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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 5/7/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/7/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 is rejected for being unclear as to what support layer it is referring to in lines 4-5.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Manea et al (US 20230315154 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Manea teaches a support member for a display device comprising a first support layer (414, TPU layer) (e.g., thermoplastic polyurethane (i.e., polymer resin)) including a first area, a second area, and a third area between the first area and the second area; and a second support layer (402, first support plate) directly contacting a first surface of the first support layer, wherein the second support layer includes a material different (e.g., nickel or other metals) from a material of the first support layer, wherein the second support layer includes a stretchable portion (404), and wherein the stretchable portion overlaps the third area, and at least one opening is defined in the stretchable portion; wherein a thickness of the second support layer is greater than a thickness of the first support layer (para 31, 42-45; fig 4 edited and relabeled below).
PNG
media_image1.png
241
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Manea teaches the third area (304) extends in a first direction, and a plurality of openings spaced apart from each other are defined in the stretchable portion of the second support layer, wherein each of the plurality of openings extends in the first direction; wherein a length of each of the plurality of openings in the first direction is less than a length of the second support layer in the first direction, and the plurality of openings are arranged in the first direction and a second direction crossing the first direction (para 39, fig 3a).
Regarding claim 19, Manea teaches a display device (e.g., foldable display comprising a display panel including a first non-folding area, a second non-folding area, and a folding area between the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area (not pictured) (para 44), but this structure and features would be inherent in a foldable display.
Manea further teaches a support member disposed under the display panel and including a first support layer (414, TPU layer) (e.g., thermoplastic polyurethane (i.e., polymer resin)) including a first area, a second area, and a third area between the first area and the second area; and a second support layer (402, first support plate) directly contacting a first surface of the first support layer, wherein the second support layer includes a material different (e.g., nickel or other metals) from a material of the first support layer, wherein the second support layer includes a stretchable portion (404), and wherein the stretchable portion overlaps the third area, and at least one opening is defined in the stretchable portion (para 31, 42-45; fig 4 edited and relabeled below).
PNG
media_image1.png
241
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4, 7-13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manea.
Regarding claim 4, Manea teaches the second support layer (e.g., first support plate) may be formed from polycarbonate (i.e., includes polymer resin) (para 31); and the TPU layer (i.e., first support layer) may be formed of other appropriate materials and provide rigidity (para 45); and other support plates or layers may be formed of more rigid materials such as metals (e.g., iron, aluminum, magnesium, copper, zinc, titanium, tungsten, nickel, cobalt, tin, lead, or an alloy thereof) (para 31); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in skill in the art at the time of invention to use a metal in the TPU layer to enhance rigidity. Furthermore, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 7-10, Manea teaches the second support layer (e.g., first support plate) is couple to the TPU layer (i.e., first support layer), but fails to teach how it is coupled (para 45); but Manea further teaches using adhesive to couple layers in the foldable display; so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in skill in the art at the time of invention to use an adhesive to couple the second support layer (e.g., first support plate) is couple to the TPU layer (i.e., first support layer), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in skill in the art at the time of invention to use an adhesive layer to couple the second support layer (e.g., first support plate) to the TPU layer since it was known design choice in the art at the time of invention; and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
This would have resulted in a coating layer overlapping the third area, extending in the first direction, and disposed between the first support layer and the second support layer and a first surface of the coating layer directly contacts the first surface of the first support layer.
Manea teaches the second support layer further includes a first support portion overlapping the first area and a second support portion overlapping the second area; the first support portion and the second support portion are directly contact the first surface of the first support layer; and the second support layer includes a first surface facing the first surface of the first support layer and a second surface opposite to the first surface, (fig 4 above).
Regarding the limitations “a second surface of the coating layer opposite to the first surface is not adhered to the stretchable portion of the second support layer;” “the stretchable portion is spaced apart from the first surface of the first support layer;” and “ a distance between the first surface of the first support layer and the second surface of the second support layer in the first area is less than a distance between the first surface of the first support layer and the second surface of the second support layer in the third area” it is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the stretchable portion of Manea with the dimensions (i.e., size of the stretchable area and its openings and/or structures in between the openings) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the size and the shape of the stretchable area and its openings and/or structures in between the opening to optimize its ability to bend and stretch.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, it is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the stretchable portion of Manea with the dimensions (i.e., size of the stretchable area and its openings and/or structures in between the openings) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the size and the shape of the stretchable area and its openings and/or structures in between the opening to optimize its ability to bend and stretch.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Manea teaches the second support layer (e.g., first support plate) is couple to the TPU layer (i.e., first support layer), but fails to teach how it is coupled (para 45); but Manea further teaches using adhesive to couple layers in the foldable display; so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in skill in the art at the time of invention to use an adhesive to couple the second support layer (e.g., first support plate) is couple to the TPU layer (i.e., first support layer), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in skill in the art at the time of invention to use an adhesive layer to couple the second support layer (e.g., first support plate) to the TPU layer since it was known design choice in the art at the time of invention; and since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
This would have resulted in a first elastic layer (e.g., adhesive layer) overlapping the third area, extending in the first direction, positioned within the opening of the second support layer, and directly contacting the first surface of the first support layer.
It is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the elastic layer of Manea with the dimensions (i.e., thickness of the adhesive or elastic layer) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the size and the thickness of the first elastic layer to optimize its ability to bond and its physical and/or mechanical properties (e.g., weight, overall strength, tear strength, etc.)
Regarding claim 18, Manea the TPU layer (i.e., first support layer) may be provide rigidity (para 45); it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to duplicate the TPU layer (i.e., first support layer) to add rigidity to the support member, and therein creating a third support layer directly contacting a second surface of the first support layer and including a same material as the first support layer, and wherein the second surface of the first support layer is opposite to the first surface of the support layer. Furthermore, duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Claims 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manea as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Song et al (US 2019/0204867 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Manea teaches the support member of claim 13.
Manea fails to suggest wherein the first elastic layer directly contacts an inner side surface of the second support layer, wherein the inner side surface defines the opening; and wherein a thickness of the first elastic layer is equal to a thickness of the second support layer.
Song teaches the use of an adhesive layer (180) (i.e., elastic layer) in foldable displays (180) to attach a rigid member (150) (i.e., second support layer) with an opening and folding area (151) to a support substrate (i.e., first support layer); wherein the first elastic layer directly contacts an inner side surface of the second support layer, wherein the inner side surface defines the opening; and wherein a thickness of the first elastic layer is equal to a thickness of the second support layer; and adhesive is a flexibility-improving adhesive layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the adhesive layer of Song to attach the TPU layer (i.e., first support layer) to the first support plate (i.e., second support layer) of Manea for a support member with improved flexibility.
Regarding claims 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a second adhesive layer (i.e., second elastic layer) on the side of the first adhesive layer to thicken the adhesive layer(s) and strengthen the bond between the adhesive layers and the first support layer and second support layer. Furthermore, duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights