DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (10,314,183) in further view of Visser (8,654,519).
Regarding Claim 1: Heo teaches a display device comprising: an organic light emitting display OLED (col. 4 lines 36-42); a winder (143) that winds the OLED from one end of the OLED (fig. 7); a constant force spring (316) that applies a winding force of the OLED to the winder (through 278); strips (made up of 15c shown in fig. 36) each disposed on a corresponding edge of the OLED (fig. 36) in a direction in which the OLED extends and is unwound (fig. 36), the strips being rollable around the winder together with the OLED (fig. 7) and maintaining the OLED straight when the OLED is unwound (fig. 36); and a fixing mechanism (a combination of 191, 137, 73, 234a, and 234b) configured to release the OLED when the OLED is pulled out in a direction along a winding direction of the OLED around the winder (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23) and fix the OLED so that the OLED is not wound (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23) when the OLED is pulled out in a direction along an unwinding direction of the OLED around the winder (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23), but lacks a specific teaching of each of the strips having an arc-shaped cross section.
Visser teaches a wind up (fig. 1b) flexible display device (fig. 2) including a plurality of strips (figs. 1a-2) wherein each of the strips having an arc-shaped cross section (fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Heo by having each of the strips having an arc-shaped cross section as disclosed by Visser in order to allow for a more smooth and seamless transition of the display device into the housing during the winding process while in turn still holding the structural integrity of the display decreasing chances of damage to the overall device.
Regarding Claim 2: Heo teaches of the fixing mechanism includes: a guide bar (234a) that traverses an entire width of the OLED along an outer face of the OLED that is wound around the winder (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23); and a stop roller (191) that traverses the entire width of the OLED along an inner face of the OLED that is wound around the winder (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23), wherein the stop roller and the guide bar are adjacent to and parallel to each other (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23), and are elastically biased together (through 179) in the unwinding direction of the OLED (shown through 179 in figs. 25-26).
Regarding Claim 4: Heo teaches a cover (30) that keeps a winding space for the OLED between the winder and the cover (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23), the cover having a slit (opening where the display exits the cover shown in figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23), through which the OLED is unwound (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23), wherein the fixing mechanism includes an end of the slit in the unwinding direction of the OLED around the winder (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23).
Regarding Claim 5: Heo teaches the OLED is attached to a first sheet (73), a second sheet (75) is disposed at an unwinding end of the OLED to extend the first sheet (fig. 10), and the second sheet comes with a pull-out bar (167) to let a user unwind the OLED (figs. 7, 13-15, and 21-23), but lacks a specific teaching of the second sheet being harder than the first sheet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Heo by having the second sheet being harder than the first sheet in order to allow for a stronger and more sturdy material for the user to grab on to while extending the display apparatus as this can be accomplished merely by choosing the proper material for the intended purpose wherein it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a mattery of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (10,314,183) in view of Visser (8,654,519) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Lee (9,900,977).
Regarding Claim 3: Heo lacks a specific teaching of the stop roller has a surface, the surface including a rubber material.
Lee teaches the stop roller has a surface, the surface including a rubber material (col. 6 lines 52-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Heo by having the stop roller has a surface, the surface including a rubber material as disclosed by Lee in order to allow for a better control of the display while in motion which in turn will decrease the potential damage to display or support components of the display which would require repair or replacement of the components to the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The current prior art in the notice of references PTO-892 but not relied upon above either all or partly relates to an electronic device including a flexible display device that winds on a spring related winding portion.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights