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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2024 and 07/07/225 were considered by the examiner.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-16 are held indefinite as they depend directly and/or indirectly from claim 1 and therefore share the same insufficient antecedent basis as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (12232408). With respect to claim 1, Park et al. discloses an elastic member (100) foldable based on a folding axis (Folding Axis) comprising one surface (1S) and the other surface (2S) opposite to the one surface (1S); and a first region (1A) including the folding axis (Folding Axis) and located adjacent to the folding axis (Folding Axis), and a second region (2A) located around the first region (1A) and located farther from the folding axis (Folding Axis) than the first region (1A), wherein a plurality of first patterns (H1, G1-1, G1-2) is formed in the first region (1A), and a plurality of second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) are formed in the second region (2A), wherein widths of the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) are different from each other; and wherein a ratio (long width/short width) of a long width to a short width of each of the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) is smaller than a ratio (long width/short width) of a long width to a short width of each of the first patterns (H1, G1-1, G1-2).
With respect to claim 2, Park et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 1, wherein the first patterns (H1, G1-1, G1-2) and the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) are formed as holes (H1, H2), and wherein an inner surface of each of the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) includes a curved surface, see for example FIG. 11.
With respect to claim 3, Park et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 2, wherein the inner surface of each of the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) includes a curved surface where a width of each second pattern (G2-1, G2-2) changes along a vertical direction from the one surface (1S) to the other surface (2S).
With respect to claim 4, Park et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 1, wherein an interval between the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) is changed as a distance from the folding axis (Folding Axis) increases.
With respect to claim 5, Park et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 4, wherein an interval between the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) increases as the distance from the folding axis (Folding Axis) increases.
With respect to claim 6, Park et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 4, wherein the first patterns (H1, G1-1, G1-2) have an oval shape with the long width and the short width, and wherein the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) have an oval shape with the long width and the short width.
With respect to claim 7, Park et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 1, wherein the second pattens (G2-1, G2-2) are spaced apart from each other at a same interval.
With respect to claim 8, Part et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 1, wherein an interval between the first patterns (G2-1, G2-2) is changed as a distance from the folding axis (Folding Axis) increases.
With respect to claim 9, Part et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 8, wherein an interval between the first patterns (H1, G1-1, G2-1) increases as the distance from the folding axis (Folding Axis) increases.
With respect to claim 10, Part et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 1, wherein an area of the first pattern (H1, G1-1, G2-1) with respect to a total area of the first region (1A) is 50% to 60%.
With respect to claim 11, Part et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 10, wherein an area of the second pattern (G2-1, G2-2) with respect to a total area of the second region (2A) is 10% to 50%.
With respect to claim 12, Part et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 1, wherein an interval between the first patterns (H1, G1-1, G1-2) is less than a minimum interval between the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2).
With respect to claim 13, Part et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 1, wherein the ratio (long width/short width) of the second pattern (G2-1, G2-2)and the ratio (long width/short width) of the first pattern (H1, G1-1, G1-2) is 10 to 50.
With respect to claim 14, Part et al. discloses the elastic member (100) of claim 1, wherein in the second region (2A), an interval between the second patterns (G2-1, G2-2) in a direction parallel to the folding axis (Folding Axis) and an interval between the second patterns (H1, G1-1, G1-2) in a direction perpendicular to the folding axis (Folding Axis) are different.
With respect to claim 15, Part et al. discloses a display device (1000) comprising: elastic member (100) of claim 1; a panel (200, 300) disposed on the elastic member (100), and an adhesive layer (see for example paragraph 5 lines 50 – 59) disposed between the elastic member (100) and the panel (200, 300), wherein the panel (200, 300) includes at least one of a display panel (200) and a touch panel (300).
The applied reference has a common assignee and at least one common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Park et al (12232408) in view of Lee et al. (10164208). With respect to claim 16, Park et al. discloses the display device (1000) of claim 15, wherein the adhesive layer (see for example paragraph 5 lines 50 – 59). Park et al. does not expressly disclose the adhesive layer that is disposed while filling the inside of the first pattern and the second pattern as claimed. The apparatus of Lee et al. discloses adhesive layer that is disposed while filling the inside of the first pattern and the second pattern as claimed, see for example column 8 lines 39 - 56. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the apparatus of Park et al.. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the apparatus of Park et al. to compensate for a thickness difference.
The applied reference has a common assignee and at least one common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). With respect to claim 16, Park et al. discloses the display device (1000) of claim 15, wherein the adhesive layer (see for example paragraph 5 lines 50 – 59). Park et al. does not expressly disclose the adhesive layer that is disposed while filling the inside of the first pattern and the second pattern as claimed. The apparatus of Lee et al. (10164208) discloses adhesive layer that is disposed while filling the inside of the first pattern and the second pattern as claimed, see for example column 8 lines 39 - 56. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the apparatus of Park et al.. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the apparatus of Park et al. to compensate for a thickness difference.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA LEA-EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
LISA LEA-EDMONDS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/LISA LEA-EDMONDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847 2026-05-30
Prosecution Insights