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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, US 2018/0108862.
Wang shows the invention as claimed including a display device (see figs. 1a-1b) comprising:
A substrate 11 comprising a flat portion and a bending portion disposed on a side of the flat portion (see paragraph 0051);
A light emitting element layer 12 disposed on the substrate 11 and comprising a plurality of light emitting elements disposed in the flat portion and the bending portion (see paragraph 0009); and
An encapsulation layer disposed over the flat portion and the bending portion and comprising a first inorganic encapsulation layer 131 disposed on the light emitting element layer, an organic encapsulation layer 132 disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer, and a second inorganic encapsulation layer 133 disposed on the organic encapsulation layer, wherein at least a portion of the organic encapsulation layer disposed in the bending portion comprises a portion protruding in a direction upward from the substrate, and a maximum height of the organic encapsulation layer disposed in the bending portion is greater than a maximum height of the organic encapsulation layer disposed in the flat portion (see fig. 3 and paragraphs 0049 and 0056).
Concerning dependent claim 2, note that Wang discloses wherein an average height of the organic encapsulation layer disposed in the bending portion is greater than an average height of the organic encapsulation layer disposed in the flat portion.
With respect to dependent claim 3, note that Wang disclose where a volume of the organic insulating material per unit area of the protruding portion of the bending portion is larger than a volume of the organic insulating material per unit area of the flat portion (see fig. 3, for example).
Regarding dependent claim 4, note that Wang discloses wherein a surface length of the second inorganic encapsulation layer measured in a unit area of the bending portion is greater than a surface length of the second inorganic encapsulation layer measured in a unit area of the flat portion (see fig. 3 and paragraph 0056).
As to dependent claim 7, note that Wang discloses a plurality of protruding portions (see, for example, paragraphs 0054 and 0062).
With respect to dependent claim 8, note that in Wang the bending portion is bent toward a rear surface of the substrate opposite a surface of the substrate on which the light emitting element layer is disposed (see, for example, fig. 4).
Regarding independent claim 11, note that Wang discloses the claimed folding and non-folding area, and a volume of the organic insulating material per unit area of the protruding portion of the folding portion is larger than a volume of the organic insulating material per unit area of the non folding portion (see fig. 3, for example).
Concerning dependent claim 12, note that Wang discloses wherein a surface length of the second inorganic encapsulation layer measured in a unit area of the folding portion is greater than a surface length of the second inorganic encapsulation layer measured in a unit area of the non-folding portion (see fig. 3 and paragraph 0056).
As to dependent claim 13, note that Wang discloses wherein a maximum height of the organic encapsulation layer disposed in the folding area is greater than a maximum height of the organic encapsulation layer disposed in the non-folding area.
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.
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, US 2018/0108862.
Wang is applied as above and additionally comprises bending in different directions (see, for example, paragraph 0062). However, Wang does not expressly disclose the first bending portion, the second bending portion, and the flat portion having a same length measured in a second direction. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because he Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Additionally, concerning dependent claim 10, note that in Wang the protruding portion of the organic encapsulation layer is disposed to correspond to a curved area of the bending portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the limitations of: wherein the first inorganic encapsulation layer comprises a first area and a second area other than the first area in the bending portion, the first area has lower surface energy than the second area, as required by dependent claim 5.
Additionally, the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the limitations of: further comprising a pattern portion disposed on the first inorganic encapsulation layer in the bending portion and comprising a material having higher surface energy than a material surrounding the pattern portion, as required by dependent claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0175311 discloses a foldable display with an encapsulation layer (see abstract), and Yoo et al., US 2025/0057012 discloses a display panel which can be folded or rolled (see paragraph 0072)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
August 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights