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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YEOM (KR 20190003257) in view of Yee (US 2021/0104694).
As to claims 1 and 11, Yeom discloses a foldable display device (see Abstract and Figs. 3b and 6b) , comprising: a display panel including a display area (Fig. 1, (active area) and a non-display area surrounding the display area (Fig. 1, (inactive area including GIP)(See description in reference to Fig. 1), wherein the display panel is divided into a folding area (Fig. 1, (FL) including a part of the display area and a part of the non-display area (“display device 1000 may be bent along the curved line FL. The curved line FL may extend horizontally (eg, in the X direction of FIG. 1 )(page 4, lines 5-8), vertically (eg, in the Y direction of FIG. 1 ), or diagonally. Based on the design, it can be bent in any combination of horizontal, vertical and diagonal directions”) (page 4, lines 1-4), and non-folding areas (Fig. 2, (A-1, A-2) are defined on sides of the folding area (Fig. 2, F)(“ The foldable display device may include two or more flat areas A-1 and A-2 and a folded area F between the flat areas A-1 and A-2 as shown in FIG. 3A. and can be folded as shown in FIG. 3B . The flat areas A-1 and A-2 are substantially flat areas (portions) having a very small curvature compared to the folded area F, and may include a display area, and, if necessary, include a non-display area and a non-display area” (see Fig. 1, GIP)(page 6, lines 26-29); the display including a flexible substrate having multilayered structure (Fig. 4b, (100, 300); an encapsulating unit disposed on the flexible substrate (Fig. 2, (200); a first support substrate (Fig. 4b, (320) disposed under the display panel (Fig. 4b, (100) to support the display panel (100)(page 5, lines 29-34), and a second support substrate (Fig. 4b, (330)) disposed under the first support substrate (Fig. 4b, (310)) including a plurality of patterns corresponding to the folding area (see Fig. 4c, (320) has a plurality of patterns corresponding to the folding area (321)(page 8, lines 1-9, and 20-27) .
However, Yeom does not specifically disclose a cross-sectional shape of the edge area increases in width as it gets closer to a lower surface of the first support substrate, and .
Yee discloses a first support substrate (Figs. 3 and 6, (100))[0058, 0059] with a cross-sectional shape of the edge area increases in width as it gets closer to a lower surface of the first support substrate (Figs. 3 and 6, (100))[0058, 0059], and the edge area has a smaller thickness than the central area of the first support surface (Figs. 3 and 6, (100))[0058, 0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the width increasing as it gets closer to the lower surface so that thereby the edge area has a smaller thickness, as taught by Yee, in the device of Yeom, in order to provide a support structure having durability while preventing damages by limiting the radius of curvature of the foldable display apparatus that is bent when the mobile device is folded [0004].
As to claims 2, 12, and 13, Yeom discloses, further, the first support substrate including a plurality of openings (Fig. 4c, 321) (page 8, lines 20-26) disposed in an area corresponding to the non-display area of the folding area (Fig. 4b and 4c, F area) (display panel (100 of Fig. 4b) covers the same area as the display (1000 or Fig. 1), which includes folding area (F) which covers the non-display area), wherein a width of the plurality of openings in an extension direction of a folding axis (Fig. 4b, (W2-W4)) of the folding area (Fig. 4b, (F)) is greater than a width of the plurality of openings in a direction perpendicular to the extension direction of the folding axis (Fig. 4c, oval shape of openings has one direction having an extension direction of the folding axis having a folding area than the width of the extension direction of the folding axis. (“The opening patterns 321 , 331 , and 341 may be slits having various shapes, such as a rectangle, a rhombus, and an ellipse, and the widths w2 , w3 , and w4 may become wider toward the bottom. (w2<w3<w4) That is, the metal layer further away from the display panel has a wider opening pattern”)(page 8, lines 24-29).
As to claims 3 and 14, Yeom discloses the plurality of openings includes an edge area (Fig. 6a-6d) corresponding to an outermost area of the plurality of openings, and the edge area of the plurality of openings has a smaller cross-sectional area than the central area of the first support substrate. (“That is, the size (width) of the opening pattern 321 may gradually increase from the edge of the folded region F toward the center. In the support member of the present specification, the size of the opening pattern 321 formed in the folding region F of the metal layer 320 is adjusted, so that the radius of curvature at the folding start point is increased and stress concentration is relieved. Accordingly, damage to the display panel is minimized or prevented”)(page 9, lines 30-36).
As to claim 4, Yeom, further, discloses the outer area is folded with a greater folding radius than the central area (Figs. 6a-6d).
As to claim 5, Yeom discloses, further, a plurality of grooves recessed inwardly in an edge of the non-display area of the folding area (Fig. 4b, (F), the plurality of grooves corresponding in shape to the plurality of openings (Fig. 4b, (grooves (w2, w3, w4) space between openings).
As to claim 6, Yeom discloses, further, the plurality of openings increases in size as a distance to the display area decreases (Fig. 4c, (321).
As to claims 9 and 19, Yeom does not specifically disclose, further, a width of the edge area is equal to or less than approximately 50% of a thickness of the central area of the first support substrate.
Yee discloses a width of the edge area is equal to or less than approximately 50% of a thickness of the central area of the first support substrate. (Figs. 3 and 6, (100))[0058, 0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the width increasing as it gets closer to the lower surface, as taught by Yee, in the device of Yeom, in order to provide a support structure having durability while preventing damages by limiting the radius of curvature of the foldable display apparatus that is bent when the mobile device is folded [0004].
As to claims 10 and 20, Yeom discloses, further, the first support substrate (Fig. 4b, (320) contains any one amorphous metal selected from the group consisting of nickel, iron, cobalt, palladium, silicon, magnesium, zirconium, titanium, calcium, copper, platinum, gold and combinations thereof (“At least a portion of the opening patterns 321 , 331 , and 341 may be filled with any one or more of polyurethane (PU), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyacrylate, rubber, and silicon (Si)”)(page 9, lines 2-3).
As to claim 15, Yeom discloses, further, the flexible substrate including at least one plastic film and at least one inorganic film. (“The base layer 101 supports various components of the organic light emitting display panel 100. The base layer 101 may be formed of a transparent insulating material, for example, an insulating material such as glass, plastic, or the like. When the base layer 101 is made of plastic, it may be referred to as a plastic film or a plastic substrate. For example, the base layer 101 may be in the form of a film including one selected from the group consisting of a polyimide-based polymer, a polyester-based polymer, a silicone-based polymer, an acrylic polymer, a polyolefin-based polymer, and copolymers thereof”)(page 4, lines 19-28).
As to claim 16, Yeom discloses, further, a cover window disposed on the display panel (Fig. 2, (180)(“The cover layer 180 may be used to protect the upper portion of the display panel 100)(page 6, line 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, Applicant argues that Yee is silent with respect to stress concentration or crack propagation at an edge area of the metal plate 100. Yee fails to disclose that the cross-sectional shape of the edge area increases in width as it gets closer to a lower surface of the metal plate 100 to prevent crack occurrence and crack propagation in the edge area. Furthermore, a simple thickness variation as in Yee would not inherently achieve stress dispersion at an edge of the metal plate 100 like in the current application.
Examiner disagrees because Yee discloses a first support substrate (Figs. 3 and 6, (100))[0058, 0059] with a cross-sectional shape of the edge area increases in width as it gets closer to a lower surface of the first support substrate (Figs. 3 and 6, (100))[0058, 0059], and the edge area has a smaller thickness than the central area of the first support surface (Figs. 3 and 6, (100))[0058, 0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the width increasing as it gets closer to the lower surface so that thereby the edge area has a smaller thickness, as taught by Yee, in the device of Yeom, in order to provide a support structure having durability while preventing damages by limiting the radius of curvature of the foldable display apparatus that is bent when the mobile device is folded [0004].
Finaly, In response to applicant's argument that Yee fails to disclose that the cross-sectional shape of the edge area increases in width as it gets closer to a lower surface of the metal plate 100 to prevent crack occurrence and crack propagation in the edge area, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO OSORIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5:30 PM.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/RICARDO OSORIO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights