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 § 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 2–16 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “the length of the folding area” lacks antecedent basis. Previously, Claim 1 recited “a length in a range of 35 mm to 45 mm;” however, that limitation was removed from Claim 1. It is unclear whether “the length” referenced in Claim 2 is the same as previously recited in Claim 1, or some other.
Regarding Claim 3 (and Claims 4–16 in view of their dependence therefrom), the limitation “the curvature radius” lacks antecedent basis. Previously, Claim 1 recited “a curvature radius in a range of 1.5 mm to 5.0 mm;” however, that limitation was removed from Claim 1. It is unclear whether “the curvature radius” referenced in Claim 3 is the same as previously recited in Claim 1, or some other.
Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0346887 to Park et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0011633 to Watanabe et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 2 and 4 and their description) a electronic device 100 comprising: a display panel 210 comprising a first non-folding area NFR1, a second non-folding area NFR2, and a folding area FR disposed between the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area, the first non-folding area, the second non-folding area, and the folding area being arranged in a first direction (e.g., Figs. 2 and 4); a reflection preventing layer (where Park teaches optical film 221 that may be a polarizing film, where a polarizing film would have antireflective properties) disposed on the display panel; a window 222 disposed on the reflection preventing layer (Fig. 2); a panel protection layer disposed below the display panel (e.g., module 230 may be an impact absorbing layer, paragraph [0070]); a first support 241 disposed below the panel protection layer and overlapping the first non-folding area (Fig. 2), a second support 242 disposed below the panel protection layer and overlapping the second non-folding area (Fig. 2).
Park does not explicitly disclose a window protection layer disposed on the window; however, including a protective or cover layer for the known purpose of protecting or covering another layer in an electronic device is well-known, and would have yielded predictable protective results, absent evidence of criticality or some otherwise unexpected result from the claim feature.
Park does not explicitly disclose at least one functional element disposed in an opening defined in the first support plate.
Watanabe discloses an electronic device such as a display, and teaches forming a functional element such as a camera in a hole 10A in the display panel 10 (e.g., Fig. 7(a) and paragraphs [0101]–[0103]), in order to narrow a frame region and increase display area ratio (e.g., discussion in paragraphs [0001]–-[0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Park to include at least one functional element disposed in an opening defined in the first support plate, as suggested by Watanabe, to provide the additional functionality to the device while achieving a narrow frame region and increased display area ratio.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Park and Watanabe would have rendered obvious wherein the length of the folding area is in the first direction when the display panel is unfolded (Fig. 4 of Park).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Park and Watanabe would have rendered obvious wherein the first non-folding area faces the second non-folding area when the display panel is in-folded (Fig. 4 of Park).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Park and Watanabe would have rendered obvious where the at least one functional element includes a camera and a sensor disposed in the opening (e.g., paragraphs [0101]–[0111] of Watanabe).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Park and Watanabe would have rendered obvious a battery and a system board disposed in a recessed portion defined in a top surface of the first support (where including such known components operating as expected would yield predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unexpected results from the claim features).
Claims 3–16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Watanabe, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0241925 to Seo et al.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Park and Watanabe would have rendered obvious wherein the folding area comprises: a curved part bent to have the curvature radius when the display panel is folded (Fig. 4 of Park); wherein a distance between the first non-folding area and the second non-folding area is less than the curvature radius of the curved part of the folding area when the display panel is folded (Fig. 4 of Park).
The combination of Park and Watanabe does not explicitly disclose a first extension part bent from the first non-folding area to extend to the curved part; and a second extension part bent from the second non-folding area to extend to the curved part.
Seo discloses a foldable device (similar to Park), and Seo teaches including hinges 123/223 to facilitate folding while reducing stresses to the device (Fig. 21A and paragraphs [0190]–[0203]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Park and Watanabe to include a first extension part bent from the first non-folding area to extend to the curved part; and a second extension part bent from the second non-folding area to extend to the curved part, as suggested by Seo, in order to reduce stress to the device when folding/unfolding.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious wherein the first extension part and the second extension part are symmetric when the display panel is folded (e.g., Fig. 21A of Seo), and the first extension part forms an acute angle with a first reference line extending from the first non-folding area to the curved part in a same direction as an extension direction of the first non-folding area when the display panel is folded.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious wherein the acute angle is in a range of about 6.5° to about 12.5° (where selecting the specific angle would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results when unfolding, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious a first support plate disposed between the first support and the panel protection layer; and a second support plate disposed between the second support and the panel protection layer, wherein the first support plate extends below the first extension part and the curved part, the second support plate extends below the second extension part and the curved part, and the first support plate is spaced apart from the second support plate below the curved part (e.g., Fig. 4 of Park, rigid plates 241/242).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious wherein the first support plate and the second support plate are attached to the first non-folding area, the second non-folding area, the first extension part, and the second extension part, and the first support plate and the second support plate are not attached to the curved part (e.g., Fig. 4 of Park; Fig. 21A of Seo).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious wherein the first support plate is bent at a boundary between the first non-folding area and the first extension part when the display panel is folded, and the second support plate is bent at a boundary between the second non-folding area and the second extension part when the display panel is folded (e.g., Fig. 21A of Seo).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious wherein each of the first support plate and the second support plate has a thickness in a range of about 80 μm to about 150 μm in a third direction perpendicular to a plane defined by the first and second directions when the display panel is unfolded (where selecting an appropriate thickness, based on known design considerations including thickness of the overall device and strength of the support plates, would have been obvious, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious a black coating layer coated on each of a top surface of the first support plate and a top surface of the second support plate (where Park is concerned with controlling light leakage, e.g., paragraph [0071] teaches that layer 230 may block light from the display area, reasonably suggesting a black coating or other light blocking material could be used for locations where light is unwanted, where such would achieve predictable results); a first cushion layer (e.g., 271 of Park) disposed below the first support plate; and a second cushion layer (e.g., 272 of Park) disposed below the second support plate.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious wherein the first support extends below the first extension part, the second support extends below the second extension part, a top surface of the first support facing the first extension part has a first inclined surface in a plan view, and a top surface of the second support facing the second extension part has a second inclined surface in the plan view (e.g., Fig. 21A of Seo; Fig. 4 of Park).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious a first wing plate disposed between the first extension part and the first inclined surface of the top surface of the first support and rotatably connected to a portion of the first support, wherein the portion of the first support overlaps a boundary between the first non-folding area and the first extension part in a plan view; and a second wing plate disposed between the second extension part and the second inclined surface of the top surface of the second support and rotatably connected to a portion of the second support, wherein the portion of the second support overlaps a boundary between the second non-folding area and the second extension part in a plan view, wherein the first wing plate and the second wing plate rotate with respect to a first rotation shaft and a second rotation shaft extending in the second direction (e.g., Fig. 21A of Seo).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious wherein the second wing plate is symmetric to the first wing plate, the second inclined surface of the top surface of the second support is symmetric to the first inclined surface of the top surface of the first support, a distance between the first wing plate and the first inclined surface of the top surface of the first support increases in a direction toward the curved part when the display panel is unfolded (e.g., Fig. 21A of Seo), and the first inclined surface of the top surface of the first support forms an angle in a range of about 6.5° to about 12.5° with the first wing plate when the display panel is unfolded (where selecting the specific angle would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results when unfolding, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious wherein the first wing plate contacts the first inclined surface of the top surface of the first support, and the second wing plate contacts the second inclined surface of the top surface of the second support upon a stress of the folding area when the display panel is folded (Fig. 21A of Seo).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious wherein the hinge comprises: a cover part disposed between the first support and the second support and below the first wing plate and the second wing plate; a first rotation unit and a second rotation unit connected to opposite ends of the cover part in the second direction; and a plurality of hinge parts connected to opposite sides of the first support and the second support in the second direction, and the first rotation unit and the second rotation unit, wherein the cover part includes a groove facing the curved part and extending in the second direction, and the biaxial rotation shaft overlaps the curved part and the groove in a plan view (e.g., Fig. 21A of Seo; also where using known components of a hinge structure to achieve known functions would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious a side of the first wing plate and a side of the second wing plate facing each other, and a central portion of the curved part are disposed in the groove when the display panel is folded (e.g., Fig. 21A of Seo).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Park and Watanabe would have rendered obvious a display module comprising the display panel, the reflection preventing layer, the window, the window protection layer, and the panel protection layer (see discussion of Claim 1 above).
The combination of Park, Watanabe, and Seo would have rendered obvious a hinge including a biaxial rotation shaft disposed between the first support and the second support, the biaxial rotation shaft extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction (e.g., Fig. 21A of Seo, discussed above), wherein a folding area of the display module has a curvature radius in a range of 1.5 mm to 5.0 mm when the display module is folded by a rotation of the first support and the second support with respect to the biaxial rotation shaft (where selecting a specific size of folding of the device would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired form factor and flexibility of components, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features), and the folding area of the display module has a length in a range of 35 mm to 45 mm (where selecting a specific size of folding area of the device would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired form factor and flexibility of components, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights