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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 27, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no added search burden to examining the non-elected claims of Group II, claims 17-20. This is not found persuasive because the invention of Group I is directed towards the presence of a plurality of through-holes and a plurality of hinge portions formed in first and second regions of a display substrate. The invention of Group II is focused on the specific sizes of through-holes in first and second regions of a display substrate. This two groups will require different search strategies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A substrate For Flexible Display Comprising through-holes and a Plurality of Hinge Portions.
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 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12093082 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the pending claims and the conflicting patent are directed to a display substrate structure. Therefore, the conflicting patent is directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in the conflicting patent are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with any of the conflicting patents for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
It is unclear what is meant by the claim limitation, “wherein the hinge portion do not overlap a column in which the first through-hole is formed in the width direction of the substrate.”
The specification has no mention of, “the hinge portion not overlapping a column in which the first through-hole is formed in the width direction of the substrate.” Examiner requests applicant specify which specification paragraphs detail this claim limitation. Of note, the specification teaches the hinge HN and the first through-holes H1 exist only in the 1A region shown in applicant figure 5. Examiner assumes the “width direction” is normal to the A-A’ axis shown in figure 5, but still does not follow what is meant by, “the hinge portion not overlapping a column in which the first through-hole is formed in the width direction of the substrate.” For examination purposes, examiner will assume claim 7 is meant to describe the 1A region in fig. 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant IDS cited Lee et al. (US 20180190936 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a substrate for display (Figs. 1, 3-4 show a substrate of a display) comprising:
one surface and the other surface opposite to the one surface ([0019] teaches fig. 3 shows a rear surface of a back cover thereby teaching there is a front and back surface);
a first region (Figs. 3-4, see back cover folding part 1110) and a second region (Figs. 3-4, see flat parts 1180),
wherein the first region is disposed between the second regions (Figs. 3-4 show back cover folding part 1110 is disposed between flat parts 1180),
a plurality of first through-holes is formed in the first region (See fig. 8E and [0074] which teach the open patterns 1107 may have a circular or elliptic shape. Note figs. 4-5 which show open patterns penetrate all the way through back cover 1000 thereby teaching through-holes), and a plurality of second through-holes is formed in the second region (Figs. 3-5, see compensation patterns 1118 noting they penetrate all the way through back cover 1000 thereby teaching through-holes),
a plurality of hinge portions penetrating an end region of the substrate in a width direction of the substrate are formed in the first region (Fig. 8E, see semi-circular open patterns 1107 that are formed at top and bottom of pattern in folding part 1110. These semi-circular open patterns directly correspond to applicant “hinge portions HN” shown in applicant figures 5-6),
wherein the hinge portion is not formed in the second region (the second region is defined a plurality of through holes that are outside of the hinge, see, e.g., Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein second through-holes formed at both end regions of the substrate among the plurality of second through-holes are spaced apart from end portions of the substrate (Fig. 3, see compensation patterns 1118 which are spaced apart from the end portions, such as top and bottom ends shown in figure 3, of the display substrate).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein at least three or more of the plurality of hinge portions are formed at one end of the substrate in the width direction (Fig. 8E, see semi-circular open patterns 1107 that are formed at top and bottom of pattern in folding part 1110. These semi-circular open patterns directly correspond to applicant “hinge portions HN” shown in applicant figures 5-6. Fig. 8E shows three “hinge portions” formed at one end of the display substrate in the width direction).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the hinge portion is formed by passing through the one surface and the other surface of a unidirectional region among end regions of the substrate (Fig. 8E, see semi-circular open patterns 1107 that are formed at top and bottom of pattern in folding part 1110. These semi-circular open patterns directly correspond to applicant “hinge portions HN” shown in applicant figures 5-6. Regarding the claim limitations, “wherein the hinge portion is formed by passing through the one surface and the other surface,” see [0033], “The open pattern 1107 may be embodied as a hole fully formed through the entire thickness of the back cover 1000.”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the hinge portion overlaps a column in which the first through-hole is formed in the width direction of the substrate (Fig. 8E, see semi-circular open patterns 1107 that are formed at top and bottom of pattern in folding part 1110. These hinge portions reside in a column of open patterns 1107 and therefore overlap a column in which the open patterns 1107 are formed in the width direction of the substrate).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the hinge portion do not overlap a column in which the first through-hole is formed in the width direction of the substrate (Fig. 8E, see semi-circular open patterns 1107 that are formed at top and bottom of pattern in folding part 1110. These semi-circular open patterns directly correspond to applicant “hinge portions HN” shown in applicant figures 5-6. Fig. 8E looks the same as the 1A region shown in applicant figure 5, thereby meeting the claim limitations).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein a size of the hinge portion is the same as that of the first through-hole (Fig. 8E, see semi-circular open patterns 1107 that are formed at top and bottom of pattern in folding part 1110. These semi-circular open patterns have a same diameter and therefore a same size as the circular patterns 1107).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein a size of the hinge portion is different from a size of the first through-hole (Fig. 8E, see semi-circular open patterns 1107 that are formed at top and bottom of pattern in folding part 1110. These semi-circular open patterns have a different area than the full circular patterns 1107 and therefore are a different size. Applicant might consider amending to further define the term “size”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein the hinge portion has a curved surface (Fig. 8E, see semi-circular open patterns 1107 that are formed at top and bottom of pattern in folding part 1110. As they are circular they have a curved surface).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein shapes of the hinge portion and the first through-hole are different (Fig. 8E, the shapes of the hinges are semi-circular open patterns 1107 whereas the open patterns 1107 are full circles thereby teaching different shapes).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein a distance between the first region and the second region at a maximum height is 0.1mm to 5mm (See Fig. 5 and [0076] which teaches, “the open pattern 1107 may be formed so as to have a diameter of about 0.03-0.12 mm.” The distance between the first region and the second region can be defined as the width of a hole 1107 when considering the first region 1110 is separated from the second region 1180 by the width of an open pattern 1107).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the substrate of claim 1, wherein a distance between the first region and the second region at a minimum height is 0.1mm to 5mm (See Fig. 5 and [0076] which teaches, “the open pattern 1107 may be formed so as to have a diameter of about 0.03-0.12 mm.” The distance between the first region and the second region can be defined as the width of a hole 1107 when considering the first region 1110 is separated from the second region 1180 by the width of an open pattern 1107).
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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180190936 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20170352692 A1, hereinafter, referred to as Lee II).
Regarding claim 3, Lee is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Lee II teaches a substrate wherein a second through-hole includes a variable region having a different size of an opening region (See Fig. 18, [0136], wherein openings 171a’ have different areas or sizes in the BA region which correspond to a variable region).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee with Lee II such that through holes or openings can have a different size in a variable region as Lee II teaches the different sizes allow for easier bending at the locations where openings have a larger area (Lee II, [0136]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
The combination of Lee and Lee II teaches a substrate wherein a second region includes a plurality of variable regions, and wherein a size of an opening region of the second through-hole varies while extending in a direction of the first region within the variable region (See Lee II Fig. 18, [0136], wherein openings 171a’ have different areas or sizes in the BA region while extending in a direction. Note each column of openings within the BA region can be a sub-region thereby teaching a plurality of variable regions). Lee teaches the first and second region as detailed in the claim 1 rejection above. The combination of Lee and Lee II will result in the claim limitation wherein a second region includes a plurality of variable regions, and wherein a size of an opening region of the second through-hole varies while extending in a direction of the first region within the variable region
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee with Lee II such that through holes or openings can have a different size as Lee II teaches the different sizes allow for easier bending at the locations where openings have a larger area (Lee II, [0136]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180190936 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20190086709 A1, hereinafter, Lee III).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches The substrate of claim 1, wherein a curvature of the second region is greater than a curvature of the first region.
Lee III teaches a flexible display device wherein a curvature of the second region is greater than a curvature of the first region ([0081], “The first bending region BA1 bent on the basis of the first bending axis BX1 may have a first radius of curvature BR1, and the second bending region BA2 bent on the basis of the second bending axis BX2 may have a second radius of curvature BR2. the first radius of curvature BR1 may differ from the second radius of curvature BR2.”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee with Lee III such that two regions have different radius of curvature as Lee III teaches the bending regions allow for extending display to side faces of a mobile device wherein said side faces can have different shapes or different radius of curvature (Lee III, [0080-0081]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180190936 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (KR 20200036131 A. Examiner will map to English translated patent family equivalent US 20200105169 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Lee is not relied upon for teaching the claim limitations.
Jeong teaches a flexible display substrate wherein a surface roughness of a first region is smaller than a surface roughness of a second region ([0116], “the bottom surface of the thin-film layer TIO may have a surface roughness relatively greater than that of the rear surface WM-B of the window member WM”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lee with Jeong such that a surface roughness of a first region is smaller than a surface roughness of a second region as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale (A). Lee and Jeong include each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as evidenced by the teachings of Lee and Jeong who both teach known methods for implementing flexible display devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10735569 B2, Lynch claim 16 is applicable to the current application claim 15 wherein both respective claims teach first and second display regions have a different curvature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10 AM - 6 PM, 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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at (571) 272-2963. 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.
/NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights