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 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, 5-6, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee 2022/0374045.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a display module (1000, Fig 1A), comprising: a flexible screen (FS, Fig 1B or 100, Fig 2) and a support member (300, Fig 2) stacked sequentially (Fig 2), and the support member is located on a backlight side (backlight side of 100 emitting light, par 0074-0076) of the flexible screen (Fig 2), wherein the support member comprises a fixing portion (310, Fig 4A), a first bending portion (CA1, Fig 4A) and a second bending portion (CA3, Fig 4A) arranged in a first direction (DR2, Fig 2), the first bending portion is located between the fixing portion and the second bending portion (see Fig 4A), the second bending portion comprises a central portion (CA2, Fig 4A) and a plurality of main bending portions (NCA1, NCA2, Fig 2) located on two opposite sides of the central portion in the first direction (see Fig 4A), and a stiffness of the central portion is higher than a stiffness of the main bending portion (stiffness at CA2 considered higher due to having greater surface area compared to lesser surface area that make up bending portions on outside thereof, Fig 4B).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the display module according to claim 1, wherein a stiffness of the first bending portion is higher than the stiffness of the central portion (stiffness of CA1 higher due to groove to non-groove ratio compared to grooved area of CA2, Fig 5A), a stiffness of the fixing portion is higher than the stiffness of the first bending portion (stiffness of 310 higher due to non-groove surface compared to grooved area of CA1, Fig 4B), and the stiffness of the central portion increases first and then decreases in the first direction (following shape shown in Fig 4C).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the display module according to claim 1, wherein the stiffness of the main bending portion gradually decreases in a direction from the central portion to the main bending portion (stiffness of main bending portion gradually decrease in DR2 direction, Fig 4C).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the display module according to claim 1, wherein the support member further comprises a connecting portion (CC2, Fig 4C) located between the second bending portion and the first bending portion (see Fig 4C), and a stiffness of the connecting portion is higher than a stiffness of the first bending portion (stiffness higher than CT1, CT3 not compressed, Fig 4C).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the display module according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of through holes are provided in the support member at intervals (at OP-A1, Fig 5A), the through holes penetrate through the support member in a thickness direction of the support member (Fig 5A), and a sum of areas of all through holes in a unit area of the central portion is less than a sum of areas of all through holes in a unit area of the main bending portion (see hole count in Figs 5B, 6B).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses the display module according to claim 1, wherein the support member is provided with a groove (GB-A2, Fig 5B), an opening (OP-A2, Fig 5B) of the groove is located on at least one of two opposite surfaces in a thickness direction of the support member (Fig 5B), and a minimum thickness of the central portion is greater than a minimum thickness of the main bending portion (thickness include material of central portion, where bending portion material removed, Fig 4C).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses the display module according to claim 15, wherein the minimum thickness of the central portion increases first and then decreases in the first direction (thickness of central portion gradually decrease in DR2 direction, Fig 4C).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the display module according to claim 15, wherein a minimum thickness of the main bending portion gradually decreases in a direction from the central portion to the main bending portion (thickness of main bending portion gradually decrease in DR2 direction, Fig 4C).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses the display module according to claim 15, wherein the support member comprises a first support layer (300B-1, Fig 6A), a connecting layer (AD4-1, Fig 6A) and a second support layer sequentially stacked (300U-2, Fig 6A), the second support layer is provided with an opening (OP1, OP2, Fig 6A), the opening penetrates through the second support layer in a thickness direction of the support member (Fig 6A), and the opening is located in the main bending portion (Fig 6A).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a display device (Title), comprising a first supporting member (PT1, Fig 6A), a second supporting member (PT2, Fig 6A), and a display module (1000, Fig 2) according to claim 1, wherein the first supporting member and the second supporting member are located on a side, facing away from a flexible screen (located at bottom side of 100, Fig 2) of the display module, of a support member of the display module (300, Fig 2), the first supporting member is disposed corresponding to a fixing portion of the support member (310, Fig 2), and the second supporting member is disposed corresponding to a connecting portion of the support member (at 330, Fig 2).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 2022/0374045.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the display module according to claim 1, wherein average stiffnesses of two adjacent unit areas of the second bending portion are a first stiffness and a second stiffness, respectively (compression/ tensile stiffness at CC3, CT3, Fig 4C).
Lee discloses the claimed invention except for expressly teaching an absolute value of a difference between the first stiffness and the second stiffness divided by the first stiffness ranges from 0.05 to 0.2, and an extension length of the central portion ranges from 1 to 2 mm in the first direction.
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 the first and second stiffness ranges for an absolute value and an extension length of the central portion of Lee as claimed, in order to optimize a desired structural resilience or rigidity, thereby improving the structural integrity and rigid capability of the support member material for particular operating conditions of the device, and, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The dependent claims listed below, in combination with the remaining elements of the independent claim(s) from which they directly/indirectly depend, are not taught, or adequately suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 7. The display module according to claim 6, wherein a cross section of the through hole is in a strip shape, the through hole extends in a second direction, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction; and in the second direction, each through hole comprises a first end, a second end, and a middle section located between the first end and the second end, and an extension length of the first end, an extension length of the second end, and an extension length of the middle section in the first direction are all greater than an extension length of a remaining part of the through hole in the first direction. *Claim 8 depends directly from claim 7 and is therefore allowable for at least the same reason.
Claim 9. The display module according to claim 6, wherein each through hole has a same area, and a distance between two adjacent through holes of the central portion is greater than a distance between two adjacent through holes of the main bending portion. *Claims 10-14 depend either indirectly or directly from claim 9 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reason.
Claim 19. The display module according to claim 18, wherein a thickness of the second support layer is greater than a thickness of the first support layer, and a thickness of the second support layer of the central portion is less than a thickness of the second support layer of the fixing portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEN E MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-8852. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Jinhee Lee can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/RASHEN E MORRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841