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 04/23/2025 and 08/08/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first support layers" in line 1 and “the second support layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first support layers" in lines 1-2 and “the second support layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SHO (20220197343). With respect to claim 1, SOH discloses a display device (1000) comprising: a display panel (DM) foldable with respect to a folding axis substantially parallel to a first direction[long side]; and a support plate (SM) disposed under the display panel (DM) and comprising a first support plate ( SP1), a folding plate (LP1, LP2, LP3), and a second support plate (SP2) arranged in a second direction[short side] intersecting the first direction, the folding plate (LP1, LP2, LP3) foldable with respect to the folding axis, wherein the folding plate (LP1, LP2, LP3) comprises: a first portion (LP2) adjacent to the first support plate (SP1); a second portion (LP3) adjacent to the second support plate (SP2); and a curved portion (LP1) disposed between the first and second portions (LP2, LP3) and comprising a plurality of first openings (HL), wherein the first and second portions (LP2, LP3) are curved in a different direction from the curved portion (LP1), and wherein each of the first and second portions (LP2, LP3) comprises a plurality of second openings (HL). With respect to claim 3, SOH discloses the display device (1000) of claim 1, wherein the first and second portions (LPS, LP3) are curved in a direction opposite to the curved portion (LP1), see for example figures 3 and 12. With respect to claim 4, SOH discloses the display device (1000) of claim 1, wherein the first and second portions (LP2, LP3) are curved symmetrically to each other, see for example figures 3 and 12. With respect to claim 5, SOH discloses the display device (1000) of claim 1, wherein the second openings (HL) are arranged in a regular pattern in each of the first and second portions (LP2, LP3). With respect to claim 7, SOH discloses the display device (1000) of claim 1, wherein each of the second openings (HL) is formed at a porosity from about 30% to about 70% in each of the first and second portions (LP2, LP3).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SOH (20220197343).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
With respect to claim 6, SOH discloses the display device (1000) of claim 1, wherein each of the second openings (HL). The apparatus of SOH fails to discloses the diameter of the openings (HL). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filling date for the openings (HL) of SOH to be between about 100 micrometers to about 1 millimeters in diameter. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to limit the diameter of the openings to add in flexibility.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8-11 and 14 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: as to claim 2, patentability resides, at least in part, in each of the first openings extends in the first direction and each of the second openings has a circular shape as presently claimed and including all of the other limitations of the base claim(s) respectfully; as to claims 8-11, patentability resides, at least in part, in each of the folding plate comprises a plurality of first support layers; and a second support layer disposed between the first support layers as presently claimed and including all of the other limitations of the base claim(s) respectfully; as to claim 14, patentability resides, at least in part, in the folding plate has a first modulus corresponding to a bending strength with respect to the second direction and a second modulus corresponding to a bending strength with respect to the first direction, the first modulus being smaller than the second modulus as presently claimed and including all of the other limitations of the base claim(s) respectfully.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA LEA-EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
LISA LEA-EDMONDS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/LISA LEA EDMONDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847 2026-09-30
Prosecution Insights