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 1/17/2025, 9/18/2025 and 4/28/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5, 7, 18 and 20 recite “a upper surface”, which should have been “an upper surface” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2020/0051881; hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1-9) comprising:
a first housing (same as left 150, Fig. 2);
a second housing (same as right 150, Fig. 2) configured to rotate or slide relative to the first housing (150 rotate/fold at FX in Fig. 2; also see Fig. 5A); and
a flexible display (130, Figs. 1-2) configured to be unfolded or bent based on relative movement of the second housing (foldable at FX, see Figs. 1-2, 5A),
wherein the flexible display comprises:
a first display area (such as left NFA of AA in Figs. 1, 2),
a second display area (such as right NFA of AA in Figs. 1, 2),
a folding area (FA of AA in Figs. 1, 2) connecting the first display area and the second display area,
a protective layer (110, Fig. 2) ,
a first adhesive layer (top 161, Figs. 2) disposed beneath the protective layer, wherein the first adhesive layer comprises a first adhesive portion (portion of top 161 at FA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) disposed in the folding area, and a second adhesive portion (other portion of top 161 surrounding FA of AA and also at NA, see Figs. 1, 2) provided to enclose a side surface of the first adhesive portion (can refer to dash lines in Figs. 1, 2; note that first adhesive portion and second adhesive portion can be same material),
a second adhesive layer (bottom 161, Fig. 2) disposed beneath the first adhesive layer, wherein the second adhesive layer comprises a third adhesive portion (portions of bottom 161 at both sides of NFA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) disposed in each of the first and second display areas, which are adjacent to the folding area, and a fourth adhesive portion (portion of bottom of 161 at FA of AA and also at NA, Figs. 1, 2) provided to enclose a side surface of the third adhesive portion (can refer to Figs. 1, 2; note that third adhesive portion and fourth adhesive portion can be same material), and
a display panel (130, fig. 2) disposed beneath the second adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and Park further discloses wherein the first adhesive portion (portion of top 161 at FA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) is disposed in a portion of the folding area (as shown in Figs. 1, 2), and the second adhesive portion (other portion of top 161 surrounding FA of AA and also at NA, see Figs. 1, 2) is disposed in another portion of the folding area, the first display area, and the second display area (as shown in Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and Park further discloses wherein the third adhesive portion (portions of bottom 161 at both sides of NFA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) comprises a (3-1)th adhesive portion (such as left portion of bottom 161 of NFA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) and a (3-2) th adhesive portion (such as right portion of bottom 161 of NFA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) which are spaced apart from each other with the folding area being interposed therebetween (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the (3-1) th adhesive portion extends from one end of the folding area to a portion of the first display area, and the (3-2) th adhesive portion extends from another end of the folding area to a portion of the second display area (as shown in Fig. 2), and wherein the fourth adhesive portion (portion of bottom of 161 at FA of AA and also at NA, Figs. 1, 2) is disposed in the folding area and other areas of the first and second display areas (as shown in Figs. 1, 2).
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 2, 5, 7-8, 10-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, and further in view of Han et al. (US 9,354,476; hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Park does not teach a glass layer disposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer. However, Han teaches a glass layer (310b, Fig. 8) between a first adhesive layer (380a, Fig. 8) and a second adhesive layer (380b, 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 glass layer disposed between the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer in Park, as taught by Han, in order to improve the rigidity and strength of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Han teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and the modified Park further teaches wherein an upper surface of the first adhesive portion facing a first direction is bonded with the protective layer (top 161 bonded with 110 as shown in Fig. 2 of Park), and a lower surface of the first adhesive portion facing a second direction opposite to the first direction is bonded with the glass layer (as modified in claim 2 above, where the glass layer is bonded to the first adhesive layer (lower surface) and the second adhesive layer (upper surface) after Han’s teaching).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Han teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and the modified Park further teaches wherein an upper surface of the third adhesive portion facing a first direction (up direction in Fig. 2 of Park) is bonded to the glass layer (as modified in claim 2 above, where the glass layer is bonded to the first adhesive layer (lower surface) and the second adhesive layer (upper surface) after Han’s teaching), and wherein a lower surface of the third adhesive portion facing a second direction (down direction in Fig. 2) opposite to the first direction is bonded to the display panel (bottom 161 bond to 130 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Han teaches the electronic device of claim 2. Park in view of Han does not explicitly teach wherein the first adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer has a thermal expansion coefficient greater than a thermal expansion coefficient of the protective layer, and wherein due to a difference in the thermal expansion coefficients, the folding area of the protective layer is formed to generate compressive stress. 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 portion of the first adhesive layer has a thermal expansion coefficient greater than a thermal expansion coefficient of the protective layer, and wherein due to a difference in the thermal expansion coefficients, the folding area of the protective layer is formed to generate compressive stress in Park in view of Han, 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, protective layer can be made of glass, and glass is known to have less CTE than adhesive such as OCR, OCA or PSA, which would mean the protective layer is formed to generate compressive stress.
Regarding claims 10-11, Park in view of Han teaches the electronic device of claim 2. Park in view of Han does not explicitly teach wherein the first adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer and the third adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer comprise optically clear adhesives (OCAs) having different Young's moduli; wherein the second adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer and the fourth adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer comprise optically clear resins (OCRs) having different Young's moduli. However, Park further teaches adhesives layers (161, 162a, 162b, Fig. 2) comprises optically clear adhesive ([0066]: “…OCA…”) having different Young’s moduli ([0109]: “… Young’s modulus are very different, the slipping occurs well in the edge area and the stress is relieved.”; [0127]: “…different adhesiveness…”). 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 the first adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer and the third adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer comprise optically clear adhesives (OCAs) having different Young's moduli; or wherein the second adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer and the fourth adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer comprise optically clear resins (OCRs) having different Young's moduli in Park in view of Han, as taught by Han, in order to relief stress build up.
Regarding claims 12-13, Park in view of Han teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and Park further teaches wherein the first adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer has a Young's modulus smaller than or equal to a Young's modulus of the second adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer (first and second adhesive portions have equal Young’s modulus at top 161 in Fig. 2); wherein the third adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer has a Young's modulus smaller than or equal to a Young's modulus of the fourth adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer (third and fourth adhesive portions have equal Young’s modulus at bottom 161 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Han teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and Park further teaches wherein the first adhesive portion (portion of top 161 at FA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) of the first adhesive layer overlaps at least a portion of the fourth adhesive portion (portion of bottom of 161 at FA of AA and also at NA, Figs. 1, 2) of the second adhesive layer (overlap as shown in Figs. 1, 2 of Park).
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Han teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and Park further teaches wherein the third adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer overlaps at least a portion of the second adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer (overlap as shown in Figs. 1, 2 of Park).
Regarding claim 17, Park in view of Han teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and Park further teaches wherein the first adhesive portion is disposed in a portion of the folding area, and the second adhesive portion is disposed in another portion of the folding area, the first display area, and the second display area (as shown in Figs. 1, 2 of Park).
Regarding claim 19, Park in view of Han teaches the electronic device of claim 2, and Park further teaches wherein the third adhesive portion (portion of bottom 161 at both sides of NFA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) comprises a (3-1)th adhesive portion (such as left portion of bottom 161 of NFA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) and a (3-2)th adhesive portion (such as right portion of bottom 161 of NFA of AA, Figs. 1, 2) which are spaced apart from each other with the folding area being interposed therebetween (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the (3-1)th adhesive portion extends from one end of the folding area to a portion of the first display area, and the (3-2)th adhesive portion extends from another end of the folding area to a portion of the second display area (as shown in Fig. 2 of Park), and wherein the fourth adhesive portion (portion of bottom of 161 at FA of AA and also at NA, Figs. 1, 2) is disposed in the folding area and other areas of the first and second display areas (as shown in Figs. 1, 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 16, 18 and 20 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.
Re claims 3, 18 and 20, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the electronic device according to claim 3, in particular, wherein the first adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer has a hardness smaller than a hardness of the second adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer, and wherein the third adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer has a hardness smaller than the hardness of the fourth adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer.
Re claim 9, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the electronic device according to claim 9, in particular, wherein the third adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer has a thermal expansion coefficient smaller than a thermal expansion coefficient of the glass layer, and wherein the thermal expansion coefficient of the third adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer differs from the thermal expansion coefficient of the first adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer.
Re claim 16, prior arts do not teach or suggest the combination of the electronic device according to claim 16, in particular, wherein the first adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer has a hardness smaller than a hardness of the second adhesive portion of the first adhesive layer, and wherein the third adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer has a hardness smaller than the hardness of the fourth adhesive portion of the second adhesive layer.
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