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 .
This communication is in response to the claim’s amendment dated 1/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9 and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of LEE et al. U.S. Pub. 2026/0081984 .
The previous objection to the specification and the previous 112th rejection are hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. U.S. Pub. 2022/0181576 (hereinafter D1) in view of Furuie U.S. Patent 10,854,828 (hereinafter D2).
Regarding claim 22, D1 teaches a display apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (110; figure 3) comprising a display area (“AA”; figure 3) and a bending portion (“BND”; figure 3), wherein a portion (see figure 3) of the substrate is bent at the bending portion (see figure 3) and disposed under the display area;
a backplate (210; figure 3) disposed below the substrate in the display area;
and a plurality of support members (210 and 220; figure 3) in a multi-layer stack (stack including 210 and 220 in figure 3), the multi-layer stack coupled to the portion of the substrate bent (see figure 3) under the display area and to a further portion (the straight portion of the substrate) of the substrate corresponding to the display area.
However, D1 does not specifically teach a reinforcement member disposed below the substrate in the bending portion, wherein the reinforcement member comprises at least two support layers;
PNG
media_image1.png
544
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a display apparatus, which suggests having a reinforcement member (60 + 70; figure 11) disposed below the substrate in the bending portion (see above annotated figure 11), wherein the reinforcement member (60 + 70) includes at least two support layers (60 and 70; figure 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide the display apparatus of D1 with a reinforcement member disposed on the substrate in the bending portion, wherein the reinforcement member includes at least two support layers, as suggested by D2, to further reinforce said bending portion; and such that the plurality of support members in a multi-layer stack, the multi-layer stack coupled to the portion of the substrate bent under the display area and to a further portion of the substrate corresponding to the display area, wherein the reinforcement member extends from a side surface of an upper one of the plurality of support members, through the bending portion, and to a side surface of a lower one of the plurality of support members.
Claims 1-8, 20, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. U.S. Pub. 2022/0181576 (hereinafter D1) in view of Furuie U.S. Patent 10,854,828 (hereinafter D2) and in further view of LEE et al. U.S. Pub. 2026/0081984 (hereinafter D3).
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a display apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (110; figure 3) comprising a display area (“AA”; figure 3) and a non-display area (“NAA” OR “BZA”; see figure 3 and par[0065]), the non-display area comprising a bending portion (“BND”; figure 3);
a support member (210 + 220; figure 3) disposed below the substrate (110; figure 3) in the display area (“AA”);
a micro-coating layer (600; figure 3; also see par[0223]) disposed on the substrate (110) in the bending portion.
However, D1 does not specifically teach a reinforcement member disposed below the substrate in the bending portion, wherein the reinforcement member comprises a rigid part.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a display apparatus, which suggests having a reinforcement member (60; figure 11) disposed below the substrate (10; figure 11) in a bending portion (see above annotated figure 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide the display apparatus of D1 with a reinforcement member disposed below the substrate in the bending portion, as suggested by D2, to further reinforce said substrate in the bending portion.
However, D1/D2 does not specifically teach that the reinforcement member comprises a rigid part.
D3, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a flexible display apparatus (see abstract), which incorporates a reinforcement member (see par[0233], “a multi-bar”) comprises at least one rod (equivalent of “multi-bar”) extending through the reinforcement member to increase a rigidity (see par[0233]) of the reinforcement member in a bendable (see par[0233]) region for stably maintaining the bending area.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate at least one rod into the reinforcement member of D1/D2, as suggested by D3, to fortify said bendable region.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of D1/D2/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein a first surface (top surface of 60; figure 10 of D2) of the reinforcement member (60; figure 10 of D2) would be attached to the substrate (110; figure 3 of D1), and a second surface (bottom surface of 60; figure 10 of D2) of the reinforcement member would be a non-adhesive portion of the reinforcement member.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of D1/D2/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one rod includes (see par[0233] of D3) a plurality of rods (see par[0233] of D3; “a multi-bar”) extending through the reinforcement member and spaced apart from one another.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of D1/D2/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a signal line (see par[0086] and [0225] of D1) extending from the display area to the bending portion on the substrate, wherein the micro-coating layer (600; figure 3 of D1) is disposed on the signal line, and wherein the signal line and the rigid part overlap (see figure 3 of D1 and figure 8 of D3) each other.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of D1/D2/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
625
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Even though, D1/D2/D3 does not specifically teach wherein the signal line and the at least one rod are disposed in different directions, however,
it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the signal line and the at least one rod in different directions, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), for optimizing the rigidity of said bending region.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of D1/D2/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 1.
Even though, D1/D2/D3 does not specifically teach wherein a modulus of elasticity of the at least one rod is different from a modulus of elasticity of the substrate (par[0081] of D1 indicates the material of substrate 110 is formed of a flexible plastic material), however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use two different materials (which would yield two different modulus of elasticities) for said rod and said substrate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, to derive optimal bending capacity for said bending region. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Note: Modulus of elasticity, also known as Young's modulus, is a measure of a material's stiffness or its resistance to elastic deformation under stress. It is calculated as the ratio of stress (force per unit area) to strain (relative deformation). A higher modulus indicates a stiffer material that can withstand more stress before permanent deformation occurs.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of D1/D2/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 3.
Even though, D1/D2/D3 does not specifically teach wherein the plurality of rods are disposed at uniform intervals, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange or rearrange said plurality of rods at uniform intervals, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), for optimizing the rigidity of said bending region.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above, the modification of D1/D2/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 1.
Even though, D1/D2/D3 does not specifically teach the at least one rod is metal or plastic, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use either metal or plastic for said at least one rod, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, to derive desired rigidity for said bending region. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 20, D1/D2/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support member (210 + 220; figure 3 of D1) comprises:
a first support member (210);
a second support member (220); and
a connection member (400; figure 3 of D1), wherein in a bent configuration (see figure 3 of D1) of the substrate, the connection member (400) is disposed between (see figure 3 of D1) the first support member (210) and the second support member (220).
Regarding claim 21, D1/D2/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 20, wherein the substrate (110; figure 3 of D1) comprises a front surface portion (“FP”; FIGURE 3 of D1) and a pad part (“PAD; figure 3 of D1), wherein the front surface portion comprises the display area (“AA”; figure 3 of D3) and a part of the non-display area (left half portion of “BZA”; figure 3 of D1) excluding the bending portion (“BND”), wherein in the bent configuration of the substrate, the pad part (“PAD”) extends (see figure 3 of D1) from the bending portion to a rear surface (opposite surface of front surface portion; figure 3 of D1) of the front surface portion, wherein in the bending state of the substrate, the second support member (220; figure 3 of D1) couples to the pad part.
Regarding claim 23, the modification of D1/D2/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 22.
D3 further teaches the reinforcement member comprises a plurality of rigid parts (see par[0233] of D3) spaced apart from one another, and the plurality of rigid parts are disposed on the reinforcement member.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to equip the reinforcement member of D1/D2/D3 with a plurality of rigid parts spaced apart from one another, and such that the plurality of rigid parts are disposed on the reinforcement member, as suggested by D3, to further fortify said bending portion.
Claims 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. U.S. Pub. 2022/0181576 (hereinafter D1) in view of Furuie U.S. Patent 10,854,828 (hereinafter D2) in view of OH et al. U.S. Pub. 2016/0320803 (hereinafter D4) and in further view of LEE et al. U.S. Pub. 2026/0081984 (hereinafter D3)
Regarding claim 9, D1 teaches a display apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (110; figure 3) having a display area (“AA”; figure 3), a non-display area (“NAA” or “BZA”; figure 3 and par[0065]), and a bending portion (“BND”; figure 3);
a support member (220; figure 3) disposed on the substrate (110) in the display area (“AA”).
However, D1 does not specifically teach a reinforcement member disposed on the substrate in the bending portion, wherein the reinforcement member includes at least two support layers stacked on each other in a sequential layer stack and a reinforcing member being a rod between the at least two support layers such that the reinforcing member is internal to the sequential layer stack.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a display apparatus, which suggests having a reinforcement member (60 + 70; figure 11) disposed on the substrate in the bending portion (see above annotated figure 11), wherein the reinforcement member (60 + 70) includes at least two support layers (60 and 70; figure 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide the display apparatus of D1 with a reinforcement member disposed on the substrate in the bending portion, wherein the reinforcement member includes at least two support layers, as suggested by D2, to further reinforce said bending portion.
However, D1/D2 does not specifically teach that a reinforcing member between the at least two support layers stacked on each other in a sequential layer stack…such that the reinforcing member is internal to the sequential layer stack.
D4, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a flexible display apparatus, which suggests a reinforcing member (234; figure 11) between two support layers (214 and 256; figure 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate a reinforcing member between the at least two support layers of D1/D2 … such that the reinforcing member is internal to the sequential layer stack, as suggested by D4, to further reinforce said bendable region.
However, D1/D2/D4 does not specifically teach that the reinforcing member is a rod.
D3, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a flexible display apparatus (see abstract), which incorporates a reinforcement member (see par[0233], “a multi-bar”) comprises at least one rod (equivalent of “multi-bar”) extending through the reinforcement member to increase a rigidity (see par[0233]) of the reinforcement member in a bendable (see par[0233]) region for stably maintaining the bending area.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate at least one rod into the reinforcement member of D1/D2, as suggested by D3, to fortify said bendable region.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of D1/D2/D4/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least two support layers includes a first support layer being a base layer (60; figure 11; see column 7, lines 4-17 of D2), a second support layer being an adhesive layer (see column 7, lines 4-17; “adhesive sheet 70” of D2) coupled to the substrate.
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 9.
D4 further teaches a plurality of curved portions (portions formed around protrusions 214a) between the at least two support layers (214 and 256), wherein the reinforcing member includes a plurality of reinforcing members (the inclined and declined portions of 234; figure 11) disposed on the plurality of curved portions.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide a plurality of curved portions between the at least two support layers of D1/D2/D4, as further suggested by D4, wherein the reinforcing member would include a plurality of reinforcing members disposed on the plurality of curved portions, to further reinforce said bendable region.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of D1/D2/D4/D3 would result in the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least two support layers (60 + 70; figure 11) include at least two layers (60 + 70; figure 11) having a different material composition (see column 7, lines 4-17 and figure 11 of D2; 60 is a reinforcing film and 70 is an adhesive sheet) from each other.
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 9.
D4 further suggests the use of polyethylene terephthalate as a support layer (120; see par[0067]) and a pressure sensitive adhesive agent (115; see par[0067]; “adhesive tape”) as another support layer.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to equip the two support layers of display apparatus of D1/D2/D4 with a polyethylene terephthalate layer, and the further layer including a pressure sensitive adhesive agent, as suggested by D4, to easily couple said support layers with said substrate.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 9.
However, D1/D2/D4 does not specifically teach that a material of one of the at least two support layers is identical to a material of the support member.
As disclosed by the specification of the current application: “[0311] A material of the first support layer may be identical to a material of the support member.” Clearly, there is no criticality for a material of one of the at least two support layers to be identical to a material of the support member.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose a material of one of the at least two support layers to be identical to a material of the support member, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, to simplify the design of said display apparatus. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 9.
Note: Modulus of elasticity, also known as Young's modulus, is a measure of a material's stiffness or its resistance to elastic deformation under stress. It is calculated as the ratio of stress (force per unit area) to strain (relative deformation). A higher modulus indicates a stiffer material that can withstand more stress before permanent deformation occurs.
Even though, D1/D2/D4/D3 does not specifically teach a modulus of elasticity of the substrate and a modulus of elasticity of one of the at least two support layers are different from each other, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose the materials for said substrate and one of the at least two support layers such that a modulus of elasticity of the substrate and a modulus of elasticity of one of the at least two support layers are different from each other, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; in this case, the material for one of the at least two support layers would be more flexible (for bending) than the material of the substrate . In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 9.
However, D1/D2/D4/D3 does not specifically further teach: an adhesive layer between the substrate (110; figure 3 of D1) and the support member (210; figure 3 of D1), wherein the adhesive layer is made of a same material as the second support layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
470
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
D1, however suggests the application of an adhesive layer (150; figure 3; see par[0076]) between two stack parts (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide an adhesive layer between the substrate (110; figure 3 of D1) and the support member (220; figure 3 of D1), as suggested by D1, to enhance overall structural integrity of said display apparatus.
Even though, D1/D2/D4/D3 does not specifically teach wherein the adhesive layer is made of a same material as the second support layer, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose the adhesive layer to be made of a same material as the second support layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, to simplify the design of said display apparatus. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 9.
However, D1/D2/D4 does not further teach: an adhesive layer between the substrate (110; figure 3 of D1) and the support member (220; figure 3 of D1), wherein the adhesive layer extends from a lower portion of the substrate to the bending portion.
D1, however suggests the application of an adhesive layer (150; figure 3; see par[0076]) between two stack parts (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further provide an adhesive layer of D1/D2/D4/D3 between the substrate (110; figure 3 of D1) and the support member (220; figure 3 of D1), as suggested by D1, wherein the adhesive layer extends from a lower portion of the substrate to the bending portion, to enhance overall structural integrity of said display apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the rod extends internally through the sequential layer stack (implicitly taught in the above rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above, D1/D2/D4/D3 teaches the display apparatus of claim 9.
Even though, D1/D2/D4 does not specifically teach wherein a thickness of one of the at least two support layers is less than a thickness of the support member, however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size or the thickness of one of the at least two support layers to be less than a thickness of the support member, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, to optimize the size/space of said apparatus. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6PM..
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, Imani N 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.
HUNG Q. DANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2835
/IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights