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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US 2019/0,355,927; hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park disclose an electronic apparatus (100, 100_1; Figs. 6, 11) divided into a folding region (FR) foldable with respect to a folding axis (AXIS_F) extending in a direction, a first non-folding region (NFR1) adjacent to a side (left side) of the folding region (FR), and a second non-folding region (NFR2) adjacent to another side (right side) of the folding region (FR) (para. [0146]), the electronic apparatus (Figs. 3-5) comprising:
a lower module (540) (Fig. 8, 9; ¶ [0150]);
a display panel (110, 510) disposed on the lower module (540) (Fig. 8, 9; paras. [0124], [0109]); and
a window (130, 530) disposed on the display panel (510) (paras. [0104]-[0106]; Figs. 5, 9), wherein in a first cross-sectional view parallel to a thickness direction (DL2; Fig. 2) of the display panel and perpendicular to the folding axis (AXIS_F), a first side surface (a side surface at one of the sides J1, J2, J3, J4) of the display panel (510) is inclined (inclination angle corresponding to first direction DL1) with respect to a lower surface of the display panel (510) (paras. [0113], [0156], [0145]; Figs. 5, 7, 9).
Regarding claim 3, Park disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein in a second cross-sectional view parallel to the thickness direction and the folding axis, a second side surface (e.g. S-1c) of the display panel is perpendicular (substantially perpendicular) to the lower surface of the display panel (510) (Fig. 9; ¶ [0155]).
Regarding claim 4, Park disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 3, wherein in a view perpendicular to the thickness direction, the first side surface (e.g. side surface on third side J2 of display panel 510) of the display panel intersects the second side surface (e.g. second side surface on second side J1 of display panel 510) of the display panel (Fig. 5; ¶ [0113]).
Regarding claim 13, Park disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lower module (540) comprises a support plate (support substrate and impact absorbing layer) and a lower film (NAD3) disposed between the support plate and the display panel (510) (paras. [0125]-[0130]).
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.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2019/0,355,927).
Regarding claim 2, Park disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein in the first cross-sectional view, an angle formed between the first side surface and the lower surface is in a range of about 85° to about 89° (¶ [0156]). Park do not explicitly disclose the angle is in a range of about 65° to about 80°. However, the examiner takes official notice that the angle range varies depending on the preferred/optimum range in designing the electronic apparatus to work efficiently. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Park disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 13, wherein Park do not explicitly disclose in the first cross-sectional view, a side surface of the support plate is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the support plate. However, the examiner takes official notice that a side surface of the support plate can be designed to be inclined with respect to a lower surface of the support plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so to conforms with the size/shape of the support plate for smoother application and connection of the display module and the lower module since such a modification would have involved a mere change or movement in size/shape of a component to for the whole structure to fit together smoothly. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2019/0,355,927) in view of Kim (US 2022/0,159,846) in view of Li et al (CN 115,877,965; hereinafter Li) .
Regarding claim 5, Park disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein Park do not disclose the electronic apparatus further comprising: a protective layer disposed on the window, wherein in the first cross sectional view, a first side surface of the protective layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the protective layer. In the same field of endeavor, Kim disclose a protective layer disposed on the window (clm. 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so to provide a film to shield the window from breaking on the display panel. Park and Kim do not disclose a first side surface of the protective layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the protective layer. In the same field of endeavor, Li disclose a first side surface of the protective layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the protective layer (clm. 6, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide a shielding sheet that conforms with the shape of the display substrate it is shielding for smoother application.
Regarding claim 6, Park, Kim, and Li disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 5, wherein in the first cross-sectional view, an angle formed between the first side surface of the protective layer and the lower surface of the protective layer is in a range of about 5° to about 75° (Li, clm. 6). Park and Li do not disclose is in a range of about 65° to about 80°. However, the examiner takes official notice that the angle range varies depending on the preferred/optimum range in designing the electronic apparatus to work efficiently. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2019/0,355,927) in view of Kim (US 2022/0,159,846) in view of Li et al (CN 115,877,965) further in view of Kim2 (US 2019/0,162,985).
Regarding claim 7, Park, Kim, and Li disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 5, wherein in a second cross-sectional view parallel to the thickness direction and the folding axis, a second side surface of the protective layer is perpendicular to the lower surface of the protective layer. Kim2 disclose a second side surface of a protective layer (300) has an obtuse angle to the bottom surface of the protective layer (¶ [0103]). Kim2 do not disclose the angle is perpendicular. However, the examiner takes official notice that the angle can be 90 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so based on the preferred/optimum value in designing the electronic apparatus to work efficiently. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2019/0,355,927) in view of Kim (US 2022/0,159,846) in view of Li et al (CN 115,877,965) in view of Kim2 (US 2019/0,162,985) further in view of Lee et al (US 2023/0207,734).
Regarding claim 8, Park, Kim, Li, Kim2 disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 7, wherein they do not disclose in a view perpendicular to the thickness direction, the first side surface of the protective layer intersects the second side surface of the protective layer. In the same field of endeavor, Lee disclose in a view perpendicular to the thickness direction, the first side surface (e.g. right side surface) of the protective layer (OC) intersects the second side surface (e.g. lower side surface) of the protective layer (OC) (Fig. 4A; paras. [0096]-[0097]; clm. 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to cross connect the side surfaces of the protective layer together.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2019/0,355,927) in view of Kim (US 2022/0,159,846) in view of Li et al (CN 115,877,965) further in view of Kishimoto et al (US 2024/0,176,391).
Regarding claim 9, Park and Li disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 5, wherein in a second mode, is unfolded so that the first non-folding region (NFR1) is spaced apart from the second non-folding region (NFR2) (Park, Figs. 6, 8). Park and Li do not disclose in a first mode, is folded so that the first non-folding region overlaps the second non-folding region in the thickness direction, and in a second mode, is unfolded so that the first non-folding region (NFR1) is spaced apart from the second non-folding region, and in the second mode, the first side surface of the display panel is parallel to the first side surface of the protective layer. In the same field of endeavor, Kishimoto disclose, in a first mode, the device is folded so that the first non-folding region overlaps the second non-folding region in the thickness direction (Fig. 6;
paras. [0073], [0085]), and in a second mode, is unfolded so that the first non-folding region (NFA2) is spaced apart from the second non-folding region (NFA1), and in the second mode, the first side surface of the display panel (10) is parallel to the first side surface of the protective layer (PL) (Figs. 5, 7) (paras. [0064], [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide the different layout structure of the apparatus between the folded and unfolded state.
Regarding claim 10, Park and Kishimoto disclose electronic apparatus of claim 9, wherein in the first mode, the first side surface of the display panel is not parallel to the first side surface of the protective layer (Fig. 6; paras. [0119]-[0122]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2019/0,355,927) in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0,293,997) further in view of Nakatani (JP 2003,345,257).
Regarding claim 11, Park disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein Park do not disclose the window comprises a glass substrate, and in the first cross-sectional view, a side surface of the window is perpendicular to a lower surface of the window. In the same field of endeavor, Kim disclose the window comprises a glass substrate (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so 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 re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Park and Kim do not disclose and in the first cross-sectional view, a side surface of the window is perpendicular to a lower surface of the window. In the same field of endeavor, Nakatani disclose in a first cross sectional view, a side surface of the window is perpendicular to a lower surface of the window (404) (Fig. 5; pg. 3, lines 10-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide a cross connection at a 90 degree angle between the side surface and the bottom surface of the window since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2019/0,355,927) in view of Bao et al (CN 115,425,158; hereinafter Bao).
Regarding claim 12, Park disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein Park do not disclose the apparatus further comprising: an optical layer (functional module of 120/520 includes an optical layer/film) disposed between the display panel (110/510) and the window (130/530) (paras. [0090]-[0091], [0106]; Fig. 8), wherein Park do not disclose in the first cross sectional view, a side surface of the optical layer is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the optical layer. In the same field of endeavor, Bao disclose in a first cross-sectional view, a side surface of an optical layer (301-1) is inclined with respect to a lower surface of the optical layer (304-1) (clms. 6, 8; Figs. 1, 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to emit light path of the light which can effectively improve the light emitting rate of the display panel (Bao, abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- An et al (US 2025/0,275,415) disclose a display apparatus including a display panel, a backplate disposed below the display panel, the display includes an optical layer disposed between the display panel and a cover window
- Kang (US 2025/0,053,200) disclose a window and a display device including a window with an excellent folding property and durability and a display device including the same
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANA N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/LANA N LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights