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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to the remarks under “Allowable Subject Matter” on page 7, claims 2-4 and 15-17 are subject to non-statutory rejection but these claims are not subject to prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103.
In response to the arguments under “Claim Objections & Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112” on page 7, the objections and rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
In response to the arguments under “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103” regarding claims 1 and 11 on pages 8-9, Cho teaches a bendable display panel 201 in Fig. 7 that bends from 0 degrees to nearly 90 degrees upward. That range of motion covers a broad range of radius of curvature.
Given the teachings and suggestions of the prior arts, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the display panel to a radius of curvature between 20mm and 10,000mm by controlling the actuator, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involve only routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, the claimed range of 20mm to 10,000mm (~0.8 inches to 33ft) encompasses an extremely broad range that typical laptop display sizes (e.g., 10-17 inches), for which Chwu in view of Cho’s display panel is intended, can reasonably achieve a radius of curvature within 20mm and 10,000mm by adjusting the tilt angle of the actuator 220.
In response to the arguments that the combination of Chwu in view of Cho fails to teach the limitation “a reversible support attached to at least a portion [of] the second major surface of the cover glass substrate that dynamically bends the cover glass substrate” in claims 1 and 11, Chwu teaches a bendable display panel 100 that comprises of multiple layers of substrates in which the top substrate 120 and the bottom substrate 110 are constructed of glass material (see para [0025]) but Chwu fails to teach a reversible support.
However, in the same field of flexible display, Cho cures Chwu’s deficiencies with a reversable support that comprises of actuator 220 and support members that are attached to the rear surface of the flexible display 201 configured to bend the display from a flat configuration to an upward configuration as illustrated on Fig. 2 - Fig. 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chwu’s flexible display panel to be implemented with Cho’s actuator and support members that are configured to reversibly change the viewing angle of the display.
To address the Applicant’s first and second arguments on page 9, Figs. 2 and 7 of Cho clearly illustrate the actuator and the support members are attached to the back surface of the flexible display in order to perform the disclosed bending movements. Because both Chwu’s flexible display and Cho’s flexible display are constructed from flexible materials suitable for bending, one of the ordinary skills in the art would find it predictable, after the modification, that Cho’s actuators would be able to bend Chwu’s flexible display to form different viewing angles.
In response to the arguments regarding claims 11 and 5 on page 9, the bend axis is defined to extend from the left side to the right side of the laptop. Fig. 2 of Cho discloses 3 sets of actuator arms that are attached to the left, center and right portions of the display panel. In other words, the reversible support (i.e., actuator arms) contacts the rear surface of the display panel along the bend axis (i.e., left to right).
In response to the remarks under “Double Patenting”, the Office acknowledges the Applicant’s decision not to file a Terminal Disclaimer at this stage of prosecution.
Accordingly, the non-statutory double patenting rejection and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection are sustained.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1 and 11, recite the limitation “a reversible support attached to at least a portion the second major surface” in the start of last clause. The word “of” is missing in between “portion the”.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20, are also objected because they depend on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,116,096 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are similar and obvious modification of the patented claims. For instance, patented claims 2 and 3 are narrower than the pending claim 1.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,091,357 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are similar and obvious modification of the patented claims. For instance, patented claims 1 and 6 are narrower than the pending claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chwu (Pub. No.: US 2010/0053721 A1) in view of Cho (Pub. No.: US 2019/0098775 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chwu teaches a display system (abstract, flexible display panel 100) comprising:
a display (Fig. 2, display media 130, para [0030], “If the display media 130 of the flexible display panel 100 is the liquid crystal, the flexible display panel 100 is referred to as liquid crystal display (LCD) panel”);
a dynamically bendable cover glass substrate assembly disposed over the display (Fig. 2, first and second flexible substrate 110, 120, para [0025], “In the present embodiment, the first flexible substrate 110 and the second flexible substrate 120 include plastic substrates, metal substrate, glass having curvatures, or combinations thereof, so that the flexible display panel 100 can tolerate a specific degree of deformation.”);
wherein the dynamically bendable cover glass substrate assembly comprises:
a cover glass substrate having a first major surface, second major surface opposing the first major surface and a minor surface connecting the first major surface and the second major surface (Fig. 2, the flexible display panel includes a second flexible substrate 120 that is oppose of the first flexible substrate 110. The display panel includes materials 112-122 with thickness that connect the first and second flexible substrate.), a thickness defined as a distance between the first major surface and the second major surface, a width defined as a first dimension of one of the first or second major surfaces orthogonal to the thickness, a length defined as a second dimension of one of the first or second major surfaces orthogonal to both the thickness and the width (para [0025], the display panel inherently has width, length and thickness), and a bend axis (para [0032], “In brief, in the present embodiment, the first flexible substrate 110 and the second flexible substrate 120 are applied to serve as the substrates of the flexible display panel 100. Since the flexible substrate is bendable, the flexible display panel 100 can tolerate a specific degree of deformation.”. The display panel is bendable and inherently bends around a bend axis.).
Chwu teaches flexible display panel can be implemented in a laptop 200 or in a dual view display panel and the first and second flexible substrates 110 and 120 have the additional function of a polarizer but fails to expressly teach a reversible support attached to at least a portion the second major surface of the cover glass substrate that dynamically bends the cover glass substrate around the bend axis in a repeating cycle from a first minimum radius of curvature to a second minimum radius of curvature and from the second minimum radius of curvature to the first minimum radius of curvature, wherein the first minimum radius curvature is associated with the cover substrate being in a flat configuration, wherein the second radius of curvature is from 20 mm to 10,000 mm.
However, in the same field of flexible display, Cho teaches a reversible support attached to at least a portion the second major surface of the cover glass substrate that dynamically bends the cover glass substrate around the bend axis in a repeating cycle from a first minimum radius of curvature to a second minimum radius of curvature and from the second minimum radius of curvature to the first minimum radius of curvature (Fig. 7, para [0026], “The flexible display device 200 according to aspects of the present disclosure can be used with a predetermined section thereof bent and returned in a flat plate state by stretching and contracting of the bending-actuators 220, depending on the intention of a user.”. The laptop has bending actuators 220 that are attached to the back of the flexible display panel 201 to bend the flexible display panel from a flat position to a bended position in a repeated manner during the lifetime of the laptop. Fig. 4 shows the flexible display panel also has a polarized flexible films 201a, 201b disposed on the display panel 201 that are similar to Chwu’s first and second substrates.), wherein the first minimum radius curvature is associated with the cover substrate being in a flat configuration (Fig. 7, the flexile display panel is flat when the actuators 220 are lowered), wherein the second radius of curvature is from 20 mm to 10,000 mm (Fig. 7, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the display panel to a radius of curvature between 20mm and 10,000mm by controlling the actuator, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involve only routine skill in the art.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chwu’s flexible display panel to be implemented with Cho’s actuator and support members that are configured to reversibly change the viewing angle of the display.
Regarding claim 5, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the reversible support is in contact with the second major surface along the bend axis (Fig. 2, Fig. 7, of Cho show the bend actuators 220 are in contact with the back surface of the flexible display panel.).
Regarding claim 6, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the reversible support comprises an elastic material (Cho, Fig. 8 and para [0058], “On the other hand, the bending-actuators 220 each include a cylinder 231, a piston 233 reciprocating in the cylinder 231, and an elastic member 235 elastically supported between the piston 233 and the inside of the cylinder 231.”. The bend actuators include elastic member 235).
Regarding claim 7, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the dynamically bendable cover glass substrate is capable of being dynamically bent along the bend axis for more than 100 cycles (It is a functional inherency that the flexible display panel is intended to last for the operational lifetime of the laptop must withstand repeated bends. It is a predictable result that the substrates are engineered to survive more than 100 bending cycles in order to withstand daily usage over months and years. The glass substrates capable of such durability is reasonable expected by the disclosed materials and manufacturing method.).
Regarding claim 8, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the dynamically bendable cover glass substrate is capable of being dynamically bent along the bend axis for more than 100 cycles without delamination between the dynamically bendable cover glass substrate system and the display (It is a functional inherency that the flexible display panel is intended to last for the operational lifetime of the laptop must withstand repeated bends. It is a predictable result that the substrates are engineered to be laminated to the display in a manner that maintains structural integrity for more than 100 bending cycles to withstand daily usage over months and years. Providing a flexible display panel capable of such durability is reasonable expected by the disclosed materials and manufacturing method.).
Regarding claim 9, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein the display is dynamically bendable, wherein the reversible support dynamically bends the display as it dynamically bends the dynamically bendable cover glass substrate along the bend axis in the cycle (Fig. 7 of Cho shows the actuator bends the flexible display panel upward along the bending section.).
Regarding claim 10, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 1, wherein, the display is dynamically bent along the cycle (Fig. 3 of Cho the flexible display panel bends at each cycle.).
Regarding claim 11, recites a system that is broader than the system of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 12, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 11, wherein the bend axis extends in a horizontal or vertical direction (Fig. 3 of Cho shows the bend axis extends along the horizonal direction.).
Regarding claim 13, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 11, wherein the bend axis extends along a minimum length or width dimension of the cover substrate (Fig. 3 of Cho shows the bend axis extends along the width of the display panel.).
Regarding claim 14, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 11, wherein the display is disposed under a portion of the cover substrate that is dynamically bent (Fig. 2 of Chwu shows the display panel 130 is positioned between the flexible substrates 110 and 120).
Regarding claim 18, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 11, wherein the cover substrate is capable of being dynamically bent along the bend axis for more than 100 cycles without delamination between the dynamically bendable cover substrate assembly and the display (It is a functional inherency that the flexible display panel is intended to last for the operational lifetime of the laptop must withstand repeated stress and usage. It is a predictable result that the substrates are engineered to be laminated to the display in a manner that maintains structural integrity for more than 100 bending cycles to withstand daily usage over months and years. Providing a flexible display panel capable of such durability is reasonable expected by the disclosed materials and manufacturing method.).
Regarding claim 19, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 11, further comprising:
a first frame comprising a first frame surface, a second frame surface opposing the first frame surface, and a frame edge with a thickness defined as the distance between the first frame surface and the second frame surface (Fig. 2 of Chwu shows the flexible display panel includes a second cover layer 124 that is oppose of the first cover layer 114. Fig. 2, shows a thickness of 130 between the first and second cover layers 114, 124.), a frame width defined as a first dimension of one of the first or second frame surfaces orthogonal to the frame thickness, and a frame length defined as a second dimension of one of the first or second frame surfaces orthogonal to both the frame thickness and the frame width (para [0025] of Chwu teaches the display panel inherently has width, length and thickness);
a frame opening extending from the first frame surface to the second frame surface and surrounded by an interior surface connecting the first frame surface and the second frame surface, wherein the display is disposed in the frame opening within the interior surface (Fig. 2 and para [0030] of Chwu, “If the display media 130 of the flexible display panel 100 is the liquid crystal, the flexible display panel 100 is referred to as liquid crystal display (LCD) panel (such as a trasmissive display panel, a transflective display panel, a reflective display panel, a color filter on array display panel (COA), an array on color filter display”. The LCD panel 130 is sandwiched between the first and second cover layers 114, 124.), and the dynamically bendable cover substrate is disposed on the first frame surface and over the display (Fig. 2 of Chow shows the first and second flexible substrates 110, 120 are disposed on the first and second cover layers 114, 124 and over the LCD display 130).
Regarding claim 20, Chwu in view of Cho teaches the display system of claim 19, further comprising a second frame comprising a first frame surface, a second frame surface opposing the first frame surface, and a frame edge with a thickness defined as the distance between the first frame surface and the second frame surface, a frame width defined as a first dimension of one of the first or second frame surfaces orthogonal to the frame thickness, and a frame length defined as a second dimension of one of the first or second frame surfaces orthogonal to both the frame thickness and the frame width (Fig. 3 of Cho shows the flexible display panel include a first frame 21 and a second frame 22. After modification, each frame 21 and 22 has a structure of Chwu’s flexible display panel 100 with a first and second cover layers 114 and 124. The first and second cover layers have width, length and thickness as explain in claim 19.);
a frame opening extending from the first frame surface to the second frame surface and surrounded by an interior surface connecting the first frame surface and the second frame surface; and a second display disposed in the frame opening within the interior surface of the second frame (Fig. 2 of Chwu shows the LCD panel 130 is positioned between the first and second cover layers 114, 124),
wherein the reversible support is attached to the second frame surface of the first frame and the second frame surface of the second frame (Fig. 4 of Cho shows the first frame 21 is attached to the bending actuator 220 and the second frame 22 is attached to the base of the laptop), and positioned between the first frame and the second frame, wherein the bend axis is positioned between the first frame and the second frame (Fig. 3 – Fig. 4, of Cho show the bend section or the bend axis is located in between the first frame 21 and the second frame 22 ).
Examiner’s Remarks
Claims 2-4 and 15-17 are not subject to prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato (Pub. No.: US 2014/0029190 A1) teaches flexible display with rotatable hinge.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights