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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 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. The limitation “a property” Is unclear to the examiner. The examiner cannot ascertain what constitutes as a “property,” for the claimed “slots.” Claims 1, 8, 11, 12 and 13 have been rejected and will be examined as best understood.
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, 4-8, 11, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US20230080858).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Lee discloses an electronic device comprising:
a flexible display (140)(Figure 1) with a first portion (NFA), a second portion (FA) that is aligned with a bend axis (FX) that extends in a first direction, and a third portion (NFA)(Figure 1), wherein the second portion is interposed between the first and third portions and wherein the first portion is configured to bend relative to the third portion about the bend axis; and
a layer (110) that overlaps the flexible display, wherein the layer has a portion with slots (110H) that overlaps the second portion of the flexible display and wherein the slots have a property that varies in the first direction.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the portion with slots is a fifth portion of the layer, wherein the layer has a fourth portion and a sixth portion, and wherein the fifth portion is interposed between the fourth and sixth portions. (Figure 5)
PNG
media_image1.png
456
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein each slot has a width and a length that is greater than the width and wherein the length of each slot extends in the first direction. (Figure 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
276
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 5, wherein the property that varies in the first direction is the length of the slots and wherein the length of the slots increases towards an edge of the layer. (aforementioned Figure 3)
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 5, wherein the property that varies in the first direction is a gap in the first direction between adjacent slots (aforementioned Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 5, wherein the slots (110H) have an additional property that varies in a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction and wherein the additional property is the width of the slots (110H).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Lee discloses an electronic device comprising:
a flexible display (140) with a first portion (NFA), a second portion (FA) that is aligned with a bend axis (FX), and a third portion (NFA), wherein the second portion is interposed between the first and third portions and wherein the first portion is configured to bend relative to the third portion about the bend axis; and
a layer (110) that overlaps the flexible display, wherein the layer has a portion with slots (110H) that overlaps the second portion of the flexible display and wherein the slots have at least one property that varies in a non-linear manner as a function of position on the layer.
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses an electronic device comprising:
a flexible display (140) with a first portion (NFA), a second portion (FA) that is aligned with a bend axis (FX), and a third portion (NFA), wherein the second portion is interposed between the first and third portions and wherein the first portion is configured to bend relative to the third portion about the bend axis;
a layer (110) that overlaps the flexible display, wherein the layer has a portion with slots (110H) that overlaps the second portion of the flexible display; and
an adhesive layer (115) that is interposed between the flexible display and the layer, wherein the adhesive layer has a cutout (115F) that overlaps the second portion of the flexible display.
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses an electronic device comprising:
a flexible display (140) with a first portion (NFA), a second portion (FA) that is aligned with a bend axis (FX) that extends in a first direction, and a third portion (NFA), wherein the second portion is interposed between the first and third portions and wherein the first portion is configured to bend relative to the third portion about the bend axis (FX); and
a layer (110) that overlaps the flexible display, wherein the layer has a fourth portion that overlaps the first portion, a fifth portion that overlaps the second portion, and a sixth portion that overlaps the third portion (aforementioned Figure 5), wherein the fifth portion of the layer comprises a first material with slots, and wherein the fourth and sixth portions of the layer comprise a second material that is different than the first material (material with no slots).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230080858).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1.
Lee discloses a material in the slots; however, Lee does not expressly disclose further comprising: an opaque filler material in the slots.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate opaque quality into the material of Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to prevent light leakage between slots.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230080858) in view of Park et al. (hereinafter Park) (US10541373).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1.
Lee does not expressly disclose herein the layer comprises stainless steel.
Park discloses wherein a layer (200) comprising stainless steel.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the stainless steel of Park into the Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to secure sufficient stiffness as well as flexibility despite said thickness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230080858) in view of Mathew et al. (hereinafter Mathew) (US10429892).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the layer comprises carbon fiber.
Mathew discloses wherein a layer (12P) comprises carbon fiber.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the carbon fiber into the layer of the electronic device of Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as the material is stiff and aids in reinforcing the elements within the electronic device.
Claim(s) 14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20230080858) in view of Park et al. (hereinafter Park) (US10541373) further in view of Mathew et al. (hereinafter Mathew) (US10429892).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 11.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: stainless steel and carbon fiber.
Lee does not expressly disclose herein the layer comprises stainless steel.
Park discloses wherein a layer (200) comprising stainless steel.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the stainless steel of Park into the Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to secure sufficient stiffness as well as flexibility despite said thickness.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the layer comprises carbon fiber.
Matthew discloses wherein a layer (12P) comprises carbon fiber.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the carbon fiber into the layer of the electronic device of Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as the material is stiff and aids in reinforcing the elements within the electronic device.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 15,
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: stainless steel and carbon fiber.
Lee does not expressly disclose herein the layer comprises stainless steel.
Park discloses wherein a layer (200) comprising stainless steel.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the stainless steel of Park into the Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to secure sufficient stiffness as well as flexibility despite said thickness.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the layer comprises carbon fiber.
Mathew discloses wherein a layer (12P) comprises carbon fiber.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the carbon fiber into the layer of the electronic device of Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as the material is stiff and aids in reinforcing the elements within the electronic device.
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses the electronic device defined in claim 18,
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the second material comprises polymer and wherein the first material comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: stainless steel and carbon fiber.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the layer comprises carbon fiber.
Mathew discloses wherein a layer (12P) comprises carbon fiber.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the carbon fiber into the layer of the electronic device of Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as the material is stiff and aids in reinforcing the elements within the electronic device.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: stainless steel and carbon fiber.
Lee does not expressly disclose herein the layer comprises stainless steel.
Park discloses wherein a layer (200) comprising stainless steel.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the stainless steel of Park into the Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this to secure sufficient stiffness as well as flexibility despite said thickness.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the layer comprises carbon fiber.
Mathew discloses wherein a layer (12P) comprises carbon fiber.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the carbon fiber into the layer of the electronic device of Lee.
One having ordinary skill on the art would have been motivated to do this as the material is stiff and aids in reinforcing the elements within the electronic device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 16 and 19 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:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship wherein the slots extend through the first and second carbon fiber reinforced polymer layers but not the third carbon fiber reinforced polymer layer, as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship wherein each recess in the plurality of recesses has a depth and wherein the plurality of recesses has depths of at least four unique magnitudes, as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim .
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship wherein the fifth portion comprises interlocking features that attach the fifth portion to the fourth and sixth portions as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1.
Claims 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US9310860.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xanthia C Cunningham whose telephone number is (571)270-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday -Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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 on 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.
/XANTHIA C RELFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
18 March 2026
Prosecution Insights