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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/27/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested: display device comprising step compensation film in first and second separation spaces.
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, 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin Et al. US Pub 2022/0039274.
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses,
A display device (figures 1-2, 4-5, 9; paragraphs 151-152) comprising:
a display panel (Figures 1-2, 4-5, DM) comprising a folding area (figure 2&9, FA), and a first non-folding area (NFA1)and a second non-folding area (NFA2) on respective sides of the folding area;
a lower protective film (element PT, figures 5, 9, below DM in as illustrated in figures 5a/b) below a surface of the display panel;
a support plate (fig. 9, SSP1/SSP2) below the lower protective film, and comprising a first support plate (element SSP1 in NFA1) in the first non-folding area, and a second support plate(SSP2 in NFA2) in the second non-folding area, and defining a first separation space (Fig 9, space between the two SSP1/SSP2 such that CSP is disposed) between the first support plate and the second support plate;
a first adhesive layer (Figure 9, element 3AD between PT and the support plate SSP1/SSP2; the office notes that the term between is broad thus since 3AD is between the structure as mentioned above this meets the limitation) between the lower protective film and the support plate, and comprising a first sub-adhesive layer (Left 3AD that is corresponding and overlapping with the fist support SSP1/NFA1) overlapping the first support plate, and a second sub-adhesive layer (right 3AD that is corresponding and overlapping with the fist support SSP2/NFA2)overlapping the second support plate, and defining a second separation space (space between 3AD as illustrated in figure 9, such that at least CSP is disposed in the space) between the first sub-adhesive layer and the second sub-adhesive layer; and
a step compensation film (element CSP, fig 9; paragraphs 151-152) in the first separation space and in the second separation space (as seen in figure 9, and mentioned above CSP is provided in the first and second separation spaces; similar to present application at least figure 5, element 600).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shin discloses,
wherein a width of the step compensation film (figure 9, CSP's width is smaller than the first width of the first separation space and the width of the second separation space, see annotated drawing) is less than a width of the first separation space, and is less than a width of the second separation space.
Regarding claim 4, Shin discloses,
wherein the width of the first separation space (S1, in annotated figure is less than S2) is less than the width of the second separation space (S2 in the annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 20, Shin discloses,
An electronic device (figures 1-2, 4-5, 9) comprises a display device (figures 5a-b; paragraphs 151-152), the display device comprising:
a display panel (Figures 1-2, 4-5, DM) comprising a folding area (figure 2&9, FA), and a first non-folding area (NFA1)and a second non-folding area (NFA2) on respective sides of the folding area;
a lower protective film (element PT, figures 5, 9, below DM in as illustrated in figures 5a/b) below a surface of the display panel;
a support plate (fig. 9, SSP1/SSP2) below the lower protective film, and comprising a first support plate (element SSP1 in NFA1) in the first non-folding area, and a second support plate(SSP2 in NFA2) in the second non-folding area, and defining a first separation space (Fig 9, space between the two SSP1/SSP2 such that CSP is disposed) between the first support plate and the second support plate;
a first adhesive layer (Figure 9, element 3AD between PT and the support plate SSP1/SSP2; the office notes that the term between is broad thus since 3AD is between the structure as mentioned above this meets the limitation) between the lower protective film and the support plate, and comprising a first sub-adhesive layer (Left 3AD that is corresponding and overlapping with the fist support SSP1/NFA1) overlapping the first support plate, and a second sub-adhesive layer (right 3AD that is corresponding and overlapping with the fist support SSP2/NFA2)overlapping the second support plate, and defining a second separation space (space between 3AD as illustrated in figure 9, such that at least CSP is disposed in the space) between the first sub-adhesive layer and the second sub-adhesive layer; and
a step compensation film (element CSP, fig 9; paragraphs 151-152) in the first separation space and in the second separation space (as seen in figure 9, and mentioned above CSP is provided in the first and second separation spaces; similar to present application at least figure 5, element 600).
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, 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin Et al. US Pub 2022/0039274.
Regarding claim 3,
Shin discloses some value of width of the step compensation film (the width of CSP).
Shin does not explicitly teach the width of the step compensation film is about 7mm or less.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the width of the step compensation film to be about 7mm or less, since such modification will provide the desired bending radius to the display panel yet protect the device from external shock (i.e. housing structure). Additionally, it has 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).
Regarding claim 5,
Shin teaches the width of the first separation space is some value (value of S1).
Shin does not explicitly teach the width of the first separation space is about 1 mm to about 7 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the width of the first separation space is about 1 mm to about 7 mm, since such modification will provide the desired bending radius to the display panel yet protect the device from external shock (i.e. housing structure). Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). MPEP§2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 6,
Shin teaches the width of the second separation space is some value (value of S2).
Shin does not explicitly teach the width of the second separation space is about 5 mm to about 15 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the width of the second separation space is about 5 mm to about 15 mm, since such modification will provide the desired bending radius to the display panel yet provide the desired level of adhering property. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). MPEP§2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 7,
Shin teaches there is some value of a difference between the width of the second separation space and the width of the first separation space (as seen in annotated drawing S1 and S2 width is different thus there is difference in value).
Shin does not explicitly teach a difference between the width of the second separation space and the width of the first separation space is about 5 ㎜ or less.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the difference between the width of the second separation space and the width of the first separation space is about 5 ㎜ or less, since such modification will provide the desired bending radius to the display panel. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). MPEP§2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 8,
Shin teaches there is some value of a difference between the width of the second separation space and the width of the first separation space (as seen in annotated drawing S1 and S2 width is different thus there is difference in value).
Shin does not explicitly teach a difference between the width of the second separation space and the width of the first separation space is about 1 ㎜ or less.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the difference between the width of the second separation space and the width of the first separation space is about 1 ㎜ or less, since such modification will provide the desired bending radius to the display panel. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). MPEP§2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 9,
Shin teaches the thickness (thickness measured along the direction DR3 of figure 9) of the step compensation film (CSP) is greater than the sum of a thickness of the first adhesive layer (3AD) and a thickness of the support plate (SSP1/SSP2).
Shin does not explicitly teach the thickness of the step compensation Is about 0.8 times to about 1.2 times a sum of a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the support plate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the thickness of the step compensation Is about 0.8 times to about 1.2 times a sum of a thickness of the first adhesive layer and a thickness of the support plate, since such modification will provide the desired level of the support to the folding area thus improving the display quality in the folding region. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). MPEP§2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10,
Shin teaches a difference between the thickness of the step compensation film and a sum of the thickness of the first adhesive layer and the thickness of the support plate is some value (as seen in figure 9).
Shin does not explicitly teach the difference of the thickness of the step compensation film and a sum of the thickness of the first adhesive layer and the thickness of the support plate is 50 mm or less.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to make the difference of the thickness of the step compensation film and a sum of the thickness of the first adhesive layer and the thickness of the support plate is 50 mm or less, since such modification will provide the desired bending radius to the display panel. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). MPEP§2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 11,
Shin in embodiment of figure 9 teaches some value of elastic modulus of the step compensation film (CSP).
Shin does not explicitly teach the elastic modulus of the step compensation film is about 1 GPa or less.
Shin in figure 8's embodiment teaches the first support member and second support member having the elastic modulus of about 1 GPa (paragraph 125).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the teaching of figure 8's elastic modulus of about 1GPa as the elastic modulus of the step compensation film of Figure 9, such modification will ensure the folding area of the display device is not damaged and provides the required elasticity.
Regarding claim 12,
Shin teaches, an upper module (see annotated drawing the section of upper module can be any combination of those component including the display panel and the lower protective film) above the first adhesive layer (annotated drawing), and comprising the display panel and the lower protective film,
Wherein a width of the second separation space has a value (the width of S2 as provided in the above annotated drawing), furthermore a radius of curvature of the upper module is taught by Shin (figures 2a-b, 5, and 9 as the device is folded the radius of curvature is presented).
Shin does not teach wherein a width of the second separation space is greater than or equal to a value obtained by multiplying a radius of curvature of the upper module by pi.
However, modifying the width of the second separation space such that it has a desired width, including as claimed (i.e., a width of the second separation space is greater than or equal to a value obtained by multiplying a radius of curvature of the upper module by pi), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to provide the desired level of adhering characteristic and thus controlling the radius of curvature. Furthermore, changing a size to discover the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image2.png
536
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin Et al. US Pub 2022/0039274 in view of Jinbo et al. US Pub 2016/0103539.
Regarding claim 13,
Shin as modified in claim 12 teaches the radius of curvature of the upper module (see annotated drawing figure 5 and as described in claim 12).
Shin as modified does not teach the specific value of the radius of curvature of the upper module is about 1.5 mm to about 2 mm.
Jinbo in similar field of display teaches radius of curvature of module (paragraph 498) teaches the curvature of radius is about 5 mm or less (thus meeting the range of 1.5mm to about 2mm).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the teaching of radius of curvature to be less than 5mm more specifically be about 1.5 mm to about 2 mm of the radius of curvature of the upper module, such radius of curvature will provide repeatedly bent and unbent without having a defect (paragraph 498 of Jinbo).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 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.
Primary reason for allowance of claim 14 is that 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. Specifically, the specific configuration of the lower anti-view layer above the support plate and in the folding area and a second adhesive between the lower anti-view layer and the step compensation film, in combination with the intervening claim limitation is not taught nor would be obvious to modify.
Reasons for allowance for claims 15-18 are same as claim 14 since each of claim 15-18 directly or indirectly dependent on claim 14.
Primary reason for allowance of claim 19 is that 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. Specifically, the step compensation film comprises a first portion in the first separation space, and a second portion in the second separation space, and wherein a direction in which the first portion extends is different from a direction in which the second portion extends, wherein a width of the first portion is less than a width of the second portion, , in combination with the intervening claim limitation is not taught nor would be obvious to modify.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahn US Pub 2022/0159847, Figure 5b teaches the limitation of independent claim such that the step compensation film (MB) disposed in the first separation space (space between LM1_2 and ML2_2) and the second separation space (space between the adhesive AL1_1/A2_1, Fig 5b); lower protective film (PI or AF, figure 5a-5b) and the display panel (DM, figure 5a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK M RATHOD whose telephone number is (571)270-3947. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM-5:00PM 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.
ABHISHEK M. RATHOD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
/ABHISHEK M RATHOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights