NA; Fig 1; ¶[0036]) including a display area (AA; Fig 1; ¶[0036]) and a non-display area (NA; Fig 1; ¶[0036]) adjacent to the display area;
forming a protective film (Hard coating layer; 160; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) in the display area and the non-display area;
forming a light-blocking area (Light blocking layer; 150; Fig 3; ¶[0061]) overlapping the non-display area on one surface of the protective film; and
forming an impact resistance layer (Third adhesive layer/Polarizing plate; 135/130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0046]) overlapping the display area and the non-display area on a surface of the protective film, wherein the impact resistance layer includes a polymer material (Polarizing plate 135 materials, i.e. includes polarizer 137, wherein polarizer 137 comprises of an oriented polymer film and third adhesive layer 135 comprises of a pressure sensitive adhesive, i.e. polymer-based material; ¶[0058]).
Re Claim 15, Park teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the impact resistance layer (Third adhesive layer/Polarizing plate; 135/130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0046]) includes a soft material (Polarizing plate comprising transparent base 139, i.e. polyacrylate; Fig 4; ¶[0057]) and an adhesive material (Third adhesive layer 135 comprises pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA); ¶[0066]).
Re Claim 16, Park teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the adhesive material (Third adhesive layer 135 comprises pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA); ¶[0066]) includes a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 3-5, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Seungun et al. (Pub No. US 20230009733 A1) (hereinafter, Park) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Song, Kicheol et al. (Pub No. US 20210184161 A1) (hereinafter, Song).
Re Claim 3, Park does not teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the polymer material includes a soft material, wherein the soft material is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicon acrylate, and polyurethane.
In the same field of endeavor, Song teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the polymer material includes a soft material (Material for window protection layer WPL; ¶[0105]), wherein the soft material is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicon acrylate, and polyurethane (Soft material may comprise of thermoplastic polyurethane; ¶[0105]).
Song, Fig 5 – Cross-sectional view of display device
PNG
media_image4.png
379
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the polymer material including a soft material, wherein the soft material is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicon acrylate, and polyurethane, as taught by Song, for the display device of Park. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because thermoplastic polyurethane is well known to be ideal for an impact resistance layer which is waterproof and chemically stable, such that it can prevent water, oils and chemicals from corroding the display device.
Re Claim 4, Park teaches the display device of claim 3, wherein the polymer material (Polarizing plate 135 materials, i.e. includes polarizer 137, wherein polarizer 137 comprises of an oriented polymer film and third adhesive layer 135 comprises of a pressure sensitive adhesive, i.e. polymer-based material; ¶[0058]) includes the soft material (Polarizing plate comprising transparent base 139, i.e. polyacrylate; Fig 4; ¶[0057]) and an adhesive material (Third adhesive layer 135 comprises pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA); ¶[0066]).
Re Claim 5, Park teaches the display device of claim 4, wherein the adhesive material (Third adhesive layer 135 comprises pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA); ¶[0066]) includes a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA).
Re Claim 8, Park does not teach the display device of claim 6, wherein the second impact resistance layer includes a soft material, where the soft material is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicone acrylate, and polyurethane.
In the same field of endeavor, Song teaches the display device of claim 6, wherein the second impact resistance layer (Window protection layer; WPL; Fig 5; ¶[0105]) includes a soft material (Material for window protection layer WPL; ¶[0105]), where the soft material is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicone acrylate, and polyurethane (Soft material may comprise of thermoplastic polyurethane; ¶[0105]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the second impact resistance layer including a soft material, where the soft material is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicone acrylate, and polyurethane, as taught by Song, for the display device of Park. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because thermoplastic polyurethane is well known to be ideal for an impact resistance layer which is waterproof and chemically stable, such that it can prevent water, oils and chemicals from corroding the display device.
Re Claim 17, Park does not teach the method of claim 15, wherein the soft material is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicone acrylate, and polyurethane.
In the same field of endeavor, Song teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the soft material (Material for window protection layer WPL; ¶[0105]) is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicone acrylate, and polyurethane (Soft material may comprise of thermoplastic polyurethane; ¶[0105]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the soft material which is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicone acrylate, and polyurethane, as taught by Song, for the display device of Park. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because thermoplastic polyurethane is well known to be ideal for an impact resistance layer which is waterproof and chemically stable, such that it can prevent water, oils and chemicals from corroding the display device.
10. Claims 13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Seungun et al. (Pub No. US 20230009733 A1) (hereinafter, Park) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Won Yu Lim et al. (Pub No. KR 20200022168 A) (hereinafter, Won).
Re Claim 13, Park does not teach the method of claim 12, wherein the forming of the impact resistance layer includes coating the impact resistance layer directly on a surface of each of the light-blocking layer and the protective film.
In the same field of endeavor, Won teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the forming of the impact resistance layer (Hard coating layer; 634; Fig 6b-6d) includes coating (Coating protective film and black matrix; Figs 6b-6d) the impact resistance layer directly on a surface (Bottom surface of protective film 431 and side surfaces of black matrix 633; Figs 6b–6d) of each of the light-blocking layer (Black matrix; 633; Figs 6b-6d; ¶[0125]) and the protective film (Protective film; 431; Figs 6b-6d; ¶[0125]).
Won, Fig 6d – Final process step in forming display device
PNG
media_image5.png
203
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the impact resistance layer which includes coating the impact resistance layer directly on a surface of each of the light-blocking layer and the protective film, as taught by Won, for the display device as taught by Park. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure there is additional protection to the display device by coating an impact resistance layer directly underneath the protective film. Further, the impact resistance layer must be coated over the light-blocking layer, i.e. black matrix, to ensure stray light can be absorbed and external glare is reduced.
Re Claim 18, Park teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the forming of the impact resistance layer (Third adhesive layer/Polarizing plate; 135/130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0046]; Note: Figure 4 shows components, i.e. polarizer 137, etc. of polarizing plate 130 from Figure 3) includes:
forming a first impact resistance layer (Polarizing plate; 130; Fig 3; ¶[0061]) on a surface (Bottom surfaces of 150/160; Fig 3) of each of the light-blocking layer (Light blocking layer; 150; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) and the protective film (Hard coating layer; 160; Fig 3; ¶[0038]); and
forming a second impact resistance layer (Third adhesive layer; 135; Fig 3; ¶[0066]) on the first impact resistance layer.
Re Claim 19, Park teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the first impact resistance layer (Polarizing plate; 130; Figs 3/4; ¶[0061]) includes an adhesive material (Polarizing plate 130 may comprise of adhesive layer 136 which may be a PSA; Figs 3/4; ¶0059]).
11. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Seungun et al. (Pub No. US 20230009733 A1) (hereinafter, Park) in view of Won Yu Lim et al. (Pub No. KR 20200022168 A) (hereinafter, Won) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Song, Kicheol et al. (Pub No. US 20210184161 A1) (hereinafter, Song).
Re Claim 20, Park in view of Won does not teach the method of claim 18, wherein the second impact resistance layer is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicone acrylate, and polyurethane.
In the same field of endeavor, Song teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the second impact resistance layer (Window protection layer; WPL; Fig 5; ¶[0105]) is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicone acrylate, and polyurethane (Window protection layer may comprise of thermoplastic polyurethane; ¶[0105]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the second impact resistance layer which is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyether block amide (PEBA), silicone acrylate, and polyurethane, as taught by Song, for the display device of Park in view of Won. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because thermoplastic polyurethane is well known to be ideal for an impact resistance layer which is waterproof and chemically stable, such that it can prevent water, oils and chemicals from corroding the display device.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art Park, Seungun et al. (Pub No. US 20230009733 A1) (hereinafter, Park) in view of Won Yu Lim et al. (Pub No. KR 20200022168 A) (hereinafter, Won) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
“The method of claim 13, wherein the impact resistance layer is coated by a thermal transfer process,”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as claimed and defined by applicant.
In the instant case, re claim 14, Park in view of Won disclose the method of claim 13 which requires a photo-curing process to coat the impact resistance layer, and therefore art comprising of a thermal transfer process would not be obvious to use in substitution of the photo-curing process, i.e. a different process would compromise the functionality of the device. Further, Park in view of Won does not disclose any thermal process for coating an impact resistance layer, therefore it would not be obvious to use the prior art to create the invention of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [1] Shin, Jai Ku et al. (Pub No. US 20210111230 A1) discloses a display device including: a sensor device; a display module to display an image and having a first through-hole in which the sensor device is positioned; and a bottom panel cover on one surface of the display module and having a second through-hole in which the sensor device is positioned. The first through-hole has breadth that increases from the one surface of the display module toward another surface of the display module opposite to the one surface of the display module.
[2] Eo, Sung Woo et al. (Pub No. US 20210119170 A1) discloses a display device including a display module including a display area from which an image is displayed and a hole area disposed inside the display area, and a window disposed on the display module and including a first window area overlaying the hole area and a second window area overlapping the display area, wherein a first thickness of the first window area may be greater than a second thickness of the second window area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY EDWARD DUREN whose telephone number is (703)756-1426. The examiner can normally be reached 07:30 - 17:00 PST.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.E.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights