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 1-19 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 “a flexible display configured to vary based on relative movement of the first housing with respect to the second housing”. It’s unclear what the limitation mean by “configured to vary”. In order to examine this application, examiner will consider the limitation as “configured to flex” instead.
Claims 2-15 depends on claim 1.
Claim 16 has similar issue as claim 1 above.
Claims 17-19 depends on claim 16.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the first glass and the second glass are integrally formed”. This is indefinite, since claim 1 already recites there is a first glass and a second glass. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret claim 1 as having two glasses. By saying the first glass and the second glass are integrally formed would indicate that there is just a single glass with two portions. Thus, claim 5 is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “intervals between the plurality of first transparent areas are arranged at equal intervals”. However, claim 2, which claim 6 depends on, already recited that the intervals between the plurality of first transparent areas gradually increase in a direction away from the folding axis. Thus, claim 6 conflicts with claim 2 and is considered indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “intervals between the plurality of first transparent areas gradually decrease in a direction away from the folding axis”. However, claim 2, which claim 7 depends on, already recited that the intervals between the plurality of first transparent areas gradually increase in a direction away from the folding axis. Thus, claim 7 conflicts with claim 2 and is considered indefinite.
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)(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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 9,354,476; hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding claim 20, Han discloses a cover window (300, Figs. 1-10E) comprising:
a first glass (320, Figs. 1, 5; col. 5, lns. 8-16: “…glass…”);
a second glass (330, Figs. 1, 5) spaced apart (spaced apart by 350, Figs. 1, 5) from the first glass;
a protective layer (390, Figs. 7, 10E) outside the first glass and the second glass; and
a transparent resin layer (350, 380, Figs. 1, 5-7) configured to bond the first glass and the second glass to the protective layer (350 bond side 330 and 320, Fig. 5),
wherein the transparent resin layer comprises a plurality of first transparent areas (360, Figs. 2-6; col. 5, lns. 34-37: “…rigid material…”; col. 5, lns. 51-56: “…same refractive index… transmissivity and visibility of the window panel 300 are improved.”; also see claim 11: “rigid resin film”) spaced apart in a direction from the first glass toward the second glass, and a plurality of second transparent areas (370, Figs. 2-6; col. 5, lns. 38-49: “…silicon-based resin, an optically clear resin (OCR), or an optically clear adhesive…”) disposed between the plurality of first transparent areas, and
wherein a hardness of the plurality of first transparent areas is greater than a hardness of the plurality of second transparent areas (360 is harder than 370).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 9,354,476; hereinafter “Han”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0319672; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Han teaches an electronic device (1000, Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (BC, Fig. 1) comprising a first part (part of BC under 320 in Fig. 1) and a second part (part of BC under 330 in Fig. 1) being movable with respect to the first part;
a flexible display (100, Fig. 1) configured to flex based on relative movement of the first part with respect to the second part (col. 4, lns. 56-62: “…flexible display… may be repeated folded and unfolded…”); and
a cover window (300, Figs. 1-10E) configured to cover an outer surface (300 covers top outer surface of 100) of the flexible display,
wherein the cover window comprises:
a first glass (320, Figs. 1, 5; col. 5, lns. 8-16: “…glass...”) corresponding to the first part;
a second glass (330, Fig. 1) corresponding to the second part;
a protective layer (390, Figs. 7, 10E) outside the first glass and the second glass; and
a transparent resin layer (350, 380, Figs. 1, 5-7) between the protective layer and the flexible display (see Figs. 1, 7),
wherein the transparent resin layer comprises a plurality of first transparent areas (360, Figs. 2-6; col. 5, lns. 34-37: “…rigid material…”; col. 5, lns. 51-56: “…same refractive index… transmissivity and visibility of the window panel 300 are improved.”; also see claim 11: “rigid resin film”) spaced apart in a direction from the first glass toward the second glass, and a plurality of second transparent areas (370, Figs. 2-6; col. 5, lns. 38-49: “…silicon-based resin, an optically clear resin (OCR), or an optically clear adhesive…”) disposed between the plurality of first transparent areas, and
wherein a hardness of the plurality of first transparent areas is greater than a hardness of the plurality of second transparent areas (360 is harder than 370).
Han does not teach the housing comprising a first housing and a second housing being movable with respect to the first housing; a hinge structure connecting the first housing and the second housing to be rotatable from a folded state to an unfolded state. However, Kim teaches a housing (110+120, Figs. 1-3) comprising a first housing (110, Figs. 1, 3) and a second housing (120, Figs. 1-3) being movable with respect to the first housing (see Fig. 2); a hinge structure (164+165, Figs. 2-3) connecting the first housing and the second housing to be rotatable from a folded state (state in Fig. 2) to an unfolded state (state in Fig. 1). 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 housing comprising a first housing and a second housing being movable with respect to the first housing; a hinge structure connecting the first housing and the second housing to be rotatable from a folded state to an unfolded state in Han, as taught by Kim, in order to provide durable housing that can fold and unfold many times.
Regarding claim 4, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Han further teaches wherein the first glass and the second glass are spaced apart (spaced apart by 350, see Figs. 1, 5).
Regarding claim 9, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Han further teaches wherein the flexible display (100) comprises a first display area (area of 100 under 320, Fig. 1) disposed on the first housing, a second display area (area of 100 under 330 in Fig. 1) disposed on the second housing, and a folding area (area of 100 under 350) connecting the first display area and the second display area.
Regarding claim 10, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 9, and Han further teaches when the housing is in the folded state, at least one of the plurality of second transparent areas disposed corresponding to the folding area is configured to be contract while remaining ones are configured to stretch (col. 6, ln. 62- col. 7, ln. 7: “… contracted…expanded”).
Regarding claim 11, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the hardness of the plurality of first transparent areas is equal to or about 1.5 to 2.0 times the hardness of the plurality of second transparent areas. 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 hardness of the plurality of first transparent areas is equal to or about 1.5 to 2.0 times the hardness of the plurality of second transparent areas in Han in view of Kim, 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, discovering an optimum hardness between the two transparent areas can be done through routine experimentation as long it can provide smooth and reliable amount of fold and unfold from the designer.
Regarding claim 12, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Han further teaches wherein the transparent resin layer comprises an optical clear resin (col. 5, lns. 38-50: “…optically clear resin (OCR), or an optically clear adhesive…”).
Regarding claim 14, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Han does not teach wherein the protective layer is a flexible thin glass. However, Kim further teaches a protective layer (410, Fig. 4A) is a flexible thin glass ([0082]: “…ultra thin glass (UTG)”). 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 protective layer is a flexible thin glass in Han in view of Kim, as taught by Kim, in order to provide a thin, tactile and high light transmission layer for the electronic device.
Regarding claim 15, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 1, and Han further teaches wherein the transparent resin layer is configured to bond at least one of the first glass or the second glass to the protective layer and the flexible display (as shown in Figs. 1, 5-7; note 390 is disposed on 310, which includes 320, 350, 330).
Regarding claim 16 as best understood, Han teaches an electronic device (1000, Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (BC, Fig. 1) comprising a first part (part of BC under 320 in Fig. 1) and a second part (part of BC under 330 in Fig. 1) being movable with respect to the first part;
a flexible display (100, Fig. 1) configured to flex based on relative movement of the first part with respect to the second part (col. 4, lns. 56-62: “…flexible display… may be repeated folded and unfolded…”); and
a cover window (300, Figs. 1-10E) configured to cover an outer surface (300 covers top outer surface of 100) of the flexible display,
wherein the cover window comprises:
a first glass (320, Figs. 1, 5; col. 5, lns. 8-16: “…glass...”) corresponding to the first part;
a second glass (330, Fig. 1) corresponding to the second part;
a protective layer (390, Figs. 7, 10E) outside the first glass and the second glass; and
a transparent resin layer (350, 380, Figs. 1, 5-7) between the protective layer and the flexible display (see Figs. 1, 7),
wherein the transparent resin layer comprises a plurality of first transparent areas (360, Figs. 2-6; col. 5, lns. 34-37: “…rigid material…”; col. 5, lns. 51-56: “…same refractive index… transmissivity and visibility of the window panel 300 are improved.”; also see claim 11: “rigid resin film”) spaced apart in a direction from the first glass toward the second glass, and a plurality of second transparent areas (370, Figs. 2-6; col. 5, lns. 38-49: “…silicon-based resin, an optically clear resin (OCR), or an optically clear adhesive…”) disposed between the plurality of first transparent areas, and
wherein a maximum interval among the intervals between the plurality of first transparent areas is 1.0 mm or less (since 370 has width of W2, which is 70 micrometers, this means interval between plurality of 360 is less than 1.0 mm or less).
Han does not teach the housing comprising a first housing and a second housing being movable with respect to the first housing; a hinge structure connecting the first housing and the second housing to be rotatable from a folded state to an unfolded state. However, Kim teaches a housing (110+120, Figs. 1-3) comprising a first housing (110, Figs. 1, 3) and a second housing (120, Figs. 1-3) being movable with respect to the first housing (see Fig. 2); a hinge structure (164+165, Figs. 2-3) connecting the first housing and the second housing to be rotatable from a folded state (state in Fig. 2) to an unfolded state (state in Fig. 1). 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 housing comprising a first housing and a second housing being movable with respect to the first housing; a hinge structure connecting the first housing and the second housing to be rotatable from a folded state to an unfolded state in Han, as taught by Kim, in order to provide durable housing that can fold and unfold many times.
Regarding claim 17, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 16, and Han further teaches wherein a minimum interval among the intervals between the plurality of first transparent areas is 0.3 mm or more (interval between plurality of 360 is 70 micrometer, which is 0.3 mm or more).
Regarding claim 18, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 16, and Han further teaches wherein the transparent resin layer includes at least one of optically clear resin or optically clear adhesive (col. 5, lns. 38-50: “…optically clear resin (OCR), or an optically clear adhesive…”).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Kim, and further in view of Park et al. (US 11,781,371; hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 13, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Han does not teach wherein, in the first glass, a portion facing the second glass has a smaller thickness than another portion facing the second glass, and in the second glass, a portion facing the first glass has a smaller thickness than another portion facing the first glass. However, Park teaches in a first glass (110, Figs. 4A-8), a portion (at tip of 140 of 110, Figs. 4A-8) facing the second glass has a smaller thickness than another portion (other portion of 140 of 110) facing a second glass (120, Figs. 4A-8), and in the second glass, a portion (at tip of 140 of 120, Figs. 4A-8) facing the first glass has a smaller thickness than another portion (other portion of 140 of 120) facing the first glass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein, in the first glass, a portion facing the second glass has a smaller thickness than another portion facing the second glass, and in the second glass, a portion facing the first glass has a smaller thickness than another portion facing the first glass in Han in view of Kim, as taught by Park, in order to prevent reflection at the folding area.
Regarding claim 19, Han in view of Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 16. Han does not teach wherein the first glass includes a first plane and a first inclined surface facing the second glass and formed to be inclined, and wherein the second glass includes a second plane and a second inclined surface facing the first glass and formed to be inclined. However, Park teaches a first glass (110, Figs. 4A-8) includes a first plane (main horizontal plane of 110 in Figs. 4A-8) and a first inclined surface (140 of 110) facing a second glass and formed to be inclined, and wherein the second glass includes a second plane (main horizontal plane of 120 in Figs. 4A-8) and a second inclined surface (140 of 120) facing the first glass and formed to be inclined. 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 glass includes a first plane and a first inclined surface facing the second glass and formed to be inclined, and wherein the second glass includes a second plane and a second inclined surface facing the first glass and formed to be inclined in Han in view of Kim, as taught by Park, in order to prevent reflection at the folding area.
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