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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0053659 A1 and Kim hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses (figs. 1-6) a display module comprising: a display unit (DD) including a foldable area (FA) that is flexible and a non-folding area (NFA) that is not flexible adjacent to the foldable area; and a cover member (300) disposed on a rear surface of the display unit, the cover member solely covering the rear surface of the display unit (fig.4), the cover member including: a cover portion (CP) covering a portion of the display unit overlapping each of the foldable area and the non-folding area, the cover portion having at least one opening (OP) defined therein, the at least one opening exposing at least a portion of a side surface of the display unit; a first holding portion (H1) extending from the cover portion in a first direction, the first holding portion protruding to an outside of the display unit in a plan view (fig.6); a second holding portion (H2) extending from the cover portion in a second direction that intersects with the first direction, the second holding portion protruding to the outside of the display unit in the plan view (fig.6); and a third holding portion (H3) spaced apart from the second holding portion in the second direction, the third holding portion protruding to the outside of the display unit in the plan view (fig.6).
PNG
media_image1.png
828
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The new title of the invention has been accepted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to disclose, “ wherein the non-folding area includes: a first non-folding area adjacent to a first side of the foldable area; and a second non-folding area adjacent to a second side of the foldable area opposite to the first side, the second non-folding area is spaced apart from the first non-folding area in the first direction, wherein the cover portion includes: a first cover portion covering a portion of the display unit overlapping each of the first non-folding area, the second non-folding area, and foldable area; and a second cover portion covering a portion of the display unit overlapping the second non-folding area.”
Claims 3-16 are objected being depend on claim 2.
However, the prior art (include in PTO 892 and IDS), when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 17-20 are allowable.
Regarding independent claim 17, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of , “a base portion integrated with the arm portion and the at least one holding portion, the base portion extending from a portion adjacent to the arm portion to a height co-planar with an upper surface of the at least one holding portion; and a protrusion integrated with the base portion, the protrusion protruding from the base portion in a normal direction of the upper surface of the at least one holding portion.”
Claims 18-20 are allowable being depend on claim 17.
One of the closest prior art of record is Seo US Pub 2018/0077808 A1.
Seo discloses a display module comprising: a display unit (70) including a foldable area and a non-folding area adjacent to the foldable area; and cover member (10) disposed on a rear surface of the display unit, the cover member including : a body portion (13) covering a portion of the display unit overlapping the foldable area and the non-folding area; an arm portion (62 and 63) extending from the body portion in a first direction (DR1) or a second direction that intersects with the first direction; at least one holding portion (61) spaced apart from the arm portion.
Seo does not teach nor does Seo provide suggestion for at least the details of the display module comprising: the at least one holding portion protruding to an outside of the display unit in a plan view; and a base portion integrated with the arm portion and the at least one holding portion, the base portion extending from a portion adjacent to the arm portion to a height co-planar with an upper surface of the at least one holding portion; and a protrusion integrated with the base portion, the protrusion protruding from the base portion in a normal direction of the upper surface of the at least one holding portion. In examiners opinion the pertinent prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed inventions as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant.
Another closest prior art of record is Kim US Pub 2016/0170450 A1.
Kim discloses a display module comprising: a display unit (100) including a foldable area and a non-folding area adjacent to the foldable area; and cover member (600) disposed on a rear surface of the display unit, the cover member including : a body portion (600) covering a portion of the display unit overlapping the foldable area and the non-folding area; an arm portion (710d and 710b) extending from the body portion in a first direction or a second direction that intersects with the first direction; at least one holding portion (500) spaced apart from the arm portion.
Kim does not teach nor does Kim provide suggestion for at least the details of the display module comprising: the at least one holding portion protruding to an outside of the display unit in a plan view; and a base portion integrated with the arm portion and the at least one holding portion, the base portion extending from a portion adjacent to the arm portion to a height co-planar with an upper surface of the at least one holding portion; and a protrusion integrated with the base portion, the protrusion protruding from the base portion in a normal direction of the upper surface of the at least one holding portion. In examiners opinion the pertinent prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed inventions as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant.
Another closest prior art of record is Kim US Pub 2022/0053659 A1.
Kim discloses a display module comprising: a display unit (DP) including a foldable area and a non-folding area adjacent to the foldable area; and cover member (600) disposed on a rear surface of the display unit, the cover member including : a body portion (300) covering a portion of the display unit overlapping the foldable area and the non-folding area; an arm portion (310 and 320b) extending from the body portion in a first direction or a second direction that intersects with the first direction; at least one holding portion (330a) spaced apart from the arm portion; the at least one holding portion protruding to an outside of the display unit in a plan view (fig.6)
Kim does not teach nor does Kim provide suggestion for at least the details of the display module comprising: a base portion integrated with the arm portion and the at least one holding portion, the base portion extending from a portion adjacent to the arm portion to a height co-planar with an upper surface of the at least one holding portion; and a protrusion integrated with the base portion, the protrusion protruding from the base portion in a normal direction of the upper surface of the at least one holding portion. In examiners opinion the pertinent prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed inventions as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant
Other prior arts provided in the PTO-892, the pertinent prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed inventions as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 L 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.
/ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
