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). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 202110187692.5, filed on 02/18/2021 in China.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application No. 18/389,823, filed on 12/20/2023, now US patent No. 12,262,484; which is a continuation of U.S. application 17/567,167, filed on 01/03/2022, now US patent No. 11,882,666.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 03/07/2025; and 12/05/2025 have been considered and made of record.
Oath/Declaration
The oath/declaration filed on 02/18/2025 is acceptable.
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, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee [US 2016/0100478].
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a light-emitting device (100, figures 1-8), comprising:
a light-emitting panel (100, figures 1-3) having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, wherein the light-emitting panel comprises:
a non-rollable portion (see attached figure 3) comprising a first region (see attached figure 3), a second region (see attached figure 3), and a bending region (see attached figure 3) disposed between the first region and the second region, wherein the first region is disposed on the first side, and the first region and the second region are partially overlapped (see attached figure 3); and
a rollable portion (see attached figure 3), wherein the first region is connected between the bending region and the rollable portion (see attached figure 3); and
a circuit board (181, figures 1 and 3) fixed onto the second side of the light-emitting panel and connected to the second region of the non-rollable portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses wherein the light-emitting panel further comprises a supporting structure (160, figure 3) having a first surface (a top surface of the supporting structure 160, figure 3) and a second surface (a bottom surface of the supporting structure 160, figure 3) opposite to the first surface; and a substrate (160, figure 3) disposed on the first surface of the supporting structure.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the light-emitting panel comprises a display layer (120, figures 1 and 3), wherein the substrate (170, figure 3) is disposed between the supporting structure (160, figure 3) and the display layer (120, figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the display layer comprises a light-emitting unit (paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the display layer comprises an active unit (123, figure 2, paragraphs 0050-0051) electrically connected to the light-emitting unit.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Nakagawa [US 2017/0250342].
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the claimed invention except for an adhesive layer, wherein the circuit board is fixed onto the second side of the light-emitting panel with the adhesive layer.
Nakagawa discloses a display device (10, figures 1-8) comprising at least one printed circuit board (15, figures 4-8) mounted onto a support member (11, figures 4-8) through an adhesive layer (13b, figures 4-8).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an adhesive layer to connect a printed circuit board onto a second side of the light-emitting panel of Lee, as suggested by Nakagawa, in order to stabilize a circuit board and prevent accidental short circuits.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses wherein a first radius of the bending region of the non-rollable portion is the same a second radius of the rollable portion.
Lee discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a first radius of the bending region of the non-rollable portion is less than a second radius of the rollable portion.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to set a first radius of a bending region of a non-rollable portion is less than a second radius of a rollable portion in a display device of Lee, in order to reduce stress and prevent edge cracking, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the dimensions or proportion of a component. A change in dimension of proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claim 4 discloses the combination features of “a battery electrically connected to the circuit board and comprising a first battery side and a second battery side, wherein the non-rollable portion has a first end connected to the rollable portion, and a second end connected to the circuit board, wherein the rollable portion has a third end connected to the first end of the non-rollable portion, and a fourth end away from the non-rollable portion, wherein the first battery side of the battery is close to the second end of the non-rollable portion, and the second battery side of the battery is close to the fourth end of the rollable portion, wherein when the light-emitting panel is in a rolled state, there is a first distance between the fourth end of the rollable portion and the second battery side of the battery, and there is a second distance between the second end of the non-rollable portion and the second battery side of the battery, and wherein when the light-emitting panel is in an unrolled state, there is a third distance between the fourth end of the rollable portion and the second battery side of the battery, and there is a fourth distance between the second end of the non-rollable portion and the second battery side of the battery, the third distance is greater than the first distance, and the second distance is equal to the fourth distance.” These features, in conjunction with other features, as claimed in the claim 1, were neither found to be disclosed, nor suggested by the prior art of records.
The claim 6 discloses the combination features of “wherein the supporting structure comprises a groove disposed on the second surface of the supporting structure.” This feature(s), in conjunction with other features, as claimed in the combination features of the claims 5 and 1, were neither found to be disclosed, nor suggested by the prior art of records.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: SEO et al. [US 2018/00144417] disclose rollable display device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hung S. Bui whose telephone number is (571)272-2102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8am-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 on (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.
/HUNG S. BUI/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
/HUNG S. BUI/Primary Examiner, 2841/2800
Prosecution Insights