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 .
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.05.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/2/2024 has been fully considered and is attached hereto.
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 written description is objected to because it does not contain:
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78
Applicant should amend the written description so that is has an appropriate reference to the parent application, the 371 priority application, and the foreign priority application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Limitations of claim 7,
Limitations of claim 8, and
Limitations of claim 9,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites, “a third adhesive layer” which is confusing since there is no claimed, “second adhesive layer”. It is suggested that the claim be amended to recite, “a second adhesive layer”.
Claim 11 is objected to since it depends from claim 10 and inherits there deficiency therein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Presently, claim 4 does not further limit claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
Claims 3-4 are directed to the same invention as that of claim 3 of commonly assigned US 12,114,440. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
Since claim 4 does not further limit claim 3, as per the above 112(d) rejection thereto, claim 4 is also rejected under 101.
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 1-2, 6-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,440 in view of Zhu et al. (CN 112164309 – hereinafter, “Zhu-309”).
With respect to claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘440 reference recites all the limitations therein verbatim but fails to specifically recite 2r<0.5 mm.
Zhu-309, however, teaches a display device (100) with a bending radius of a bending portion (10b) which is r, and 2r<0.5 mm (“Please continue with reference to FIG. 2, the bending part 10b has a bending radius R, wherein 0.1 mm < R < 0.5 mm. For example, the bending radius R of the bending part in the embodiment of the invention can be 0.1 mm, 0.15 mm, 0.2 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.3 mm, 0.35 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.45 mm, 0.5 mm in any one. It should be noted that the bending radius R in the embodiment of the invention is the inner diameter of the bending part 10b.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhu-309 with that of claim 1 of the ‘440 reference, such that, claim 1 of the ‘440 references recites a bending radius of the bending portion is r, and 2r<0.5 mm, as taught by Zhu-309, since doing so would reduce the profile/size of the display device of the ‘440 reference.
With respect to claim 2, claim 2 of the ‘440 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 6, claim 4 of the ‘440 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 7, claim 5 of the ‘440 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 8, claim 6 of the ‘440 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 9, claim 7 of the ‘440 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
With respect to claim 10, claim 8 of the ‘440 reference recites the limitations therein verbatim.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,440 in view of Zhu-309 and further in view of Byeongjo (KR 20200129646).
With respect to claim 5, claim 1 of the ‘440 reference as modified by Zhu-309 recites the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Byeongjo further teaches a material of the heat dissipation buffer layer comprises one or more of a mesh adhesive, foam, copper foil, PI, or a graphite sheet (“The heat dissipation layer 320a according to another example may include a metal layer such as copper or aluminum, and a graphite layer coated on the metal layer. The heat dissipation layer 320a may absorb heat generated in the entire area of the display panel 300 and discharge heat into the atmosphere at the rear surface. The cushion sheet 320b may function to alleviate an impact by being coupled to one surface of the heat dissipation layer 320a. The cushion sheet 320b according to an example may be a double-sided foam adhesive tape or a double-sided foam adhesive pad.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Byeongjo with that of claim 1 as modified by Zhu-309 such that claim 1 further recites a material of the heat dissipation buffer layer comprises one or more of a mesh adhesive, foam, copper foil, PI, or a graphite sheet, as taught by Byeongjo, since doing so would provide for a heat dissipation buffer layer which has thermal conductivity.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,440 in view of Zhu-309 and further in view of Guo (CN 110347293).
With respect to claim 11, claim 8 as modified by Zhu-309 recites the limitations of claim 10 as per above but fail to specifically recite wherein a material of the third adhesive layer comprises a UV adhesive.
Guo, however, teaches wherein a material of an adhesive layer (40) comprises a UV adhesive (“the UV adhesive or thermal adhesive strip at the bending part”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with that of claim 8 as modified by Zhu-309 such that modified claim 8 further recites a material of the third adhesive layer comprises a UV adhesive, as taught by Guo, since doing so would allow for the third adhesive layer to be cured at a particular desired time (With a UV adhesive, the adhesive cures once a UV light is applied to it thus allowing the manufacturer to cure the adhesive at a desired time).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,440 in view of Zhu-309 in view of Zhu (CN 109410767) and further in view of Babuka et al. (US 5,867,236 – hereinafter, “Babuka”).
With respect to claim 12, claim 1 as modified by Zhu-309 recites the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically recite a width of the second backplate is less than a width of the first backplate, and the width of the second backplate is greater than a width of the adhesive layer, wherein the widths of the first backplate, the second backplate, and the adhesive layer extend along a direction parallel to a direction where the display portion extends toward the bending portion.
Zhu, however, teaches wherein a width of the second backplate (212) is less than a width of the first backplate (211), wherein the widths of the first backplate (211), the second backplate (212), and the adhesive layer (25) extend along a direction parallel to a direction where the display portion extends toward the bending portion (See Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhu with that of claim 1 as modified by Zhu-309 such that claim 1 is modified to further recite a width of the second backplate is less than a width of the first backplate, wherein the widths of the first backplate, the second backplate, and the adhesive layer extend along a direction parallel to a direction where the display portion extends toward the bending portion, a taught by Zhu, since doing so would assure that the second backplate is reduced in size to only a size that is necessary to carry the load thus reducing the weight of the display device.
Claim 1 as modified by Zhu-309 and Zhu fails to specifically recite that the width of the second backplate is greater than a width of the adhesive layer.
Babuka, however, teaches (In Fig 1) a width of a backplate (14) is greater than a width of an adhesive layer (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Babuka with that of Zhu-309 and Zhu such that claim 1 is further modified to recite that the width of the second backplate is greater than a width of the adhesive layer, as taught by Babuka, since doing so would reduce the amount of adhesive layer needed to bond the second backplate to the first backplate thus reducing the amount of material needed to make the display device while also reducing the weight of the display device.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Byeongjo and further in view of Zhu-309.
With respect to claim 1, Zhu teaches (In Fig 2) a display device, comprising: a display panel (22) comprising a display portion (221), a bonding portion (222) bent to a back of the display panel (See Fig 2), and a bending portion (223) connecting the display portion and the bonding portion (See Fig 2); an adhesive layer (25) disposed between the display portion (221) and the bonding portion (222, see Fig 2); a first backplate (211) disposed between the adhesive layer (25) and the display portion (221, see Fig 2); a second backplate (212) disposed between the adhesive layer (25) and the bonding portion (222), wherein the adhesive layer (25) is disposed between the first backplate (211) and the second backplate (212, see Fig 2).
Zhu fails to specifically teach or suggest a heat dissipation buffer layer disposed at one side of the display portion of the display panel facing the bonding portion; wherein an orthographic projection of the heat dissipation buffer layer projected on the display portion avoids overlapping an orthographic projection of the adhesive layer projected on the display portion, wherein a bending radius of the bending portion is r, and 2r<0.5 mm.
Byeongjo, however, teaches (In Fig 3) a heat dissipation buffer layer (320) disposed at one side (Bottom side) of a display portion (AA) of a display panel (300) facing a bonding portion (Portion of 331); wherein an orthographic projection of the heat dissipation buffer layer (320) projected on the display portion (AA) avoids overlapping an orthographic projection of an adhesive layer (350) projected on the display portion (AA, see Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Byeongjo with that of Zhu such that, in Zhu, a heat dissipation buffer layer is disposed at one side of the display portion of the display panel facing the bonding portion; wherein an orthographic projection of the heat dissipation buffer layer projected on the display portion avoids overlapping an orthographic projection of the adhesive layer projected on the display portion, as taught by Byeongjo, since doing so would allow for the display device of Zhu to further include a heat dissipation means to help cool the display device.
With respect to the limitations that a bending radius of the bending portion is r, and 2r<0.5 mm, Zhu-309 further teaches a display device (100) with a bending radius of a bending portion (10b) which is r, and 2r<0.5 mm (“Please continue with reference to FIG. 2, the bending part 10b has a bending radius R, wherein 0.1 mm < R < 0.5 mm. For example, the bending radius R of the bending part in the embodiment of the invention can be 0.1 mm, 0.15 mm, 0.2 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.3 mm, 0.35 mm, 0.4 mm, 0.45 mm, 0.5 mm in any one. It should be noted that the bending radius R in the embodiment of the invention is the inner diameter of the bending part 10b.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhu-309 with that of Zhu, such that, in Zhu, a bending radius of the bending portion is r, and 2r<0.5 mm, as taught by Zhu-309, since doing so would reduce the profile/size of the display device of Zhu.
With respect to claim 2, Zhu as modified by Byeongjo and Zhu-309 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Byeongjo further teaches wherein the heat dissipation buffer layer (320) is arranged at one side of the adhesive layer (350) away from a bending portion (See Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Byeongjo with that of Zhu such that, in Zhu the heat dissipation buffer layer is arranged at one side of the adhesive layer away from the bending portion, as taught by Byeongjo since doing so would allow the heat dissipation buffer layer to be more remote from components on or near the bending portion thus allowing the heat dissipation buffer layer to better cool the display portion of the display panel.
With respect to claim 5, Zhu as modified by Byeongjo and Zhu-309 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Byeongjo further teaches a material of the heat dissipation buffer layer comprises one or more of a mesh adhesive, foam, copper foil, PI, or a graphite sheet (“The heat dissipation layer 320a according to another example may include a metal layer such as copper or aluminum, and a graphite layer coated on the metal layer. The heat dissipation layer 320a may absorb heat generated in the entire area of the display panel 300 and discharge heat into the atmosphere at the rear surface. The cushion sheet 320b may function to alleviate an impact by being coupled to one surface of the heat dissipation layer 320a. The cushion sheet 320b according to an example may be a double-sided foam adhesive tape or a double-sided foam adhesive pad.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Byeongjo with that of Zhu such that, in Zhu, a material of the heat dissipation buffer layer comprises one or more of a mesh adhesive, foam, copper foil, PI, or a graphite sheet, as taught by Byeongjo, since doing so would provide for a heat dissipation buffer layer which has thermal conductivity.
With respect to claim 6, Zhu as modified by Byeongjo and Zhu-309 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Zhu further teaches that the adhesive layer (25) comprises a first adhesive layer disposed between the display portion (221) and the bonding portion (222, see Fig 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Byeongjo in view of Zhu-309 and further in view of Choi (US 2020/0022261).
With respect to claim 7, Zhu as modified by Byeongjo and Zhu-309 teaches the limitations of claim 6 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the adhesive layer further comprises: a second adhesive layer disposed between the first adhesive layer and the display portion; and an intermediate layer disposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer; wherein a material of the intermediate layer comprises one of thermoplastic polyester or foam.
Choi, however, teaches (In Figs. 3C and 3E) wherein the adhesive layer (LM) further comprises: a second adhesive layer (L-AM below LBL in Fig. 3C) disposed between the first adhesive layer (L-AM above LBL in Fig. 3C) and the display portion (P3) (second adhesive layer disposed between first adhesive layer and display portion: see Figs. 3C and 3E: the L-AM’s are a part of LM, and thus the L-AM below LBL is between the L-AM above LBL and P3); and an intermediate layer (LBL) disposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer (see Fig. 3C); wherein a material (material of LBL) of the intermediate layer comprises one of thermoplastic polyester (see [0084]: PET is polyethylene terephthalate, a thermoplastic polyester) or foam.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Choi with that of Zhu such that, in Zhu the adhesive layer further comprises: a second adhesive layer disposed between the first adhesive layer and the display portion; and an intermediate layer disposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer; wherein a material of the intermediate layer comprises one of thermoplastic polyester or foam, as taught by Choi, since doing so would help to support the display panel (see [0084] of Choi) to prevent deformation.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Byeongjo in view of Zhu-309 and further in view of Luo et al. (CN 110060574 – hereinafter, “Luo”).
With respect to claim 8, Zhu as modified by Byeongjo and Zhu-309 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Zhu further discloses wherein the first backplate (211) comprises: a first substrate (211 is a substrate) disposed between the adhesive layer (25) and the display portion (221) (see Fig. 2: 211 is between 25 and 221).
Zhu fails to teach or suggest wherein the first backplate comprises: a first polyester layer disposed between the first substrate and the display portion.
Luo (Fig. 10) teaches a first polyester layer (112) (polyester: see [0055]: PET is polyethylene terephthalate, a polyester) disposed between the first substrate (21) and the display portion (111) (disposed between the first substrate and the display portion: see Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Luo with that of Zhu such that, in Zhu the first backplate comprises: a first polyester layer disposed between the first substrate and the display portion, as taught by Luo, since doing so would increase rigidity (see Luo ¶ 0055).
With respect to claim 9, Zhu as modified by Byeongjo and Zhu-309 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above and Zhu further teaches wherein the second backplate (212) comprises: a second substrate (212 is a substrate) disposed between the adhesive layer (25) and the bonding portion (222) (see Fig. 2: 212 is between 25 and 222).
Zhu fails to specifically teach or suggest wherein the second backplate comprises: a second polyester layer disposed between the second substrate and the bonding portion.
Luo (Fig. 10) teaches a second polyester layer (122) (polyester: see [0055]: PET is polyethylene terephthalate, a polyester) disposed between the second substrate (62) and the bonding portion (121) (disposed between the second substrate and the bonding portion: see Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Luo with that of Zhu such that, in Zhu the second backplate comprises: a second polyester layer disposed between the second substrate and the bonding portion, as taught by Luo since doing so would increase rigidity (see Luo ¶0055).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Byeongjo in view of Zhu-309 and further in view of Qian et al. (CN 108877519 – hereinafter, “Qian”).
With respect to claim 10, Zhu as modified by Byeongjo and Zhu-309 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as per above but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the display device further comprising: a third adhesive layer disposed on the bending portion, a portion of the display portion, and a portion of the bonding portion.
Qian, however teaches (In Fig. 5) a third adhesive layer (28) disposed on the bending portion (221) (disposed on the bending portion: see Fig. 5), a portion (small part of the outer portion/part of 222 that 28 is partly on at its bottom end, see Fig. 5) of the display portion (222) (third adhesive layer disposed on portion of display portion: see Fig. 5: defined to be, as there is a small portion of 222 that 28 is on at its bottom end), and a portion (outer portion of 223) of the bonding portion (223) (see Fig. 5: 28 is on the outer portion of 223).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Qian with that of Zhu such that, in Zhu the display device further comprising: a third adhesive layer disposed on the bending portion, a portion of the display portion, and a portion of the bonding portion, as taught by Qian, since doing so would protect the display panel and improve rigidity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Byeongjo in view of Zhu-309 and further in view of Qian and further in view of Guo.
With respect to claim 11, Zhu as modified by Byeongjo, Zhu-309, and Qian teach the limitations of claim 10 as per above but fail to specifically teach or suggest wherein a material of the third adhesive layer comprises a UV adhesive.
Guo, however, teaches wherein a material of an adhesive layer (40) comprises a UV adhesive (“the UV adhesive or thermal adhesive strip at the bending part”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with that of modified Zhu such that, in modified Zhu a material of the third adhesive layer comprises a UV adhesive, as taught by Guo, since doing so would allow for the third adhesive layer to be cured at a particular desired time (With a UV adhesive, the adhesive cures once a UV light is applied to it thus allowing the manufacturer to cure the adhesive at a desired time).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Byeongjo in view of Zhu-309 and further in view of Babuka.
With respect to claim 12, Zhu as modified by Byeongjo and Zhu-309 teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Zhu further teaches wherein a width of the second backplate (212) is less than a width of the first backplate (211), wherein the widths of the first backplate (211), the second backplate (212), and the adhesive layer (25) extend along a direction parallel to a direction where the display portion extends toward the bending portion (See Fig 2).
Zhu fails to specifically teach or suggest that the width of the second backplate is greater than a width of the adhesive layer.
Babuka, however, teaches (In Fig 1) a width of a backplate (14) is greater than a width of an adhesive layer (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Babuka with that of Zhu such that, in Zhu the width of the second backplate is greater than a width of the adhesive layer, as taught by Babuka, since doing so would reduce the amount of adhesive layer needed to bond the second backplate to the first backplate thus reducing the amount of material needed to make the display device while also reducing the weight of the display device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M PAPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am - 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, JAYPRAKASH Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/ZACHARY PAPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights