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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2024, 10/16/2025, and 11/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, and Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16 - 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/30/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the fourth surface of the second substrate further includes a third convex portion whose protrusion height from the second reference surface is different from that of the second convex portion and a third concave portion whose recess depth from the second reference surface is different from that of the second convex portion.” There is no support for this limitation in the specification or the drawings.
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.
Claims 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the lower slimming portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites ““wherein the fourth surface of the second substrate further includes a third convex portion whose protrusion height from the second reference surface is different from that of the second convex portion and a third concave portion whose recess depth from the second reference surface is different from that of the second convex portion.” This limitation is unclear because the first part of the limitation compares the protrusion heights of the third and second convex portions; whereas the second part of the limitation compares the third concave portion and the second convex portion. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets this limitation as “wherein the fourth surface of the second substrate further includes a third convex portion whose protrusion height from the second reference surface is different from that of the second convex portion and a third concave portion whose recess depth from the second reference surface is different from that of the second concave portion.”
Claim 15 recites “wherein the light emitting element layer includes a first electrode positioned on the first surface of the second substrate”. This limitation is unclear because, based on claim 1 limitation “a second substrate which faces the first substrate and in which a third surface facing the second surface and a fourth surface opposite to the third surface” the second substrate does not have a first surface defined. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets this limitation as “wherein the light emitting element layer includes a first electrode positioned on the third surface of the second substrate.”
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 1 – 4 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US20190252637A1; hereinafter Wu).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu: FIG. 7
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses a display device (foldable display device 100, FIG. 7 reproduced above, [0046]) comprising:
a first substrate (cover layer 1082) in which a first surface (outer surface of 1082) and a second surface (inner surface of 1082 facing display structure 106) opposite to the first surface are defined, FIG. 7, [0025], [0036];
Wu [0025], [0036] discloses the cover layer 1082 is a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate, a polyimide (PI) substrate, or a polyethylene naphtha alate (PEN) substrate. Therefore 1082 is interpreted as the first substrate.
a second substrate (substrate 102) which faces the first substrate (1082) and in which a third surface facing the second surface (inner surface of 102 facing the inner surface of 1082 and the display structure 106) and a fourth surface (outer surface of 102) opposite to the third surface, FIG.7, [0025], [0026]; and
a light emitting element layer (display structure 106 including display unit 1062) which is disposed on the third surface of the second substrate (inner surface of 102 facing the display structure 106), FIG. 7, [0027].
wherein the first substrate (1082) is formed to be entirely slimmed, FIG. 7, [0025], [0026], [0039].
Wu [0025], [0026] discloses the cover layer 1082 is a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate, a polyimide (PI) substrate, or a polyethylene naphtha alate (PEN) substrate and the protecting layer 108 which includes cover layer 1082 is disposed on the foldable portion P1 and the main portions P2 of the substrate 102. [0039] discloses the thickness of 1082 is t22 in the portion P1. As shown in the FIG. 7, the thickness t22 of 1082 remains the same in portions P1 and P2.
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to uniformly reduce the thickness of the first substrate 1082 across its entirety, thereby forming an entirely slimmed first substrate in order to optimize the stress distribution of the foldable display device when it is folded, [0039].
the second substrate (102) includes an upper slimming portion (supporting film 1023 of the substrate 102 has a recess E1 in the foldable portion P1) slimmed in a thickness direction from the fourth surface (outer surface of 102), FIG. 7, [0044].
a thickness of the entirely slimmed first substrate (thickness t22 of 1082) is smaller than a thickness of the upper slimming portion (thickness t1 of recess E1), FIG. 7, [0039].
Wu [0039] discloses the thickness t1 of the recess E1 is greater than thickness t22 of the cover layer 1082 on the foldable portion P1. As shown in the FIG. 7, the thickness of 1082 remains the same in portions P1 and P2. Therefore, the thickness of the entirely slimmed first substrate 1082 is smaller than a thickness of the upper slimming portion E1 of second substrate 102.
Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first substrate (1082) is less than 100 μm, [0054].
Wu [0054] discloses that the first substrate 1082 may be replaced by a hard coating cover layer 1084 of thickness less than 100 μm, such as in a range from 50 μm to 100 μm, indicating the first substrate 1082 may also have a thickness of less than 100 μm.
Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses the display device of claim 2, wherein a thickness of the upper slimming portion of the second substrate is 300 μm or less.
Wu [0039] discloses that the upper slimming portion E1 of the second substrate 102 has a thickness t1, and the relationship of the thickness t1, the thickness t21, and the thickness t22 can optimize the stress distribution of the foldable display device 100 when it is folded. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the upper slimming portion of the second substrate 102 to 300 μm or less to achieve the desired stress distribution of the folded display device 100.
Regarding Claim 4, Wu discloses the display device of claim 3, wherein the first substrate (1082) includes an Invar alloy, [0025], [0036].
Wu [0025], [0036] discloses the first substrate (cover layer 1082) is a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate, a polyimide (PI) substrate, or a polyethylene naphtha alate (PEN) substrate, but allows the use of other materials, which could include Invar alloy.
and the second substrate (102) includes glass or quartz (substrate 102 may include polymer material, thin glass, or any suitable material), [0025].
Regarding Claim 11, Wu discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the second substrate (102) further includes an upper non-slimming portion (P2) surrounding the upper slimming portion (P1) in plan view, and the thickness of the upper slimming portion (t1) is smaller than a thickness of the upper non-slimming portion (t3), FIG. 1, [0044].
Regarding Claim 12, Wu discloses the display device of claim 11, wherein in plan view, the upper slimming portion (P1) completely penetrates through the second substrate (102) along a first direction (D1), FIG. 1, [0022].
Wu [0022] discloses the substrate 102 includes main portion P2 adjoining the foldable portion P1 which includes the recessed portion E1 and the folding axis AX is parallel with the first direction D1. As shown in FIG. 1, the foldable portion P1 extends continuously across the substrate along D1 direction, indicating the upper slimming portion completely penetrates through the substrate 102.
Regarding Claim 13, Wu discloses the display device of claim 12, wherein a folding area (foldable region 150 corresponding to the foldable portion P1 of the substrate 102) extending along the first direction (D1) and a non-folding area (main region 152 corresponding to the main portion P2 of the substrate 102) positioned around the folding area (150) are further defined in the display device (100), FIG. 1, [0022].
Regarding Claim 14, Wu discloses the display device of claim 13, wherein the folding area (150) includes a portion of the lower slimming portion (foldable portion P1 of the first substrate 1082 having a thickness t22) and entirety of the upper slimming portion (foldable portion P1 including the entire recess E1 of thickness t1), FIG. 7, [0044].
Regarding Claim 15, Wu discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting element layer (106) includes a first electrode (1062a) positioned on the third surface of the second substrate (inner surface facing the display element 106 of 102), a second electrode (1062c) positioned on the first electrode (1062a), and an organic light emitting layer (an organic light-emitting layer 1062b) positioned between the first electrode (1062a) and the second electrode (1062c), the second electrode includes a reflective electrode (1062c may include metal, [0031]), and the first electrode includes a transparent conductive material (the first electrodes 1062a are made of transparent conductive material, [0031]), FIG. 3, [0029].
Wu [0031] discloses the second electrode 1062c may include metal and the metal material of the electrodes include Mg, Ca, Al, Ag, W, Cu, Ni, Cr, or an alloy thereof, indicating the second electrode 1062c may be a reflective electrode.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Hiuga (JP2007127830A; hereinafter Hiuga).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu discloses the display device of claim 1.
Wu does not disclose “wherein a roughness of the first surface of the first substrate is greater than a roughness of the second surface of the first substrate.”
In a similar art, Hiuga discloses a liquid crystal display device 102, FIG. 3, [0036].
Hiuga FIG. 3, [0037] discloses the entire surface of the substrate 42b is thinned and irregularities are formed on the entire outer surface. Wu FIG. 7, [0039] discloses the entire first substrate 1082 is of uniform thickness t22.
Hiuga discloses: wherein a roughness of the first surface of the first substrate (outer surface of substrate 42b) is greater than a roughness (irregularities) of the second surface of the first substrate (inner surface of substrate 42b facing the electrodes 26a and 26b), FIG. 3, [0037].
The combination of Wu and Hiuga discloses: wherein a roughness of the first surface of the first substrate (Wu: outer surface of 1082) greater than a roughness of the second surface of the first substrate (Wu: inner surface of 1082 facing display structure 106), Hiuga: FIG.3, [0037].
Hiuga discloses that a device as taught with greater roughness of the outer surface of the substrate improves light scattering properties [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu’s device in order to improve light scattering properties as disclosed by Hiuga [0037].
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Wu and Hiuga discloses the display device of claim 5.
Wu does not disclose “wherein a roughness of the fourth surface of the upper slimming portion of the second substrate is greater than a roughness of the third surface.”
Hiuga FIG. 1, [0020] discloses the substrate 22b is formed with a concave portion H having a substantially rectangular shape in plan view formed by partially removing the surface and unevenness is formed in the bottom surface portion 22D of the concave portion H.
The combination of Wu and Hiuga discloses: wherein a roughness (Hiuga: unevenness) of the fourth surface of the upper slimming portion of the second substrate (Wu: surface of recess E1 of substrate 102) is greater than a roughness of the third surface (Wu: inner surface of 102 facing the display element), Hiuga, FIG. 1, [0020]
Hiuga discloses that a device as taught with greater roughness of the slimming portion of the substrate improves light scattering properties [0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in order to improve light scattering properties as disclosed by Hiuga [0020].
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Maruyama et al. (US20020149320A1; hereinafter Maruyama).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu discloses the display device of claim 1.
Wu does not disclose “wherein a roughness of the first surface of the first substrate is smaller than a roughness of the second surface of the first substrate.”
In a similar art, Maruyama discloses a display device in which an organic light emitting element 116 is provided, FIG. 3, [0123].
Maruyama FIG. 3, [0124] discloses minute unevennesses are formed on the surface of the second substrate 102 facing the display element 116.
The combination of Wu and Maruyama discloses: wherein a roughness of the first surface of the first substrate (Wu: outer surface of 1082) is smaller than a roughness (Maruyama: minute unevenesses) of the second surface of the first substrate (Wu: inner surface of 1082 facing the display element), Maruyama: FIG. 3, [0124].
Maruyama discloses that a device as taught improves optical properties of the display device [0124]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu’s device in order to improve optical properties as disclosed by Maruyama [0124].
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Wu and Maruyama discloses the display device of claim 6.
Wu does not disclose “wherein a roughness of the fourth surface of the upper slimming portion of the second substrate is smaller than a roughness of the third surface.”
Maruyama FIG. 3, [0124] discloses minute unevennesses are formed on the surface of the second substrate 102 facing the display element 116.
The combination of Wu and Maruyama discloses: wherein a roughness (Maruyama: minute unevennesses) of the fourth surface of the upper slimming portion of the second substrate (Wu: outer surface of recess E1 of the substrate 102) is smaller than a roughness of the third surface (Wu: inner surface of 102 facing the display element 106), Maruyama: FIG. 3, [0124].
Maruyama discloses that a device as taught improves optical properties of the display device [0124]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in order to improve optical properties as disclosed by Maruyama [0124].
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Hiuga, further in view of Maruyama.
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Wu and Hiuga discloses the display device of claim 7.
Maruyama FIG. 3, [0125] discloses the formation of minute unevennesses on the surface of the first region 103, the second region 104, and the third region 105 of the substrate 102. The heights of the minute unevennesses are set to be 0.1 μm to 3 μm. Taking the spacing (pitch) between the convex portions as X, it is preferable to set X=0.05 to 1 μm. Therefore, the substrate includes convex portions protruding upward from a first reference surface. As shown in FIG. 3, the substrate includes concave portions recessed downward from the first reference surface, between adjacent convex portions.
The combination of Wu, Hiuga, and Maruyama discloses: wherein the first surface of the first substrate (Wu: outer surface of 1082) includes a first convex portion protruding upward from a first reference surface and a first concave portion recessed downward from the first reference surface (Maruyama: convex and concave portions of the minute unevenesses), and the fourth surface of the second substrate (Wu: outer surface of 102) includes a second convex portion protruding upward from a second reference surface and a second concave portion recessed downward from the second reference surface (Maruyama: convex and concave portions of the minute unevenesses), Maruyama: FIG. 3, [0125].
Maruyama discloses that a device as taught improves optical properties of the display device [0125]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in order to improve optical properties as disclosed by Maruyama [0125].
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Wu, Huiga, and Maruyama discloses the display device of claim 9.
Maruyama FIG. 3, [0125] discloses the formation of minute unevennesses on the surface of the substrate 102. The heights of the minute unevennesses are set to be 0.1 μm to 3 μm. Taking the spacing (pitch) between the convex portions as X, it is preferable to set X=0.05 to 1 μm. Therefore, the substrate includes convex portions protruding upward with varying protrusion heights from a second reference surface. As shown in FIG. 3, the substrate includes concave portions with varying recess depths from a second reference surface between adjacent convex portions.
Maruyama FIG. 3, [0125] discloses in order to prevent diffraction, it is preferable that the unevennesses having different curvatures are provided to improve scattering property.
The combination of Wu, Hiuga, and Maruyama discloses: wherein the fourth surface of the second substrate (Wu: outer surface of 102) further includes a third convex portion whose protrusion height from the second reference surface is different from that of the second convex portion and a third concave portion whose recess depth from the second reference surface is different from that of the second convex portion (Maruyama: convex and concave portions of the minute unevenesses having different curvatures and varying protrusion heights, FIG. 3, [0125].
Maruyama discloses that a device as taught improves optical properties of the display device [0125]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in order to improve optical properties as disclosed by Maruyama [0125].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA PALANISWAMY whose telephone number is (571)272-6239. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM - 5PM 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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/Krishna J. Palaniswamy/
Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights