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
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (US 12449855 B2) in view of Lee et al. (US 12216499 B2) hereinafter referred to as "Lee".
Regarding claim 1, Kishimoto teaches a display apparatus comprising a first display area (Fig. 2, element 1000A1; column 5 line 54), a second display area (Fig. 2, element 1000A3; column 5 line 55), and a folding area (Fig. 2, element 1000A2; column 5 line 54) between the first display area and the second display area, the display apparatus further comprising: a display panel (Fig. 2, element 100; column 7 line 29) having a display surface; a support member (Fig. 2, element 600; column 12 line 20) disposed under the display panel and comprising a folding structure (Fig. 2, element 610A2; column 13 line 21) and an opening (Fig. 2, element OP1; column 12 line 43) disposed on the folding structure, wherein a thickness of the folding structure in a first direction is greater than a thickness of the opening in the first direction (Fig. 2, element 6110A2 OP1; column 14 line 1-5), the first direction being orthogonal to the display surface.
Kishimoto does not teach a planarization film in the opening of the support member.
Lee teaches an opening comprising a planarization film (Fig. 6, element TPU; column 10 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a planarization layer that is able to fold along with the display while preventing particles from being introduced into the display panel (column 10 line 61-67).
Regarding claim 2, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto further teaches the support member comprising a first support portion (Fig. 4A, element 610A1; column 13 line 20) in the first display area and a second support portion (Fig. 4A, element 610A3; column 13 line 22) in the second display area.
Regarding claim 3, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto further teaches the folding structure (Fig. 2, element 610A2; column 13 line 21) comprising a plurality of holes (Fig. 2, element 611; column 13 line 42-43) passing through the support member.
Regarding claim 4, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 2. Kishimoto further teaches the folding structure (Fig. 2, element 610A2; column 13 line 20-22) being between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 3, element 610A1/610A3; column 13 line 20-22).
Regarding claim 5, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto further teaches the opening (Fig. 2, element OP1; column 12 line 43) being above the folding structure (Fig. 2, element 610A2; column 13 line 21).
Regarding claim 6, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto further teaches a length of the opening (Fig. 2, element OP1; column 12 line 43) in a second direction crossing the first direction being greater than a length of the folding structure (Fig. 2, element 610A2; column 13 line 21) in the second direction (Fig. 2, element OP1; column 12 line 43, column 12 line 64-67).
Regarding claim 12, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto does not teach the planarization film comprising thermoplastic polyurethane.
Lee teaches the planarization film comprising thermoplastic polyurethane (Fig. 6, element TPU; column 10 line 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the planarization layer consist of thermoplastic polyurethane in order to give it elasticity while keeping a sufficient thickness (column 10 line 58-60).
Regarding claim 13, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto does not teach the planarization film comprising polyethylene terephthalate.
Lee teaches the planarization film comprising polyethylene terephthalate (Fig. 6, element TPU; column 10 line 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the planarization layer consist of thermoplastic polyurethane in order to give it elasticity while keeping a sufficient thickness (column 10 line 58-60).
Regarding claim 14, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto further teaches the support member (Fig. 2, element 600; column 12 line 20) comprising at least one of stainless steel, carbon fiber reinforced plastic, and glass fiber reinforced plastic (Fig. 2, element 600; column 13 line 9).
Regarding claim 15, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto further teaches the support member (Fig. 2, element 600; column 12 line 20) comprising at least one of an aluminum alloy, a titanium alloy, and a magnesium alloy (Fig. 2, element 600; column 13 line 9).
Regarding claim 16, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto further teaches a second adhesive layer (Fig. 2, element 1020; column 12 line 28) between the display panel and the support member. (Fig. 2, element 600; (column 12 line 20)
Regarding claim 17, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 1. Kishimoto further teaches a polarization film (Fig. 2, element 200; column 8 line 61) disposed above the display panel.
Regarding claim 18, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 17. Kishimoto further teaches a window (Fig. 2, element 340; column 9 line 35) disposed above the polarization film (Fig. 2, element 200; column 8 line 61).
Regarding claim 19, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 18. Kishimoto further teaches a third adhesive layer (Fig. 2, element 350; column 9 line 35) between the polarization film and the window. (Fig. 2, element 340; column 9 line 35)
Regarding claim 20, Kishimoto in view of Lee teaches the display apparatus of claim 18. Kishimoto further teaches a window protection member (Fig. 2, element 320; column 9 line 34) disposed above the window. (Fig. 2, element 340; column 9 line 35)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are 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 7, Kishimoto in view of Lee cite elements similar to the claimed invention, such as a display apparatus including a planarization film.
However, the prior art of record to the examiner’s knowledge when taken alone or in combination does not teach the element of the invention claimed by the applicant regarding: “a thickness of the opening in the first direction being equal to a thickness of the planarization film in the first direction.”
Regarding claim 8, Kishimoto in view of Lee cite elements similar to the claimed invention such as a display apparatus with an adhesive layer disposed under the planarization film.
However, the prior art of record to the examiner’s knowledge when taken alone or in combination does not teach the element of the invention claimed by the applicant regarding: “a first adhesive layer arranged in the opening”.
Regarding claim 9, Kishimoto in view of Lee cite elements similar to the claimed invention such as a display apparatus with an adhesive layer disposed under the planarization film.
However, the prior art of record to the examiner’s knowledge when taken alone or in combination does not teach the element of the invention claimed by the applicant regarding: “a thickness of the planarization film in the first direction being greater than a thickness of the first adhesive layer in the first direction”.
Regarding claim 10, Kishimoto in view of Lee cite elements similar to the claimed invention such as a display apparatus with an adhesive layer disposed under the planarization film.
However, the prior art of record to the examiner’s knowledge when taken alone or in combination does not teach the element of the invention claimed by the applicant regarding: “a thickness of the opening in the first direction being greater than a thickness of the planarization film in the first direction”.
Regarding claim 11, Kishimoto in view of Lee cite elements similar to the claimed invention such as a display apparatus with an adhesive layer disposed under the planarization film.
However, the prior art of record to the examiner’s knowledge when taken alone or in combination does not teach the element of the invention claimed by the applicant regarding: “a sum of thicknesses of the first adhesive layer and the planarization film in the first direction is equal to a thickness of the opening in the first direction”.
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.”
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 20240126344 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Kim” is cited to teach a display apparatus that includes an adhesive disposed on a folding structure as well as a planarization film under the display panel, relevant to claims 1-20 of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IHSAN HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8594. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00AM-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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571)272-2429. 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.
/I.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /LAWRENCE C TYNES JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights