DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindblad (US 2015/0325804).
Regarding claim 1, Lindblad discloses flexible electronic device (see 114a in fig. 9A-B), capable of being rolled about an axis (see rolled area of 101[6]-101[10] which rolls/bends around an axis in fig. 9B) into at least one turn (see fig. 9B, wherein the rolled area of 101[6]-101[10] which rolls/turns around an axis), comprising:
an electronic structure (115, fig. 9C) having a first surface (115a in fig. 9C) and a second surface (115c in fig. 9C) opposite each other; and
a support structure having a third surface (bottom of 101 in fig. 9B) and a fourth surface (top of 101 in fig. 9B) opposite to each other, wherein the supporting structure bonds to the second surfaces of the electronic structure by the third surface thereof (see fig. 9A-B and para. 72-73);
the support structure defines a first direction (X direction in fig. 9B) parallel to the axis, a second direction (Y direction in fig. 9B) perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the third surface (see fig. 9B), and a third direction (Z direction in fig. 9B) perpendicular to the third surface (see fig. 9B);
wherein the fourth surface of the support structure has a plurality of protrusions (101[6]-101[10] in fig. 9B) spaced in the second direction and parallel to the first direction (see fig. 9B), and a plurality of grooves (see corresponding grooves located between protrusions 101[6]-101[10] in fig. 9B) formed between two adjacent protrusions;
one or ones of the grooves, along the third direction, defines an open end (see top of grove in fig. 9B) and a closed end (see bottom of groove in fig. 9B), and defining a shortest distance between the axis and the closed end as R1 as the flexible electronic device rolled or bent to a minimum radian (see fig. 9B; wherein e.g. R1 is measured from the axis to 115 in the rolled area of fig. 9B);
wherein two adjacent protrusions respectively defines a closest point (see touching point of 101[6] and 101[7] in the rolled area in fig. 9B) as the flexible electronic device rolled or bent to a minimum radian (see rolled area in fig. 9B) and the adjacent two protrusions are in the closest state (see touching 101s in the rolled area of fig. 9B), in which a straight-line distance between the two closest points is the shortest distance between the two adjacent protrusions, defining a shortest distance from the axis to one of the closest point as R2 (see distance between the axis and the touching point of 101[6] and 101[7] in the rolled area of fig. 9B), and defining a shortest distance between the two adjacent closest point is as W1 while the flexible electronic device is in a non-rolled and non-bent state (see shortest distance between two 101 in the unrolled area of fig. 9B); and
wherein as the flexible electronic device is rolled or bent to a minimum radian (see rolled area of 101 in fig. 9B), defining a corresponding angle of the roll part or the bent part thereof to the axis as θ degrees (e.g. 180 corresponding to four 101s in the rolled area in fig. 9B) , and a quantity of the protrusions located in the rolled part or bent part of the support structure is N (e.g. N=4, corresponding to four 101s in the rolled area of 9B), satisfying the following condition W1 * N ≥ 2 * π * (R1-R2) * θ/360° (see fig. 9B; wherein the length of four gaps between 101s is greater than or equal to the arc length of the top of 101[6] through 101[9] minus the arc length of the bottom of 101[6] through 101[9] multiplied by 1/2; wherein the condition is met).
wherein, when the flexible electronic device is rolled about an axis (see 101[6]-101[10] in fig. 9B), a distance, in the second direction, between one end (101[10] in fig. 9B) of the flexible electronic device adjacent to the axis and the axis is fixed (see fig. 9B); and
wherein the first surface of the electronic structure is at least partially continuous (see 115a and 115 in fig. 9B-C).
Regarding claim 2, Lindblad discloses wherein the straight-line distance between the two closest points is the shortest distance between the two adjacent protrusions is defined as W2 while the flexible electronic device is rolled or bent to a minimum radian and the adjacent two protrusions are in the closest state, and W2≥0 (see fig. 9B, wherein the tops of 101[6] and 101[7] touch, having a W2 distance of zero).
Regarding claim 3, Lindblad discloses wherein the support structure comprises a base layer (115a in fig. 9C) between the plurality or protrusions and the electronic structure.
Regarding claim 4, Lindblad discloses wherein the material of the base layer is different from the material of the plurality of the protrusions (see fig. 9B-C and para. 70).
Regarding claim 5, Lindblad discloses further comprising an adhesion layer between the electronic structure and the support structure (para. 72-73).
Regarding claim 6, Lindblad discloses wherein the closed end of the groove is a curved surface convex toward to the open end of the groove (see round area between 101s in fig. 9B) and defines a height of the curved surface as the flexible electronic device is in a rolled or a bent state (see fig. 9B), and a thickness of the adhesion layer is greater than the height of the curved surface (see fig. 9B-9C and para. 70; wherein the adhesion layer includes 115 and touch sensor elements).
Regarding claim 7, Lindblad discloses wherein the electronic structure comprises a display panel (para. 69 and Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Lindblad discloses wherein one or more of the protrusions is constituted by one or more subunits (see multiple 101 in fig. 9B).
Regarding claim 11, Lindblad discloses wherein the third surface of the support structure within at least a section of continuous grooves defines a radius of curvature R3 (see radius from the axis to bottom of 115C in rolled area in fig. 9B-9C), and a radius of curvature of the closed end of at least one of the grooves within the at least part of continuous grooves of the support structure is defined as (see radius top of 101[8] to 115 in rolled area in fig. 9B-9C) as the flexible electronic device is rolled or bent into a minimum radian, and satisfying the following: R4 ≥ R3/3 (see fig. 9B; wherein R4 is greater than R3/3).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claims 1 and 11. See above rejections.
Claims 13-16 are rejected for the same reasons as stated for claims 3-6, respectively. See above rejections.
Claims 19 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claim 10. See above rejection.
Claims 20 is rejected for the same reasons stated for claim 7. See above rejection.
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) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindblad in view of Hong (US 11,755,074).
Regarding claim 8, Lindblad fails to disclose satisfying the condition 3*d≥h1.
Hong discloses wherein the electronic structure defines a thickness d (including TH1, TH2 and the thickness of DM in direction DR3 in fig. 15), and one or ones of the grooves (SB in fig. 15) defines a depth h1 (Th1 in fig. 15), satisfying the condition: 3*d≥h1 (see fig. 15; wherein three times the total thickness of the fig. 15 in DR3 direction is greater than TH1 in fig. 15).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Hong in the device of Lindblad. The motivation for doing so would have been to have a greater thickness between the display module and the protrusions to maintain a flatter display and have an improved surface quality (Hong; col. 15, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 9, Lindblad fails to disclose an additional layer sealing the open ends of the protrusions.
Hong discloses further comprising an additional layer bonding to a side of the plurality of the protrusions away from the support structure and sealing the open ends of the plurality of the protrusions (see connecting layer between protrusions SB and roller ROL in fig. 19).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Hong in the device of Lindblad. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a greater frictional force for better rotating the protrusions of the flexible display (Hong; col. 16, lines 14-21).
Claims 17-18 are rejected for the same reasons stated as claims 8-9, respectively. See above rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See new citations above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBIN J MISHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7251. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, NITIN PATEL can be reached on (571)272-7677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBIN J MISHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights