DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been considered for patentability.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,259,756 (756 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 in the instant application is broader in scope than claim 1 of the 756 Patent. The instant Claim 1 retains the 756 Patent Claim 1 limitations two patterned supporting layers and arrays but only omits the bearing assembly configured to support and drive bending/folding, the supporting layers that are stacked sequentially on the bearing assembly, each supporting layer being resilient and the display position relative the bearing assembly. Accordingly, the claims are commensurate in scope and an apparatus infringing the Claim 1 in the 756 Patent would thereby also infringe the instant Claim 1.
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) 1-2, 7-9, 11-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Li (CN 111312794).
In re Claim 1, Li discloses a display assembly, comprising: at least two supporting layers 1011a, 1011b, wherein each supporting layer is bendable and provided with a hollowed-out pattern (Figure 2); and hollowed-out patterns of the at least two supporting layers are different in at least one of following properties: a position of the hollowed-out part (Figure 2); and a flexible display module 102 on the at least two supporting layers; wherein the hollowed-out pattern of each supporting layer comprises at least one hollowed-out region 110 (Figure 2); the hollowed-out region comprises a plurality of hollowed-out parts 106 distributed in an array (Figures 2 and 3).
In re Claim 2, Li discloses wherein areas of hollowed-out parts 106 in the at least two supporting layers 1011a, 1011b are different. See Li, Figure 3.
In re Claim 7, Li discloses wherein orthographic projections of hollowed-out parts 106 in the at least two supporting layers 1011a, 1011b on the flexible display module are staggered. Li, Figure 2.
In re Claim 8, Li discloses wherein shapes and areas of the hollowed-out parts 106 in the at least two supporting layers 1011a, 1011b are the same. Li, Figures 2 and 3.
In re Claims 9 and 11, Li discloses wherein shapes and areas of the hollowed-out parts 106 in the at least two supporting layers 1011a, 1011b are the same and in a strip shape. Li, Figures 2 and 3 (showing some groups rectangles the same as others).
In re Claims 12 and 13, Li discloses wherein shapes of the hollowed-out parts 106 in the at least two supporting layers 1011a, 1011b are different (Figure 3 showing different sized rectangles); and the shapes of the hollowed-out parts 106 comprise a rectangle. Li, Figures 2 and 3.
In re Claim 19, Li discloses wherein the at least two supporting layers are two supporting layers 1011a, 1011b.
In re Claim 20, Li discloses a display device 100.
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) 3, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 111312794) in view of Liao (CN 110062077).
In re Claim 3, Li discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose wherein areas of the hollowed out parts increase in a direction from an inner side to an outer side of bending. However, Liao discloses a hollowed out part 3 in a supporting layer 2 that has various cross-sectional shapes, some of which have a increased area in a direction from an inner side to an outer side. See Liao, Figures 5a-5e. It would have been obvious to have varied the areas of the hollowed out parts in a direction from the inner side to the outer side as disclosed in Liao with the apparatus as otherwise disclosed in Li to accommodate the unequal bending stresses. Liao, Figures 5a-5e and associated description. Li suggests that the supporting layer may have unequal bending stresses.
In re Claim 10, Li discloses wherein shapes and areas of the hollowed-out parts 106 in the at least two supporting layers 1011a, 1011b are the same and in a strip shape. Li, Figures 2 and 3 (showing some groups rectangles the same as others).
In re Claim 18, Li discloses the limitations as noted above and further discloses wherein each supporting layer 1011a, 1011b is made of metal, but does not explicitly disclose stainless steel. However, Liao discloses a supporting layer 2 comprised of stainless steel. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of flexible display design to have provided a stainless steel supporting plate, as disclosed in Liao, with the supporting plate as otherwise disclosed in Li to provide for a longer lasting supporting plate and resist rusting and corrosion.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 111312794), Liao (CN 110062077) and further in view of Kim (US Publication 2019/0200466).
In re Claim 4, Li and Liao disclose the limitations as noted above but do not explicitly disclose wherein hollowed-out parts in one supporting layer correspond to hollowed-out parts in another supporting layer in an one-to-one correspondence, and orthographic projections of hollowed-out parts corresponding to each other on the flexible display module at least partially overlap.
However, Kim discloses hollowed-out parts (Figures 3 and 4; paragraph 0047) in one supporting layer 141-145 correspond to hollowed-out parts in another supporting layer 141-145 in an one-to-one correspondence (Figure 3), and orthographic projections of hollowed-out parts corresponding to each other on the flexible display module 110 at least partially overlap (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of flexible display design to have taken the aligned hollowed out parts as disclosed in Kim and incorporated that feature into the otherwise hollowed out part design of Li as modified by Liao. This would permit implementation of Liao’s stepped opening geometry across supporting layers, providing corresponding regions of reduced metal with a better bending response. Kim identifies hole size and spacing parameters for adjusting the supporting layer’s elastic restoring force. Kim, paragraph 0050. Liao teaches selection of opening widths to accommodate bending stress. Liao, paragraphs 0111-0115.
In re Claim 5, Kim further discloses wherein centers of the orthographic projections of the hollowed-out parts HP corresponding to each other on the flexible display module 110 coincide. Kim, Figures 1-3.
In re Claim 6, with reference to Liao, Figure 5c and paragraph 0113, Liao teaches a stepped opening having a narrower portion positioned within lateral boundaries of a wider portion. Applying this geometry to the openings with the smaller opening in the inner supporting layer and the larger opening in the outer supporting layer as discussed in the rejection of Claim 3 above, would provide the limitations of Claim 6 herein. Specifically, maintaining a common slot length and common centers while increasing the outer layer slot width places the entire orthographic projection of the inner layer opening within the projection of the corresponding outer layer opening. This implements Liao’s stepped width profile for accommodating bending stress while preserving Kim’s corresponding openings.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 111312794), Jiang (CN 111508357) (citing to US Publication 2023/0156934) and further in view of Tsuchihashi et al. (US Publication 2020/0389986).
In re Claim 14, Li discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose a bearing assembly. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Jiang discloses a bearing assembly 2 on a side of a supporting layer 4 away from a flexible display 3; and a foam adhesive layer 6 (paragraph 0078) located between the supporting layer 4 and the flexible display 3, wherein the supporting layer is fixed to the flexible display with the foam adhesive layer 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of flexible display design to have provided a foam adhesive, as disclosed in Jiang, to attach a supporting layer to a flexible display as otherwise disclosed in Li. The use of a foam adhesive accommodates bending displacement and reduces layer separation.
Li as modified by Jiang discloses the limitations as noted above but does not explicitly disclose attaching a supporting layer to a bearing assembly using glue. However, providing such was not new in the art. For example, Tsuchihashi discloses a supporting layer 20 and a bearing assembly 18, wherein the supporting layer is attached to the bearing assembly through glue. Tsuchihashi, paragraphs 0042-0043. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of flexible display design to have provided an adhesive material to the supporting layer to attach to a bearing assembly, as taught by Tsuchihashi, with the apparatus as otherwise taught by Li as modified by Jiang to secure the display stack, leaving the bending portion free.
In re Claim 15, Li discloses wherein adjacent supporting layers 1011a, 1011b are fitted through glue (paragraph 0031) 1012.
In re Claim 16, Jiang discloses wherein the bearing assembly 2 comprises: a first middle frame (Figure 1), a second middle frame (Figure 1), and a rotating shaft assembly (Figure 1, i.e. hinge) located between the first middle frame and the second middle frame.
In re Claim 17, Tsuchihashi discloses wherein a thickness of a supporting layer 32, 33 is 0.15mm. Tsuchihashi, paragraph 0041 (about 30 µm).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights