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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 33 are pending in the application. Claims 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31 have been cancelled.
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.
Claims 6, 8, 15, 17, and 18 are 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.
With Regards to Claims 6 and 8: Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second concave portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, which depends from claim 6, is rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 15, 17, and 18: The term “rectangular” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rectangular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. (Note: A "rectangle" is a clearly defined geometric shape (i.e., rectangle definition). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to what would constitute "rectangular" (i.e., would rectangular encompass a square, a trapezoid, etc.).) The instant specification appears to mean "rectangle shape" with regards to "rectangular" (see Figure 4 of filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the term be treated as "rectangle".
Claims 17 and 18, which depend from claim 15, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 15, 17, and 18: Claim 15 recites the limitation --a shape from one or more of a rectangular shape, a wavy shape and an arc shape-- in lines 3 to 4. A person having ordinary skill in the art a the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., it is unclear as to how said opening can have a shape that can simultaneously be rectangular [i.e., having straight sides] shaped, wavy shaped, and arc shaped). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 17 and 18, which depend from claim 15, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 15, 17, and 18: Claim 15 recites the limitation --a shape from one or more of a rectangular shape, a square shape, and a trapezoidal shape-- in lines 5 to 6. A person having ordinary skill in the art a the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., it is unclear as to how said opening can have a shape that can simultaneously be rectangular shaped, square shaped, and trapezoidal shaped). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 17 and 18, which depend from claim 15, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claims 17 and 18: Claim 17 recites the limitation --each extends along a second direction and has a first length in the second direction, and every two adjacent opening patterns are spaced apart from each other in a third direction-- in lines 2 to 4. A person having ordinary skill in the art a the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there is no basis by which one would be able to ascertain what direction would constituted said "second direction" and/or said "third direction" with regards to the claimed invention or even said "first direction"). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the limitation renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination it is the decision of the examiner that any direction can be said "second direction" and/or said "third direction".
Claim 18, which depends from claim 17, is rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24, 28, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 10,303,218 B2) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Jones discloses an electronic device (ref. #1401C) including a cover sheet (ref. #1400C), optional adhesive (ref. #1414C), display layer (ref. #1416C), and backing layer (ref. #1418C), wherein the optional adhesive (ref. #1414C) couples or attaches the cover sheet to the display layer and is a continuous layer (figure 14C and [Col. 20: li. 47-54] of Jones). Jones also discloses that the backing layer or other device components may be attached to the display layer with an adhesive (not shown) in a similar manner as described for the optional adhesive (figure 14C and [Col. 20: li. 62-65] of Jones). Jones further discloses that the display device includes one or more foldable regions, each foldable region disposed between two adjacent regions that do not fold/bend (figures 1A to 5C, [Col. 9: li. 43 to Col. 13: li. 51] of Jones). Specifically, Jones provides for --a flexible display module, comprising: a cover plate; a display panel, comprising a first non-foldable region, a first foldable region, and a second non-foldable region, wherein the first non-foldable region and the second non-foldable region are on opposite sides of the first foldable region; a first adhesive layer between the cover plate and the display panel; a second adhesive layer on a side of the display panel away from the cover plate; and a support layer on a side of the second adhesive layer away from the display panel, wherein the support layer comprises a first region corresponding to the first foldable region of the display panel and a second region on opposite sides of the first region, and the second region at least partially has a second thickness--.
Jones fails to disclose --the first region at least partially has a first thickness, and the second region at least partially has a second thickness; wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness in a first direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to a plane where the display panel is located--.
Wang discloses a foldable support for a flexible display product, the foldable support is provided with a non-bending region and at least one bending region, and wherein the foldable support includes at least two metal layers, at least one of the two metal layers being provided with a plurality of recessed portions at the bending region, and a buffer structure, which is located at least at a position between two adjacent metal layers and/or a position in the plurality of recessed portions of the at least one of the at least two metal layers (figures 1 to 10, [0005], [0043], and [0044] of Wang). Wang further discloses that the recesses can extend through the metal layer or can have a depth that is less than a thickness of the metal layer (figures 1 to 10, [0006], and [0043]-[0066] of Wang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the foldable support of Wang with the support layer of the flexible display module disclosed by Jones in order to have --the first region at least partially has a first thickness, and the second region at least partially has a second thickness; wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness in a first direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to a plane where the display panel is located--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the foldable support of Wang with the support layer of the flexible display module disclosed by Jones, from the stand-point of having a support that has good supportability and is also effective at dispersing stress during bending so that the folding performance and restoring flatness of the foldable support are effectively improved ([0005] of Wang).
Regarding Claim 2: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the fist region comprises a first concave portion (figure 1 of Wang).
Regarding Claim 3: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the first region further comprises a second concave portion on a side of the support layer, opposite to the side where the first concave potion is located, in the first direction (figure 1 of Wang).
Regarding Claim 4: Jones in view of Wang discloses that a distance between a bottom of the first concave portion and a surface of the support layer away from the first concave portion in the first direction is the first thickness; or a distance between the bottom of the first concave portion and a bottom of the second concave portion in the first direction is the first thickness; wherein the first thickness can be less than half the second thickness (figure 9 of Wang); which is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range limitation of --the first thickness is greater than or equal to one fifth of the second thickness in the first direction; and the first thickness is less than or equal to one half of the second thickness in the first direction--. See MPEP §2131.03(II).
Regarding Claim 6: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the flexible display module further comprises a first filling layer in the first concave portion (figures 7 to 9 of Wang).
Regarding Claim 10: Jones in view of Wang discloses the support layer further comprises a transition region between the first region and the second region; and the transition region comprises first openings therein, and an orthographic projection of each first opening on the support layer forms an opening pattern (see Modified Figure 1 of Wang below).
PNG
media_image1.png
299
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Modified) Figure 1 of Wang. In the instant case the wider recesses correspond to the claimed "first concave portion" and the narrower recesses correspond to the claimed "first openings".
Regarding Claim 11: Jones in view of Wang discloses that a distance between a bottom of each first opening and a side of the support layer away from each first opening in the first direction is a third thickness (Modified Figure 1 of Wang above). Jones in view of Wang discloses that the third thickness is less than half the thickness of the support layer; which overlaps the presently claimed range --the third thickness is greater than or equal to one half of the second thickness in the first direction; and the third thickness is less than or equal to two thirds of the second thickness in the first direction--. Therefor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 15: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the orthographic projection of each first opening on the support layer forms at least one opening pattern, which has a shape from one or more of a rectangle shape; and a cross section of each first opening has a shape from one or more of a rectangle shape, and a square shape (figures 1 to 4 and [0048] of Wang). (In the instant case, it is considered by the examiner that the recess disclosed by Wang extend the entire width of the support layer [i.e., all cross-sections are the same].)
Regarding Claim 17: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the at least one opening pattern each extends along a second direction and has a first length in the second direction, and every two adjacent opening patterns are spaced apart from each other in a third direction (figures 1 to 4 and [0048] of Wang). (In the instant case, it is considered by the examiner that the recess disclosed by Wang extend the entire width of the support layer [i.e., all cross-sections are the same].)
Regarding Claim 18: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the first length is equal to a length of the support layer in the second direction (figures 1 to 4 and [0048] of Wang). (In the instant case, it is considered by the examiner that the recess disclosed by Wang extend the entire width ("length in the second direction") of the support layer [i.e., all cross-sections are the same].)
Regarding Claim 22: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the support layer comprises a first support layer, a second support layer, and a third adhesive layer, the second support layer is on a side of the first support layer away from the display panel, and the second support layer is adhered to the first support layer by the third adhesive layer; and the first region comprises a third concave portion therein on a side of the second support layer away from the first support layer (see figures 1 to 7, [0005], [006], [0043], [0048]-[0054], and [0064] of Wang). (In the instant case, because the buffer layer of Wang affixes the first metal layer and the second metal layer, it is considered equivalent to the claimed "third adhesive layer".)
Regarding Claim 24: Jones in view of Wang discloses a distance between a surface of the second support layer away from the first support layer and a surface of the first support layer close to the display panel in the first direction is the second thickness; and the flexible display module further comprises a third filling layer in the third concave portion; wherein the first foldable region is folded inwards, and the third filling layer is made of one or more of an optical adhesive (figures 1 to 7 of Wang; [Col. 19: li. 4-20] and [Col. 20: li. 36-65] of Jones). (In the instant case, since Jones discloses filling a recess with an optically clear adhesive, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to fill any other recess with the same material.)
Regarding Claim 28: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the display panel further comprises a second foldable region and a third non- foldable region, the second foldable region is between the second non-foldable region and the third non-foldable region, and the first foldable region has a width greater than that of the second foldable region in a third direction; and the support layer comprises a third region corresponding to the second foldable region, the third region at least partially has a fourth thickness, and the fourth thickness is less than the second thickness in the first direction; and the third region comprises a fourth concave portion therein, and a distance between a bottom of the fourth concave portion and a surface of the support layer away from the fourth concave portion in the first direction is the fourth thickness; and the first thickness is greater than the fourth thickness in the first direction (figures 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A of Jones; figure 5 of Wang). (In the instant case, the first concave portion can have a pattern of recesses (i.e., those shown in figure 1 of Wang), whereas the fourth concave portion can have a different pattern of recesses (i.e., those shown in figures 2 to 4 of Wang), which would result in the first thickness being greater than the fourth thickness as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 30: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the display panel is folded with a first radius of curvature in the first foldable region; the display panel is folded with a second radius of curvature in the second foldable region; and the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature; and the flexible display module further comprises: a first filling layer in the first concave portion, wherein the first concave portion is on a side of the support layer away from the display panel; and a fifth filling layer in the fourth concave portion, wherein the fourth concave portion is on a side of the support layer away from the display panel (figures 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, [Col. 10: li. 22-41], [Col. 19: li. 4-26], and [Col. 20: li. 47-65] of Jones; figures 1 to 9, [0005], [0006], and [0064] of Wang). Jones in view of Wang does not explicitly recite that --a modulus of the first filling layer is greater than that of the fifth filling layer--. However, Jones in view of Wang does disclose adjusting the support layer to match different bending radii, and that the filler material can be different materials (e.g., silica gel and polyurethane) ([0051] and [0064] of Wang). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a material having a greater modulus in the first filling layer than that of the fifth filling layer material, since 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. See MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding Claim 33: Jones in view of Wang discloses a flexible display apparatus comprising the flexible display module ([Col. 9: li. 33-42] of Jones).
Claims 8 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 10,303,218 B2) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 22, and 24 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2015/0382446 A1)
Jones in view of Wang is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 26: Jones in view of Wang discloses the claimed flexible display module, but failed to disclose --the second regions of the second support layer comprises first opening grooves, which are arranged symmetrically with respect to the first region in a third direction; and the flexible display module further comprises a fourth filling layer in the first opening grooves, wherein the fourth filling layer is made of one or more of graphite, a heat conductive adhesive, and a copper sheet--.
Kwon discloses a flexible display device comprising a flexible base layer (ref. #106) bent along a bend line, a conductive line on the flexible base layer arranged to extend across the bend line, the conductive line having a trace design with at least two sub-traces splitting and merging back at an angle away from the tangent vector of the curvature, wherein the base layer is etched by a certain depth, and the conductive line (ref. #200) can be formed to be disposed within the etched area of the base layer, and wherein the conductive lines can be a multi-layered structure comprising a primary conductive layer (ref. #202) sandwiched between two secondary conductive layers (ref. #204), and the primary conductive layer can be copper (figures 1C, 5B, 8A to 8B, [0013], [0014], [0038], [0074]-[0076], [0085], and [0103] of Kwon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the flexible display device of Kwon with the flexible display module of Jones in view of Wang in order to have --the second regions of the second support layer comprises first opening grooves, which are arranged symmetrically with respect to the first region in a third direction; and the flexible display module further comprises a fourth filling layer in the first opening grooves, wherein the fourth filling layer is made of one or more of a copper sheet--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the flexible display device of Kwon with the flexible display module of Jones in view of Wang, from the stand-point of having a flexible display with a wire trace design, which is configured to focus the bending stress to particular stress points that are reinforced to withstand bending stress ([0015] of Kwon). (In the instant case, the copper layer of Kwon is considered equivalent to the claimed copper sheet.)
Regarding Claim 8: Jones in view of Wang discloses that the first foldable region is folded inward, the first concave portion is on a side of the support layer away from the display panel, and the first filling layer has a material of one or more of an optical adhesive, and the first foldable region is folded inward, the second concave portion is on a side of the support layer close to the display panel ([Col. 19: li. 4-26], and [Col. 20: li. 47-65] of Jones; figures 1 to 9 and [0064] of Wang).
Jones in view Wang fails to disclose --the second filling layer has a material of one or more of polyimide and polyethylene terephthalate--.
Kwon discloses using a polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as material for the base layer due to its rigidity ([0038] of Kwon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated polyimide and/or PET of Kwon as the second filling layer of Jones in view of Wang in order to have --the second filling layer has a material of one or more of polyimide and polyethylene terephthalate--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated polyimide and/or PET of Kwon as the second filling layer of Jones in view of Wang, from the stand-point of having a desired rigidity ([0038] of Kwon). (It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use polyimide and/or PET as the second filling layer, since 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. See MPEP §2144.07. In the instant case, polyimide and PET would be considered due to their high resilience as required by Wang ([0064] of Wang).)
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 10,303,218 B2) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0168929 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 10,198,040 B2)
Jones in view of Wang is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 32: Jones in view of Wang discloses the claimed flexible display module, but failed to disclose --a polarizer on a side of the display panel away from the support layer--.
Zhang discloses a display having a support layer (ref. #14-1), an organic light-emitting diode display layer (ref. #14-2; considered equivalent to the claimed "display panel"), a touch sensor layer (ref. #14-3), a circular polarizer (ref. #14-4), and a protective polymer display cover layer (ref. #14-5), in this order (figure 3A and [Col. 3: li. 60 to Col. 4: li. 9] of Zhang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the polarizer of Zhang with the flexible display module of Jones in view of Wang in order to have --a polarizer on a side of the display panel away from the support layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the polarizer of Zhang with the flexible display module of Jones in view of Wang, from the stand-point of suppressing light reflections from metal lines and other reflective structures in the touch sensor layer and the organic light-emitting diode display layer ([Col. 4: li. 4-5] of Zhang).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Jones et al. (US 10,303,218 B2): Jones teaches --a flexible display module--, wherein Jones' flexible display module further comprises the structure --an electronic device (ref. #1401C) including a cover sheet (ref. #1400C), optional adhesive (ref. #1414C), display layer (ref. #1416C), and backing layer (ref. #1418C), wherein the optional adhesive (ref. #1414C) couples or attaches the cover sheet to the display layer and is a continuous layer; that the backing layer or other device components may be attached to the display layer with an adhesive (not shown) in a similar manner as described for the optional adhesive; and wherein the display device includes one or more foldable regions, each foldable region disposed between two adjacent regions that do not fold/bend-- (figures 1A to 5C, 14C, [Col. 9: li. 43 to Col. 13: li. 51], [Col. 20: li. 47-54 and 62-65] of Jones). However, Jones does not teach that --third thickness is greater than or equal to one half of the second thickness in the first direction; and the third thickness is less than or equal to two thirds of the second thickness in the first direction; and the orthographic projection of each first opening on the support layer and the orthographic projection of each second opening on the support layer form the same opening pattern-- {instant claim 12}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Jones with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Jones in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (EP 4180913 A1) discloses a foldable electronic device with recesses in a support to accommodate bending.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights