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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to CON application No. 18/766,761 filed on July 09, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The suggested title of the invention recited as “Flexible Display Device Comprising Multiple Functional Layers and Adhesive Layers and Electronic Device”.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 7, 13, 16, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The following limitation should be recited as follows to make corrections that has a missing ‘space’ between “50” and “KPa”, and to avoid indefiniteness in the claim limitations.
7. (Currently Amended) The flexible display device according to claim 5, wherein a sum of a thickness of the first protective film and a thickness of the protective coating is
13. (Currently Amended) The flexible display device according to claim 4, wherein a thickness of the first protective film is
16. (Currently Amended) The flexible display device according to claim 15, wherein
the modulus of the adhesive material layer at -30 °C is
the modulus of the adhesive material layer at 20°C is
the modulus of the adhesive material layer at 60°C is 50 KPa.
19. (Currently Amended) The flexible display device according to claim 9, wherein a thickness of the adhesive material layer is
Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
(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.
8. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ha et al. (US 2020/0251679 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ha et al. teaches a flexible display device (1, para [0054]), comprising (Figs. 1-4):
a flexible display panel (DP, para [0054]);
a plurality of functional members (FL1, FL2, para [0054]) on a first side (upper side) of the flexible display panel (DP);
a back film (BF, para [0054]) on a second side (bottom side) of the flexible display panel (DP);
a supporting member (CL cushion layer, para [0054]) on a side of the back film (BF) away from the flexible display panel (DP); and
a plurality of adhesive layers (AL1, AL2, AL3, para [0054]) with each adhesive layer between adjacent two of the flexible display panel (CW, DP, see Fig. 4), the plurality of functional members (FL1, FL2), the back film (BF), and the supporting member (CL),
wherein the flexible display device (1) is switchable between an unfolded state (see Fig. 1, para [0047]) and a folded state (see Fig. 2, para [0047]), the flexible display device (1) comprises a display surface (DA, see Fig. 1), and the folded state (see Fig. 2) comprises an inwardly folded state and an outwardly folded state;
wherein in the inwardly folded state (Fig. 2), at least part of the flexible display device (1, Fig. 2) is bent in a first bending direction at a first radius of curvature (R1, see the annotated figure below), so that a first part of the display surface (DA) and a second part of the display surface (DA) are face to face (Fig. 2);
wherein in the outwardly folded state (outward surface/side), at least part of the flexible display device (1) is bent (BA) in a second bending direction at a second radius of curvature (R2, see the annotated figure below), so that the first part of the display surface (DA) and the second part of the display surface (DA) are back to back (opposite); and
wherein the first radius of curvature (R1) is less than the second radius of curvature (R2).
PNG
media_image1.png
604
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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.
10. 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.
11. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
12. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
13. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2020/0251679 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Ha et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Ha discloses wherein (para [0049]), a certain radius of the first radius of curvature (R1) as annotated in the figure shown in claim 1.
However, Ha et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing, wherein the first radius of curvature is greater than or equal to 3 mm. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘first radius of curvature’ so that the roughness to be within the quoted range of is greater than or equal to 3 mm, to optimize the display thickness. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed radius of the curvature or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen radius of the curvature or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen radius of the curvature is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Ha et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Ha discloses wherein (para [0049]), a certain radius of the second radius of curvature (R2) as annotated in the figure shown in claim 1.
However, Ha et al. is explicitly silent of disclosing, wherein the second radius of curvature is greater than or equal to 5 mm. It would have been obvious to select intended ‘second radius of curvature’ so that the roughness to be within the quoted range of is greater than or equal to 5 mm, to optimize the display thickness. In addition, to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed radius of the curvature or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen radius of the curvature or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen radius of the curvature is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Ha et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Ha et al discloses an electronic device (1, Fig. 1) comprising the flexible display device (1) according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 4-19: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious a flexible display device, comprising:
Claim 4 recites….
the plurality of functional members comprise:
a third functional member on the first side of the flexible display panel;
a second functional member on a side of the third functional member away from the flexible display panel; and
a first functional member on a side of the second functional member away from the flexible display panel, wherein the first functional member comprises:
a second protective film on the side of the second functional member away from the flexible display panel;
an intermediate adhesive layer on a side of the second protective film away from the flexible display panel; and
a first protective film on a side of the intermediate adhesive layer away from the flexible display panel, wherein a surface of the first protective film away from the flexible display panel has a corona treatment layer.
15. The prior arts made of record in PTO-892 and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: the prior art, Ha et al. (US 2020/0251679 A1) is a close prior art, which describes a display device comprising the display panel, functional members and adhesive layers, shown in Figs. 1-4, however, Ha et al. does not disclose the limitations of claim 4 stated in section 14, therefore, either by itself or in combination with other arts fail to disclose the above quoted limitations in the section 14.
Examiner’s Note
16. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights