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
Claim 12 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/15/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner thanks Applicant for communicating the locations of size fee assertions. The original 1449 forms have now been initialed as considered. An X has been drawn through duplicate 1449 forms filed 12/31/2025.
All information disclosure statements fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following (emphasis added): (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statements have been placed in the application file, but all non-listed non-patent literature therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/08/2025. These drawings have been entered; however, the drawings of record are objectionable for the reasons below.
The drawings are objected to because:
The appearance of Fig. 3 is inconsistent with the appearance of Fig. 2. See Fig. 3, wherein PAD appears along line A-A'. This is inconsistent with the appearance of sectional line A-A' in Fig. 2, wherein A-A' does not intersect any pad. Furthermore, in Fig. 3, FA appears to include NA. This is inconsistent with the absence of NA in FA as shown in Fig. 2.
Similar features in Fig. 5 are similarly inconsistent with the appearance of Fig. 2.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 13-21, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a portion of folding area is disposed between first and second portions of the non-active area”. It is noted by the Examiner that the limitation “between” is inconsistent with the appearance of Fig. 3, which shows non-active area NA existing within folding area FA, rather than non-active area NA surrounding folding area FA. It is unclear in what sense a folding area could possible be construed as “between” some part(s) of itself.
Claim 9 recites “ends of the light-emitting element, the cover window, the thin-film transistor layer, the touch panel, the adhesive layer, and the polarizer located in the folding area are arranged in line so that no stepped portion is present.” This is misdescriptive of the appearance of Fig. 3, wherein a base substrate 110 appears to constitute a present stepped portion relative to other layers.
A similar recitation in claim 18 is similarly misdescriptive.
Other elected claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 13-21, and 25-28: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner thanks Applicant for communicating the locations of size fee assertions. The original 1449 forms have now been initialed as considered. An X has been drawn through duplicate 1449 forms filed 12/31/2025.
Although Applicant alleges that “all foreign language references were submitted with English abstracts”, the Examiner notes that numerous NPL references remain devoid of English abstracts. These non-listed NPL references have been placed into the file wrapper, but have not been considered.
On page 8, Applicant alleges that “"the pads" in all claims has been amended by deletion.” The Examiner has considered this allegation thoroughly and notes that the limitation “pads” presently appears in independent claim 1 and independent claim 18.
Applicant’s arguments considering the indefiniteness rejections have been fully considered. All claims remain indefinite for the reasons described above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
01/23/2026