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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 27, 2025; May 22, 2025; and July 17, 2025 were considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
In ¶ 0054, Applicant references figures 2 and 5. Applicant states elements 11, and 21 can be found in said figures. There are no elements 11 and 21 in figures 2 and 5.
In ¶ 0060, Applicant references elements 11, 21, and 41-43 with reference to figure 3. These elements are not found in figure 3.
In ¶ 0075, Applicant references elements 41-43 with reference to figure 3. These elements are not found in figure 3.
Figures 6-7’s element P is not discussed in the specification.
Figures 10-11’s element O is not discussed in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶¶ 0082-85, Applicant references H1-H2. Applicant does not direct the reader to which figures show H1-H2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 19 from which it depends. Claim 20 is simply relabeling the preamble form a display panel to a display device. This adds no patentable weight to claim 19 as the preamble is not necessary to give life or meaning to the claim. Therefore, simply changing the name of the device of claim 19 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 19.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (US 2018/0011514 A1) (“Yoo”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
a first body (311),
a bending part (313) and
a second body (312-3) arranged in a first direction (DR1),
wherein the first body (311) is connected to the second body (312-3) through the bending part (313),
a maximum width of the bending part (W2) in a second direction (DR2) is smaller than a maximum width of the first body (W1) in the second direction (DR2), and
the first direction (DR1) intersects with the second direction (DR2);
the bending part (313) comprises a bending body (313a) and a first connecting part (313b) arranged on a side of the bending body (313a) near the first body (311),
the first connecting part (313b) comprises a first connecting segment (middle of 313b) and at least one first external expansion segment (G1) located on at least one side of the first connecting segment (middle of 313b) in the second direction (DR2),
the bending body (313a) is connected to the first body (311) through the first connecting segment (313a), and
in the first direction (DR1), two ends of the bending body (ends of 313a) in the second direction (DR2) are flush with two ends of the first connecting segment (middle of 313b) in the second direction (DR2) (This limitation can be arbitrary. This is because as claimed the first connecting segment and the first external expansion segment are part of the first connecting part. Therefore, wherever the two ends of the bending body are defines the two ends of the first connecting segment. This limitation makes it seem like the first connecting segment is a different part, or is formed differently, than the bending body such that one can predefine the two ends of the first connecting segment. This is not the case. Therefore, wherever the two ends of the bending body are so too are the two ends of the first connecting segment.), respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
wherein a first edge (bottom edge of G1; hereinafter E1) is arranged on a side of the at least one first external expansion segment (G1) away from the first body (311) in the first direction (DR1), and
a second edge (side edge of G1; hereinafter E2) is arranged on a side of the at least one first external expansion segment (G1) away from the first connecting segment (middle of 313a) in the second direction (DR2).
Regarding claim 4, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
wherein the first edge (E1) is perpendicular to or at an obtuse angle with the second edge (E2) (E1 and E2 are shown perpendicular to each other.).
Regarding claim 6, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
wherein two of the at least one first external expansion segments (two G1s are shown) are provided and located on two sides of the first connecting segment (middle of 313a) in the second direction (DR2), respectively.
Regarding claim 16, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
wherein the maximum width of the bending part (W3) in the second direction (DR2) is not larger than a minimum width (W1) of the second body (312-3) in the second direction (DR2),
the bending part (313) further comprises a second connecting part (313c) arranged on a side of the bending body (313a) near the second body (312-3),
the second connecting part (313c) comprises a second connecting segment (middle 313c) and at least one second external expansion segment (G1 in 313c; hereinafter G2) located on at least one side of the second connecting segment (middle of 313c) in the second direction (DR2),
the bending body (313) is connected to the second body (312-3) through the second connecting segment (313c), and in the first direction (DR1), two ends of the bending body (313a) in the second direction (DR2) are flush with two ends of the second connecting segment (G2) in the second direction (See analysis in claim 1 with respect to the similar limitation directed to middle of 313a and G1), respectively.
Regarding claim 17, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
wherein two of the at least one second external expansion segments (G2) are provided and located on two sides of the second connecting segment (middle of 313c) in the second direction (DR2), respectively.
Regarding claim 19, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
a light-emitting member layer, wherein an orthographic projection of the light-emitting member layer on the array substrate is located within the first body (figure 1 of Yoo teaches the display area DA is located in the first body, and the light is an orthographic projection of the light-emitting member layer on the array substrate is located within the first body).
Regarding claim 20, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
See claim 19.
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.
Claim(s) 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0147119 A1) (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 2, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
wherein a first edge (bottom edge of G1; hereinafter E1) is arranged on a side of the at least one first external expansion segment (G1) away from the first body (311) in the first direction (DR1), and
a second edge (side edge of G1; hereinafter E2) is arranged on a side of the at least one first external expansion segment (G1) away from the first connecting segment (middle of 313a) in the second direction (DR2).
Yoo does not explicitly show:
at least one of the first edge and the second edge is provided as a curved structure.
Wang teaches at least in figure 8, and Examiner figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one of the first edge (E1) and the second edge (E2) is provided as a curved structure (E3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the corner of E1 and E2 as this appears to be “a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Further, this curved surface E3, can be considered a relative corner dimension between the orthogonal flat surfaces of E1 and E2. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would know that E1 and E2 need to be connected together at the corner. Two obvious ways are at a 90 degree angle as shown in Yoo and a curved angle as shown in Wang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wang and Yoo and make the corner E3 curved rather than a 90 degree angle as they are obvious variants of each other.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches at least in figure 8, and Examiner figure 1:
wherein the at least one first external expansion segment further comprises an arc-shaped connecting segment connecting the first edge with the second edge (see claim 2 above).
Claim(s) 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, in view of Official Notice with evidentiary support references.
Regarding claim 7, Yoo does not teaches:
first electric-conducting part located inside the first body,
a second electric-conducting part located inside the second body and
a conductive part located within the bending part connecting the first electric-conducting part with the second electric-conducting part; and
at least a portion of the conductive part is located inside the at least one first external expansion segment.
This is because Yoo is directed more to the connection of the first body and second body and not the wiring in the bending part. Because of this it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use another reference to teach the wiring in the bending body to electrically connect the first body to the second body.
However, adding electrical wires, or the claimed first electric-conducting part, second electric-conducting part, and conductive part, into a bending body, which in the art would be a flexible cable, is well known in the art. Examiner is taking official notice that the limitations of the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. For the official notice Examiner proffers the following,
Kwon et al. (US 2016/0093685 A1) (“Kwon”), where in figure 3B, 5, 8-9C, 11B, 12A-12C it is shown that one can make the claimed wires in the bending part of any shape and orientation, and that one can insert holes into the bending part to help the bending part flex.
Drzaic et al. (US 2016/0105950 A1) (“Drzaic”), where the entire disclosure is directed to having wires (conductive traces) in the bending part to connect a first body to a second body.
Kwon et al. (US 2017/0365650 A1) (“Kwon II”), where the disclosure is directed to having wires in the bending part to connect a first body to a second body.
These references, which are a tiny fraction of the references on adding wires to a bending part to connect a first body to a second body in the display technology show that it was well-known, routine, and convention to add wires to a flexible cable, i.e. the claimed bending portion. Further, as shown by said tiny fraction of the references, it was well-known, routine, and convention that one of ordinary skill in the art could utilize the entire flexible cable to contain said wires, or could rearrange the wires in other shapes and sizes to make their cable more reliable for their needs. In effect the flexible cable (bending part) was the canvas upon which one of ordinary skill in the art would use their paint (wires) to obtain the best, optimize, placement and routine of electrical connections between a first body and second body. Thus, the limitations of claim 7 would have been extremely obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application.
Regarding claims 8-14,
Claims 8-14 are directed to different aspects of the wires, or conductive parts, contained in the bending part. As shown above all of these claimed features were known in the art. There is nothing novel about the claimed features in claims 8-14, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have taken into account during the routine design of their flexible cable. It is Examiner’s position that the features claimed in claims 8-14 are not patentably distinct from the prior art, nor do they produce any unexpected results or criticality which would render the claimed features patentably distinct. Therefore, claims 8-14 are obvious, routine, conventional, well-known considerations one of ordinary skill in art would take into account when designing their flexible cable to connect a first part and second part in the display technology area.
Claim(s) 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, in view of Liu et al. (CN 112767836 A) (“Liu”)
Regarding claim 15, Yoo teaches at least in figures 7, and 9:
wherein connecting ends (G1-1) between the bending body (313a-1) and the at least one first external expansion segment (G1) are recessed (G1-1 is so recessed), and
the at least two groove structures (G1-1) are symmetrically distributed on two sides of the bending part (313a-1) in the second direction (DR2).
Yoo does not teach:
The recess is in a direction towards the first body to form at least two groove structures, respectively.
Liu teaches at least in figured 3, and 7:
The recess (11) is in a direction towards the first body (A) to form at least two groove structures (11), respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the grooves of Yoo recess towards to the first body because Liu teaches that this recess, or transition angle, provides the benefit of being a crack-stopping structure to prevent the flexible cable, i.e. the bending part, from cracking all the way through the cable if and/or when a crack develops in said cable. ¶ 0033. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the groove as claimed in the device of Yoo as Liu teaches it is an anti-cracking structure.
Regarding claim 18, Yoo teaches at least in figure 9:
wherein the first body (A) is provided as a circular structure (A is circular),
a diameter of the circular structure is L1 (A has a diameter),
a width of the bending body (C) in the second direction is L2 (C has a width), and
L1 and L2 satisfy: 10%<L2/L1<30% (the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), citing In Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984). There is no evidence that the claimed ratio between L1 and L2 would result in a device which performs different than the prior art.
In addition, changing the shape of the first body from a square, rectangle, etc. to a circle is a matter of choice, a matter of design requirements, etc. for one of ordinary skill in the art. The shape of the display, e.g. the first body, is based upon what the screen is being designed for. It is being designed for a smart watch, then it might be round or square with curved sides. Is the display being designed for a monitor or tv, then it might be designed to be rectangular. Thus, it would have been extremely obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the display, change the shape of the first part, based upon the type of device the display will be used in, or the atheistic look one of ordinary skill in the art is looking for in said design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights