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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remark, see pages 2-3, filed 3/31/2026, with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot, because the new ground of rejection incorporates a new interpretation of the claims that rely on different combination of prior art that now includes Kim, and is considered to teach the newly amended language specifically challenged. Note, newly presented amendment to independent claim 1 is not sufficient in overcoming Kishimoto in view of Kim in its current form. Please see revised rejection of the claims below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto 2022/0113824 in view of Kim 2020/0313111.
Regarding claim 1, Kishimoto discloses a foldable display apparatus (Figs 1, 2) with a foldable area (FDA, Fig 3) including a folding axis (FL1 or FL2, Fig 3) and two non-foldable areas (NFA1, NFA2, Fig 3) respectively on both opposing sides of the foldable area (Fig 3), comprising: a first support plate (600, Fig 11) having a plurality of opening patterns defined in the foldable area (see middle region of 600, Figs 6, 7); a second support plate (700, Fig 11) above the first support plate (Fig 11) and including a material different from a material of the first support plate (rigid material of 600 greater/different than 700 in kind and thickness, par 0072); a first adhesive layer (epoxy contained as part of 600, par 0071) between the first support plate and the second support plate (last sentence par 0071), a first plate (500, Fig 11) above the second support plate (Fig 11); a third adhesive layer (AD5, Fig 11) between the second support plate and the first plate (Fig 11); a display panel (100, Fig 11) above the first plate (Fig 11); a fourth adhesive layer (AD4, Fig 11) between the first plate and the display panel (Fig 11); a polarizing
layer (200, Fig 11) above the display panel (Fig 11); a fifth adhesive layer (AD1, Fig 11) between the display panel and the polarizing layer (Fig 11); a cover window (300, Fig 11) above the polarizing layer (Fig 11); and a sixth adhesive layer (AD2, Fig 11) between the polarizing layer and the cover window (Fig 11), wherein the plurality of opening patterns extend in a direction parallel to the folding axis and are provided in a discontinuous form (as depicted in Figs 5-7), wherein a length of each of the plurality of opening patterns (SLT, Fig 7) is smaller than a width in the folding-axis direction of the first support plate (length of FDA across is smaller, Figs 6, 7).
Kishimoto discloses the claimed invention except for expressly teaching wherein the plurality of opening patterns adjacent to each other in the direction perpendicular to the folding axis are arranged in a staggered manner, forming a zigzag arrangement.
Kim, however, teaches wherein the plurality of opening patterns (at 24b, Fig 18) adjacent to each other in a direction perpendicular (as depicted in Fig 17) to a folding axis (along 22, Fig 1) are arranged in a staggered manner (as shown in Fig 18), forming a zigzag arrangement (zigzag patterns within 82, Fig 17).
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 plurality of openings of Kishimoto to include patterns adjacent to each other in the direction perpendicular to the folding axis are arranged in a staggered manner, forming a zigzag arrangement, as taught by Kim, in order to provide a layer/pattern of self-healing elastomer in the flexible region of the device in middle for increased flexibility, thereby improving reliability.
Regarding claim 2, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 1, Kishimoto teaches wherein spacings between the opening patterns adjacent to each other in the direction perpendicular to the folding axis are uniform (see Fig 7).
Regarding claim 5, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 2, Kishimoto teaches wherein the second portion of the first adhesive layer covers all of the plurality of opening patterns of the first support plate (see Figs 6, 7).
Regarding claim 6, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 1, Kishimoto teaches wherein the first support plate includes a metal (see par 0134), and the second support plate includes a polymer blocking UV rays (see par 0116).
Regarding claim 7, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 1, Kishimoto teaches wherein the second support plate includes polyethylene terephthalate having a black color (in the form of polyester adjacent, par 0071).
Regarding claim 8, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 1, Kishimoto teaches wherein the second support plate includes polyimide (par 0116).
Regarding claim 9, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 1, Kishimoto teaches the apparatus further comprising a second adhesive layer disposed on a surface of the first adhesive layer (AD5 atop epoxy of 600, Fig 11).
Regarding claim 12, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 1, Kishimoto teaches wherein the first adhesive layer includes an adhesive layer cured in two different curing schemes selected from among at least one of heat curing, light curing, and moisture curing schemes (acrylic resin, epoxy resin or phenolic resin, par 0107, Fig 8).
Regarding claim 14, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 1, Kishimoto teaches wherein the second support plate blocks UV rays (digitizer 700 blocks UV rays, Fig 11).
Regarding claim 15, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 2, Kishimoto teaches wherein the material of the second portion has a higher modulus than a modulus of the material of each of the first portions (see par 0072).
Regarding claim 16, Kishimoto in view of Kim discloses the foldable display apparatus of claim 1, Kishimoto teaches the apparatus further comprising a light-blocking layer disposed on an edge portion of the cover window (par 0068), wherein the light-blocking layer is covered with the sixth adhesive layer for attaching the cover window to the polarizing layer (see Figs 11, 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The dependent claims listed below, in combination with the remaining elements of the independent claim(s) from which they directly/indirectly depend, are not taught, or adequately suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 3. The foldable display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a first spacing between the opening patterns adjacent to each other in the direction perpendicular to a folding axis of the foldable area in a central portion adjacent to the folding axis is smaller than a second spacing between the opening patterns
adjacent to each other in the direction perpendicular to the folding axis in an edge portion on either side of the central portion.
Claim 4. The foldable display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first adhesive layer has: first portions respectively in each of the two non-foldable areas; and a second portion in the foldable area, wherein a material of the second portion has a higher degree of cure than a degree of cure of a material of each of the first portions.
Claim 10. The foldable display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the second adhesive layer has a lower degree of cure than a degree of cure of the second portion of the first adhesive layer.
Claim 11. The foldable display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first adhesive layer includes at least two first adhesive layers, and the second adhesive layer includes at least two second adhesive layers, and wherein the at least two first adhesive layers and the at least two second adhesive layers are alternately
stacked with each other.
Claim 13. The foldable display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first portions and the second portion of the first adhesive layer are first cured in a first curing scheme selected from among the heat curing, light curing, and moisture curing schemes and then only the second portion is second cured in a second curing scheme different from the first curing scheme and selected from among the heat curing, light curing, and moisture curing schemes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO 892.
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 RASHEN E MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-8852. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/RASHEN E MORRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights