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 .
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, each element or step should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(i). Also, it’s unclear when preamble ends and the body of the claims start.
Claim 3 recites “a rib width c”, which should have been “a rib width C” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“a touch function layer, a display function layer… sequentially disposed…” in claim 1. Note that there is single “a touch function layer and a display function layer 400” in Fig. 1, but it’s not shown to be sequentially disposed.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 12,093,081) in view of Ding (CN 112419890).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a slidable and rollable display panel (Figs. 1-11), comprising
a planar area (NFA, Fig. 1) and a slidable and rollable area (same as FA, Fig. 1), the display panel comprising
a protective cover plate (70 and/or 60, Fig. 1), and a surface on a side of the protective cover plate being provided with an optical adhesive layer (col. 11, lns. 7-14: “…various components of the flexible display module 100 need to be bond together… such as OCA…”), a polarizer (50, Fig. 1), a display function layer (40, Fig. 1), a back film (30 and/or 20, Fig. 1) and a support layer (10, 11, 12 and/or 13, Figs. 1, 2) which are sequentially disposed in a direction (downward in Fig. 1) opposite to a light-emitting direction (upward in Fig. 1) of the display panel; and
the support layer at least comprising a patterned film layer (11, Figs. 1-3), a second adhesive layer (13, Figs. 1, 2) and a support member (12, Figs. 1, 2, 8) which are sequentially disposed from top to bottom; wherein
a first area of the patterned film layer corresponding to the slidable and rollable area (FA) is provided with a plurality of first mesh rows (111, Fig. 3) which are extended in a first direction (Y direction in Fig. 3) and disposed in parallel in a second direction (X direction in Fig. 3), and each of the first mesh rows comprises at least one first mesh (hole extending in Y direction in Fig. 3) extended in the first direction, which is perpendicular to the second direction in a first plane, the first direction being an extension direction of a boundary line (boundary between 1101 and 1102 in Fig. 3) between the planar area and the slidable and rollable area, and the first plane being a plane where the planar area is located (plane of NFA in Fig. 1 and plane of 1102 in Fig. 3).
Wang does not teach a touch function layer; a first adhesive layer; a third area of the second adhesive layer corresponding to the slidable and rollable area is provided with a plurality of first through holes, and there is an overlap area between an orthographic projection of each of the first meshes on the first plane and an orthographic projection of any one of the first through holes in the third area on the first plane. However, Ding teaches a flexible display panel (100, Fig. 8), comprising: a touch function layer (page 8: “…the display device may also include, for example, a touch electrode layer…”); a first adhesive layer (13, Fig. 8); a patterned film layer (11, Fig. 8) a third area of a second adhesive layer (area of 12 under 101/201 in Fig. 8) corresponding to a bendable area (101/201; note bendable area is equivalent of slidable and rollable area) is provided with a plurality of first through holes (121, Fig. 8), and there is an overlap area between an orthographic projection of each of a first meshes (111 of 11, Fig. 8) on a first plane and an orthographic projection of any one of the first through holes in the third area on the first plane (as shown in Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a touch function layer; a first adhesive layer; a third area of the second adhesive layer corresponding to the slidable and rollable area is provided with a plurality of first through holes, and there is an overlap area between an orthographic projection of each of the first meshes on the first plane and an orthographic projection of any one of the first through holes in the third area on the first plane in Wang, as taught Ding, in order to allow touch function on the display panel and also prevent bulge phenomenon from the adhesive layer due to gas/heat expansion.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Ding teaches the display panel according to claim 1, and Wang further teaches wherein a length A of the first mesh is between 0.1 mm and 50 mm (col. 10, lns. 28-37: “… 4.5 to 6 mm…”). Wang does not explicitly teach a spacing B between adjacent two of the first meshes in the same first mesh row is between 0.1 mm and 1 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a spacing B between adjacent two of the first meshes in the same first mesh row is between 0.1 mm and 1 mm in Wang in view of Ding, since it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, finding an optimum value of spacing B suited for particular display panel can be done through routine experimentation by the designer without yielding any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Ding teaches the display panel according to claim 2, and Wang further teaches wherein a rib width c between adjacent two of the first mesh rows is between 0.1 mm and 3 mm (col. 10, lns. 28-37: “…The distance between the first through holes 111 in two adjacent columns ranges from 0.18 to 0.22 mm…”); and a width D of the first mesh is between 0.05 mm and 1 mm (col. 10, lns. 28-37: “…maximum width along the first direction x ranges from 0.2 to 0.25 mm…”).
Regarding claims 4-5, Wang in view of Ding teaches the display panel according to claim 3. Wang does not teach wherein the first through hole is a strip-shaped through hole extended in a third direction, an included angle between the third direction and the second direction in the first plane is between 0 degree and 180 degrees, and a projection length of the first through hole in the second direction is greater than or equal to a sum of C and D and less than or equal to a width of the slidable and rollable area in the second direction; wherein in a case where the included angle is 0 degree or 180 degrees, the plurality of first through holes are extended in the second direction and disposed in parallel in the first direction, a length of the first through hole is greater than or equal to the width of the slidable and rollable area in the second direction, a width of the first through hole is between 0.1 and A/2, and a spacing between adjacent two of the first through holes in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to a sum of A and B. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first through hole is a strip-shaped through hole extended in a third direction, an included angle between the third direction and the second direction in the first plane is between 0 degree and 180 degrees, and a projection length of the first through hole in the second direction is greater than or equal to a sum of C and D and less than or equal to a width of the slidable and rollable area in the second direction; wherein in a case where the included angle is 0 degree or 180 degrees, the plurality of first through holes are extended in the second direction and disposed in parallel in the first direction, a length of the first through hole is greater than or equal to the width of the slidable and rollable area in the second direction, a width of the first through hole is between 0.1 and A/2, and a spacing between adjacent two of the first through holes in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to a sum of A and B in Wang in view of Ding, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, using holes to relief stress is already well known in the art, and change the geometry, length, angle and arrangement of the holes can be experimented by one of ordinary skill in the art, and it does not yield any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Ding teaches the display panel according to claim 4, and Wang further teaches wherein an area of the support member (12) corresponding to the planar area is provided with a planar support plate (NFA of 12 in Fig. 1), and an area of the support member (FA of 12 in Fig. 1) corresponding to the slidable and rollable area is provided with a plurality of strip-shaped support members (strip-shaped under FA of 12 as shown in Fig. 1; can also see Figs. 4, 8), which are extended in the first direction (Y) and disposed in parallel in the second direction (X as shown in Fig. 4); and a thickness of the strip-shaped support member is the same as that of the planar support plate (as shown in Figs. 1 and 8).
Wang in view of Ding does not explicitly teach in a case where the included angle is 90 degrees, the plurality of first through holes are extended in the first direction and disposed in parallel in the second direction; a width L1 of the strip-shaped support member in the second direction is between 0.3 mm and 3 mm, a spacing L2 between the adjacent strip-shaped support members in the second direction is between 0.3 mm and 3 mm; a length of the first through hole is greater than a difference between a width of the patterned film layer in the first direction and A, a width of the first through hole is greater than or equal to L2/2 and less than or equal to L2, and a spacing between adjacent two of the first through holes in the second direction is greater than or equal to L1 and less than or equal to a sum of L1 and L2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in a case where the included angle is 90 degrees, the plurality of first through holes are extended in the first direction and disposed in parallel in the second direction; a width L1 of the strip-shaped support member in the second direction is between 0.3 mm and 3 mm, a spacing L2 between the adjacent strip-shaped support members in the second direction is between 0.3 mm and 3 mm; a length of the first through hole is greater than a difference between a width of the patterned film layer in the first direction and A, a width of the first through hole is greater than or equal to L2/2 and less than or equal to L2, and a spacing between adjacent two of the first through holes in the second direction is greater than or equal to L1 and less than or equal to a sum of L1 and L2 in Wang in view of Ding, since it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, finding an optimum value of width and spacing for particular types of display panel can be done through routine experimentation by the designer without yielding any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Ding teaches the display panel according to claim 3, and the modified Wang further teaches wherein the first through holes are disposed corresponding to the first meshes (121 correspond to 111 as shown in Fig. 8 of Ding as modified in above claim 1), and an orthographic projection of each of the first through holes on the first plane is within an orthographic projection of the corresponding first mesh on the first plane (as shown in Figs. 6 and 8 of Ding).
The modified Wang above does not explicitly teach a width of the first through hole in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to A, and a spacing between adjacent two of the first through holes in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to a sum of A and B; a width of the first through hole in the second direction is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to D, and a spacing between adjacent two of the first through holes in the second direction is less than twice a sum of C and D. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a width of the first through hole in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to A, and a spacing between adjacent two of the first through holes in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to a sum of A and B; a width of the first through hole in the second direction is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to D, and a spacing between adjacent two of the first through holes in the second direction is less than twice a sum of C and D in Wang in view of Ding, since it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, finding an optimum value of width and spacing for particular types of display panel can be done through routine experimentation by the designer without yielding any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Ding teaches the display panel according to claim 1. Wang does not teach wherein the first adhesive layer comprises a first sub-adhesive layer, a first base material layer and a second sub-adhesive layer which are sequentially disposed from top to bottom, and a thickness of the second sub-adhesive layer is between 25 microns and 100 microns. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first adhesive layer comprises a first sub-adhesive layer, a first base material layer and a second sub-adhesive layer which are sequentially disposed from top to bottom, and a thickness of the second sub-adhesive layer is between 25 microns and 100 microns in Wang in view of Ding, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, using a double-sided adhesive layers with certain thickness perimeter can be easily selected by one of ordinary skill in the art to provide support and consistent adhesive on both sides of the base material layer, and this does not yield any unpredictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Ding teaches the display panel according to claim 2, and Wang further teaches an electronic device (col. 1, lns. 16-31: “…flexible display module… folding mobile phones…”), at least comprising the slidable and rollable display panel according to claim 1.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ding, and further in view of Dong et al. (US 2021/0165454; hereinafter “Dong”).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Ding teaches the display panel according to claim 5. Wang does not teach a second area of the patterned film layer corresponding to the planar area comprises a transition area that is adjacent to the first area and provided with a plurality of second mesh rows, which are extended in the first direction and disposed in parallel in the second direction, each of the second mesh rows comprises at least one second mesh extended in the first direction, lengths of the second meshes in different rows decrease uniformly in turn in a direction away from the first area, and a length of the second mesh in the second mesh row farthest from the first area is between 10% and 100% of the length A of the first mesh. However, Dong teaches a second area of a patterned film layer (same as area at 30 in support substrate show in Fig. 5) corresponding to a planar area comprises a transition area (30, Fig. 5) that is adjacent to a first area (area at 10, Fig. 5) and provided with a plurality of second mesh rows (31, Fig. 5), which are extended in a first direction (first direction in Fig. 5) and disposed in parallel in a second direction (second direction in Fig. 5), each of the second mesh rows comprises at least one second mesh extended in the first direction, lengths of the second meshes in different rows decrease uniformly in turn in a direction away from the first area (31 gets shorter when further away from 10 as shown in Fig. 5), and a length of the second mesh in the second mesh row farthest from the first area is between 10% and 100% of a length A of a first mesh (furthest length of 31 is shown to be between 10% and 100% length of 11 as shown in Fig. 5); an extension direction of the second through hole is the same as that of the first through hole (11 and 31 extend in same direction as shown in Fig. 5), the plurality of the second through holes are disposed in parallel in the first direction (as shown in Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second area of the patterned film layer corresponding to the planar area comprises a transition area that is adjacent to the first area and provided with a plurality of second mesh rows, which are extended in the first direction and disposed in parallel in the second direction, each of the second mesh rows comprises at least one second mesh extended in the first direction, lengths of the second meshes in different rows decrease uniformly in turn in a direction away from the first area, and a length of the second mesh in the second mesh row farthest from the first area is between 10% and 100% of the length A of the first mesh in Wang in view of Ding, as taught by Dong, in order to slowly resist warping as it gets closer to the planar area.
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Ding and Dong teaches the display panel according to claim 6. Wang does not teach wherein a fourth area of the second adhesive layer corresponding to the transition area is provided with a plurality of second through holes, and there is an overlap area between an orthographic projection of each of the second meshes on the first plane and an orthographic projection of any one of the second through holes in the fourth area on the first plane, or, there is an overlap area between orthographic projections of a part of the second meshes on the first plane and an orthographic projection of any one of the first through holes on the first plane, and there is an overlap area between orthographic projections of the other part of the second meshes on the first plane and an orthographic projection of any one of the second through holes on the first plane. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fourth area of the second adhesive layer corresponding to the transition area is provided with a plurality of second through holes, and there is an overlap area between an orthographic projection of each of the second meshes on the first plane and an orthographic projection of any one of the second through holes in the fourth area on the first plane, or, there is an overlap area between orthographic projections of a part of the second meshes on the first plane and an orthographic projection of any one of the first through holes on the first plane, and there is an overlap area between orthographic projections of the other part of the second meshes on the first plane and an orthographic projection of any one of the second through holes on the first plane in Wang in view of Ding and Dong, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ding already taught the same through holes concept in order to prevent bulge phenomenon from the adhesive layer due to gas/heat expansion, and apply this same concept to the second through holes yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Ding and Dong teaches the display panel according to claim 6, and Dong further teaches wherein an extension direction of the second through hole is the same as that of the first through hole (11 and 31 extend in same direction as shown in Fig. 5 of Dong), the plurality of the second through holes are disposed in parallel in the first direction (as shown in Fig. 5 of Dong).
The modified Wang does not teach a sum of a length of the second through hole and the length of the first through hole is equal to the width of the slidable and rollable area and the transition area in the second direction, a width of the second through hole is between 0.1 and A/2, and a spacing between adjacent two of the second through holes in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to ½ of the sum of A and B. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sum of a length of the second through hole and the length of the first through hole is equal to the width of the slidable and rollable area and the transition area in the second direction, a width of the second through hole is between 0.1 and A/2, and a spacing between adjacent two of the second through holes in the first direction is greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and less than or equal to ½ of the sum of A and B in Wang in view of Ding and Dong, since it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, finding optimum length, width and spacing for particular types of display panel can be done through routine experimentation by the designer without yielding any unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights