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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 1 – 20 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.
The phrase “in a first direction perpendicular to a plane where the folding support assembly is located” in claim 1 is indefinite. Is the applicant stating that the folding support assembly present in one single plane? The stacked layer structure recited in the claim suggests the folding support assembly would be present in multiple planes. Each layer would be in a different plane at a minimum. Further, is the direction perpendicular to the plane the same as the height or thickness of the composite? Is the applicant just requiring that the stacked layers are ordered in a specific way from top to bottom? Claims 19 and 20 are similarly rejected. Claims 2 – 18 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The phrase “an extending direction of carbon fiber filaments in the first carbon fiber filament layer intersecting with an extending direction of carbon fiber filaments in the second carbon fiber filament layer” in claim 1 is indefinite. It is unclear what the applicant is defining as the extending direction of the first and second carbon filament layers. The claim states that the first and second carbon filaments layers are stacked in a sequential overlapping arrangement. Thus, the only place the layers would intersect is on the top and/or bottom surfaces of the filament layer. Further, it is unclear how the applicant is defining “extending direction”? Does the layer extend in all direction endlessly? Is the extending direction just the direction the filaments are running parallel to? If the extending direction corresponds to the direction the filaments are run in and the layers are stacked on top of each other, then the extending filaments never truly intersect. Are the layers just required to have filaments running in perpendicular directions? While the directions can run perpendicularly to each other they cannot physically intersect. Claims 19 and 20 are similarly rejected. Claims 2 – 18 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The term “the first direction” in claim 12 is indefinite. Is the applicant limiting that the first carbon layer has two layers stacked one on top of the other? Is the first direction related to the filament direction?
The term “extending in a same direction and extending longitudinally on the plane where the folding support assembly is located” in claim 12 is indefinite. Do the layers extend indefinitely in all directions like a plane? Does the composite extend lengthwise and widthwise indefinitely? Or is the term extending related to the direction of the filaments? It is unclear how the layers are described as extending in both the same direction and the extending longitudinal directions? How many directions can filaments extend? Or is the claim requiring that the filaments within the first carbon filament layers extend in the same direction and that direction is parallel with the length of the composite?
The term “extending in a same direction and extending transversely on the plane where the folding support assembly is located” in claim 12 is indefinite. Do the layers extend indefinitely in all directions like a plane? Does the composite extend lengthwise and widthwise indefinitely? Or is the term extending related to the direction of the filaments? It is unclear how the layers are described as extending in both the same direction and the extending transverse directions? How many directions can filaments extend? Or is the claim requiring that the filaments within the second carbon filament layers extend in the same direction and that direction is perpendicular with the length of the composite?
The phrase “the whiskers are in a shape of hollow cylinder, a height extending direction of which is parallel to the first direction” in claim 13 is indefinite. It is unclear how the limitation related to a “height extending direction” related to either the whiskers or the folding support assembly. The claim does not define what height is being measured. Is the cylinder shape whisker required to be added so that the cylinders extend in a certain direction? Or is the claim intending to define that the cylinder whiskers have a height measurement which is parallel to the thickness of the composite?
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(s) 1 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (CN 114523735 Machine Translation) in view of Yi et al. (US 2022/0270780).
Zeng et al. discloses a composite comprising at least one layer of a carbon fiber woven layer with a resin material (abstract). Each layer of the carbon fiber woven layer in the woven layer is composed of at least two fiber directions in the woven fabric (abstract). Thus, the material is formed with at least two fiber directions of the woven material is soaked by resin and has a high strength (abstract). Each set of fibers is equivalent to the applicant’s single fiber filament layer. The composite comprises at least two woven carbon layers with the fibers extending in different directions (page 3, paragraphs 2 - 4). This would be equivalent to layers of stacked fibers. The sets of filaments within a single woven layers are set to be perpendicular to each other.
The composite taught by Zeng et al. can be used to create a folding area with better reliability and have better flatness (page 10, paragraph 4). Further, the bending area of the display device has good bending reliability, and has high strength and low density, full light weight and light and thin requirements (page 4).
However, Zeng et al. fails to teach including additives between the layers. Yi et al. is drawn to laminate composite materials comprising a curable resin with multiple layers of carbon fiber disposed therein (abstract). The carbon fiber layers account for 40% or more of the total thickness (abstract). The composite also includes an interlayer conductive particle (abstract). Yi et al. teaches that the interlayer electrically conductive particle includes a polymer particle metalized on the surface, an inorganic crystal particle metalized on the surface, a hollow glass bead metalized on the surface, and a metal particle, wherein the diameter of the polymer particle metalized on the surface, the inorganic crystal particle metalized on the surface, and the metal particle is 10 μm-50 μm; and the diameter of the hollow glass bead metalized on the surface is 50 μm-100 μm (paragraph 13).One example of a material for the particle is zinc oxide whiskers (paragraph 14). The conductive particles increase the electrical conductivity in the thickness direction of a laminated material, especially to further increase the electrical conductivity in the thickness direction of an electrically conductive fabric laminated composite material, electrically conductive particles can be dispersed between the layers (paragraph 54). The metal coating or metal particles can be made from silver, copper, nickel, etc. (paragraph 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that conductive particles such as metal particles and metal coated particles can be used between the carbon fiber layers to increase the electrical conductivity in the thickness direction between layers. Thus, claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected.
Further, Yi et al. teaches that various conductive particles can be used as the conductive material between the layers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that different types of conductive particles can be used alone or mixed together to add conductive properties to the composite. Changes to the size and shape of the particles added as conductive particles would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since the modification only involved a mere change in size or shape. A change of shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, it would have been within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art to choose the metal particles size and properties to produce the desired strength and conductivity properties in the final product. Thus, claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13 – 18 are rejected.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that other known conductive particles such as aluminum oxide or silicon carbide oxide whiskers can be substituted for the zinc oxide particles. Using known equivalents materials at the time the invention was made, is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Thus, claims 9 and 10 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
jlj
September 30, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
