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 .
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) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US20230080858).
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, 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), and wherein the fifth portion of the layer has slots (Figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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) 20 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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 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 1-10, 11-14 and 15-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship wherein the at least one property is selected from the group consisting of: a distance between rows of slots and an edge of the layer and an angle of each slot relative to the bend axis, as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim 11.
Regarding independent claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship wherein the adhesive layer is non-overlapping with the second portion of the flexible display in the direction, as claimed with the remaining limitations of independent claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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
17 September 2026
Prosecution Insights