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 § 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 no obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN 110518039 A, and Yu hereinafter) in view of Kim et al. (US 9983424 B2, and Kim hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel (410, fig. 3); and
a support plate under the display panel (210, fig. 3), and comprising a first non-folding portion (FS-1, fig. 3), a folding portion (SS, fig. 3), and a second non-folding portion (FS-2, fig. 3), which are located along a first direction (F1, fig. 3),
wherein the folding portion is provided with a plurality of openings (110, fig. 3) defined therethrough, the folding portion comprises branches between the openings (annotated figure I below),
wherein the folding portion is configured to be folded with respect to a folding axis (L0, fig. 7) parallel to a second direction crossing the first direction (fig. 7),
wherein an area ratio of the openings to the branches is greater at a portion of the folding portion adjacent to at least one of the first or second non-folding portions than at a center of the folding portion (fig. 7).
Yu does not explicitly disclose a length in the second direction of each of the openings is greater than a length in the first direction of each of the openings.
Kim discloses a display device wherein a length in a second direction (horizontal direction, fig. 5D) of each opening (482, fig. 5D) is greater than a length in a first direction of each of the openings (vertical direction, fig. 5D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yu to incorporate the teachings of Kim so that a length in the second direction of each of the openings is greater than a length in the first direction of each of the openings, in order to facilitate a faster folding process (“Each of the first and second patterns 482 a and 482 b is formed to extend along the row direction … where the opening pattern 482 is formed, has the spring-like function in the unfolding operation such that an elastic restoration energy of the backplate 480 is increased. Accordingly, the unfolding speed of the foldable display device 100 is increased”, Col. 10, ln. 13-29 of Kim).
PNG
media_image1.png
1003
1755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the branches comprise:
a plurality of first branches between the openings that are adjacent to each other in the first direction (see annotated figure I above); and
a plurality of second branches between the openings that are adjacent to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction (see annotated figure I above).
Regarding Claim 3, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 2, wherein the folding portion is configured to be folded with respect to the folding axis (L0, fig. 7 of Yu) overlapping with the center of the folding portion (F2, fig. 7 of Yu), and
wherein the folding axis overlaps with one of the first branches (annotated figure I above).
Regarding Claim 4, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 2, wherein at least one of a length in the first direction of the first branches, a length in the second direction of the second branches, a length in the first direction of the openings, or a length in the second direction of the openings is varied as a distance from the center of the folding portion increases (fig. 7 of Yu and annotated figure I above).
Regarding Claim 5, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein, in a plan view, the length in the first direction of the first branches decreases as the distance from the center of the folding portion increases in the first direction (annotated fig. I above).
Regarding Claim 6, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 5, wherein, in a plan view, the length in the first direction of the openings increases as the distance from the center of the folding portion increases in the first direction (annotated fig. I above).
Regarding Claim 7, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein, in a plan view, the length in the second direction of the openings increases as the distance from the center of the folding portion in the first direction increases (annotated fig. I above).
Regarding Claim 8, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 7, wherein, in a plan view, the length in the second direction of the second branches located between the openings that are adjacent to each other in the second direction decreases as the distance from the center of the folding portion in the first direction increases (annotated fig. I above).
Regarding Claim 9, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein the length in the second direction of the second branches decreases as the distance from the center of the folding portion increases (annotated figure I above), and the length in the second direction of the openings is uniform (fig. 7 of Yu shows that in any given column along the second direction, the length of the openings is uniform).
Regarding Claim 10, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein the length in the first direction of the openings increases as the distance from the center of the folding portion increases (annotated figure I above) but does not explicitly disclose the length in the first direction of the first branches is uniform.
Kim further discloses a length in a first direction of first branches (fig. 9A, distance along the vertical direction between adjacent rows of openings) is uniform (“As illustrated in FIG. 9A, … An opening pattern 782, which is formed in the folding region FR, are arranged with a constant distance”, Col. 13, ln. 31-36).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yu/Kim to incorporate the additional teachings of Kim so that the length in the first direction of the first branches is uniform, in order to simplify the fabrication process that elements of constant separation would require.
Regarding Claim 11, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the folding portion further comprises:
a center portion overlapping with the center of the folding portion in a plan view (annotated figure I above); and
sub-folding portions at opposite sides of the center portion in the first direction, and symmetrical with each other (annotated figure I above).
Regarding Claim 12, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 11, wherein the center portion and each of the sub-folding portions comprise:
a plurality of first branches between the openings that are adjacent to each other in the first direction (annotated figure I above); and
a plurality of second branches between the openings that are adjacent to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction (annotated figure I above).
Regarding Claim 13, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 12, wherein, in a plan view, an area between the openings defined through the center portion is different from an area between the openings defined through the sub-folding portions (annotated figure I above).
Regarding Claim 14, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 13, wherein the first branches of the center portion have the same length as each other (annotated figure I above),
wherein the first branches of the sub-folding portions have the same length as each other (annotated figure I above; e.g., length along F2 is same for all first branches), and
wherein a length in the first direction of the first branches of the sub-folding portions is smaller than a length in the first direction of the first branches of the center portion (annotated figure I above shows that the length, along F1, of leftmost first branch is smaller than length, along F1, of central first branch).
Regarding Claim 15, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 13, wherein the openings defined through the center portion have the same length as each other in the second direction (fig. 7 of Yu),
wherein the length in the second direction of the openings defined through the center portion is smaller than the length in the second direction of the openings defined through the sub-folding portions (annotated figure I above).
Yu/Kim does not explicitly disclose the openings defined through the sub-folding portions have the same length as each other in the second direction.
Kim further discloses the openings defined through sub-folding portions (ED, fig. 9A) have the same length as each other in the second direction (horizontal direction fig. 9A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yu/Kim to incorporate the additional teachings of Kim so that the openings defined through the sub-folding portions have the same length as each other in the second direction, in order to provide a uniform length distribution along the folding axis, which helps to distribute the mechanical stress more uniformly.
Regarding Claim 16, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 15, wherein the second branches of the center portion have the same length as each other in the second direction (fig. 7 of Yu),
wherein the length in the second direction of the second branches of the center portion is greater than the length in the second direction of the second branches of the sub-folding portions (annotated figure I above).
Yu/Kim does not explicitly disclose the second branches of the sub-folding portions have the same length as each other in the second direction.
Kim further discloses second branches (regions between adjacent holes in a horizontal direction, fig. 9A) of the sub-folding portions (ED, fig. 9A) have the same length as each other in the second direction (fig. 9A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yu and Kim to incorporate the additional teachings of Kim so that the second branches of the sub-folding portions have the same length as each other in the second direction, in order to provide a uniform distribution along the folding axis, which helps to distribute the mechanical stress more uniformly.
Regarding Claim 17, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 13, wherein the openings defined through the center portion have the same length as each other in the first direction (fig. 7 of Yu),
wherein the length in the first direction of the openings defined through the center portion is smaller than the length in the first direction of the openings defined through the sub-folding portions (annotated figure I above).
Kim further discloses the openings defined through sub-folding portions (ED, fig. 9A) have the same length as each other in the second direction (horizontal direction fig. 9A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yu/Kim to incorporate the additional teachings of Kim so that the openings defined through the sub-folding portions have the same length as each other in the second direction, in order to provide a uniform length distribution along the folding axis, which helps to distribute the mechanical stress more uniformly.
Regarding Claim 18, Yu/Kim discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein, when the display panel is folded, a portion of the display panel that overlaps with the folding portion is bent to have a first diameter in a direction parallel to the first direction (maximum width of bending portion along horizontal direction of fig. 1 of Yu), and a second diameter (maximum length of bending portion along vertical direction of fig. 1 of Yu) in a third direction perpendicular to a plane defined by the first direction and a second direction crossing the first direction (vertical direction of fig. 1 of Yu is perpendicular to plane defined by F1 and F2 of fig. 7 of Yu).
Yu/Kim does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the first diameter to the second diameter is within a range from 1 to 1.2.
However, Yu discloses the bending pattern 300 has an effect the bending radius of the folding portion during the bending of the device (“when the bending is performed in the bending area, the radian of the bending area can be increased, and the bending radius of the center line of the bending area in the bending state can be increased, thereby avoiding excessive occurrence of problem that the flexible display panel fails due to over-bending”, ([0046]). Since the total length of the folding portion is fixed, the bending radius is a variable that would determine the first and second diameter and hence their ratio; in other words, the bending radius is a result-effective variable. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the determination of the optimum workable range (from 1 to 1.2) might be reached through a process of routine experimentation (Merck & Co. Inc. v. Bio craft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also, MPEP § 2144.05, II, A-B) to produce a predictable result of reducing failure due to over-bending.
Regarding Claim 19, Yu discloses an electronic device comprising a display device for providing an image, the display device comprising:
a display panel (410, fig. 3); and
a support plate (210, fig. 3) under the display panel (fig. 3), and comprising a first non-folding portion (FS-1, fig. 3), a folding portion (SS, fig. 3), and a second non-folding portion (FS-2, fig. 3), which are located along a first direction (F1, fig. 3) so that the folding portion is between the first and second non-folding portions (fig. 3),
wherein the folding portion comprises:
a plurality of first branches located between openings that are adjacent to each other in the first direction from among openings defined through the folding portion (portions of 210 between adjacent vertical columns of openings, fig. 7. See annotated figure I above); and
a plurality of second branches located between openings adjacent to each other in a second direction (F2, annotated figure I above) crossing the first direction from among the openings defined through the folding portion (portions of 210 between adjacent openings of a vertical column of openings, fig. 7. See annotated figure I above),
wherein the folding portion is configured to be folded with respect to a folding axis parallel to the second direction (L0, fig. 7), and
wherein, in a plan view, an area ratio of the openings to the first and second branches increases starting from a center of the folding portion to the first and second non-folding portions (fig. 7).
Yu does not explicitly disclose a length in the second direction of each of the openings is greater than a length in the first direction of each of the openings.
Kim discloses a display device wherein a length in a second direction (horizontal direction, fig. 5D) of each opening (482, fig. 5D) is greater than a length in a first direction of each of the openings (vertical direction, fig. 5D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yu to incorporate the teachings of Kim so that a length in the second direction of each of the openings is greater than a length in the first direction of each of the openings, in order to facilitate a faster folding process (“Each of the first and second patterns 482 a and 482 b is formed to extend along the row direction … where the opening pattern 482 is formed, has the spring-like function in the unfolding operation such that an elastic restoration energy of the backplate 480 is increased. Accordingly, the unfolding speed of the foldable display device 100 is increased”, Col. 10, ln. 13-29 of Kim).
Regarding Claim 20, Yu/Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 19, wherein the folding axis overlaps with one of the first branches in a plan view (fig. 2 of Yu and annotated figure I above), and
wherein at least one of a length in the first direction of the first branches, a length in the second direction of the second branches, a length in the first direction of the openings, or a length in the second direction of the openings is varied as a distance from the center of the folding portion increases (fig. 7 of Yu and annotated figure I above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Applicant argues “the cited portions of Yu do not appear to disclose or even suggest at least the above-recited features of amended claims 1 and 19, and thus, do not appear to anticipate claims 1 and 19. For example, as shown in at least FIG. 7 of Yu, reproduced below, circular openings are shown, and moreover, the cited portions of Yu do not appear to disclose or even suggest at least "wherein an area ratio of the openings extending longer in the second direction to the branches is greater at a portion of the folding portion adjacent to at least one of the first or second non-folding portions than at a center of the folding portion," as now recited in amended claim 1, nor at least "wherein, in a plan view, an area ratio of the openings extending longer in the second direction to the first and second branches increases starting from a center of the folding portion to the first and second non-folding portions," as now recited in amended claim 19. (Emphasis added). Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited portions of Kim and Xiang, which were further cited in the rejections of some of the dependent claims, do not appear to cure the above-discussed deficiencies of Yu to properly reject claims 1 and 19, and there is no apparent reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application would have combined/modified the cited portions of the art of record to arrive at the embodiments respectfully recited in claims 1 and 19”.
Examiner agrees that Yu does not explicitly disclose “openings extending longer in the second direction”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that there is no apparent reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application would have combined/modified the prior art. Yu explicitly states that the shape of the openings is not limited to circular patterns: “In specific implementation, in the embodiment of the present invention, the shape of the bending adjustment pattern may include a regular pattern. For example, circles, rectangles (e.g., squares, rectangles), ovals, triangles, diamonds, and the like. In practical applications, these can be designed and determined according to the actual application environment, which is not limited here” [0045]. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that having openings extending longer in a specific direction, rather than circular openings would represent a mere change of shape. The courts have ruled that, absent disclosure of a functional role, changes in shape do not carry patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841