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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 12,245,385 (hereinafter the ‘385 patent) is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Objections to the Amendments - Formalities
The claim amendments filed July 15, 2025, are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(d). Amended claims must show all changes made relative to the patent claims, with omitted text enclosed in single brackets and added text underlined. See MPEP § 1453. The claim amendments are improper because new claims 19-25 are not underlined.
Restriction
This reissue application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
An electronic device comprising a bending plate disposed between a flexible display and a multi-bar, the bending plate comprising: a plurality of support plate parts and a plurality of lattice pattern parts (patent claims 1-12); or a support plate and a reduction part (patent claims 13-18), as shown in Figs. 13-14 and 16-18.
An electronic device comprising a bendable member including alternately arranged and integrally formed bars and bending parts, wherein surfaces of the bars and bending parts are located in the same plane (reissue claims 19-26), as shown in Figs. 21 and 22.
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In particular, independent patent claims 1 and 13 each recite a bending plate that is disposed “between the flexible display and the multi-bar,” while independent reissue claim 19 requires that the bars and bending parts include surfaces “located in the same plane” and at least some of the bending parts being “integrally formed” with corresponding bars. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Restriction to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, there are no generic claims.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: Species A and B require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.176, the subject matter of original patent claims 1-18 is constructively elected. Accordingly, new reissue claims 19-26 are withdrawn from examination in this reissue application.
As explained in MPEP § 1450, Applicant is advised that the claims to the original patented invention will continue to be examined in the instant reissue application and the non-elected claims will be held in abeyance in a withdrawn status. A divisional reissue application directed to the non-elected invention may be filed. The non-elected claims will only be examined if filed in a divisional reissue application.
If the original patent claims are found allowable in the instant reissue application and no error (other than the failure to present the non-elected claims) is being corrected in this application, and if a divisional application has been filed for the non-elected claims, further action in the instant reissue application will be suspended pending resolution of the divisional application.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.174 and MPEP § 1414) because no error is identified in the non-amended patent claims (other than the failure to present the non-elected claims). See MPEP § 1450. This issue may be addressed by revising the error statement to indicate an error in the patent claims that is being corrected in this reissue application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
35 U.S.C. 251 states:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
Claims 1-18 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the support plate is located to correspond to and attach to an upper surface of each of the plurality of bars and the reduction section is located to correspond to and overlap the predetermined intervals” in lines 11-13 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear in what sense the singular support plate corresponds to each of a plurality of bars, and in what sense the singular reduction section corresponds to plural intervals. It is unclear what configuration of the support plate, reduction section, bars, and intervals is being claimed. Considered in view of Applicant’s disclosure, it appears that a plurality of supports plates and reduction sections would be necessary to correspond to the plurality of bars and intervals. See Applicant’s Figs. 16, 17B, and 18A-C. Claims 14-18 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 13.
Further regarding claim 14, the limitation “the support plate located to overlap upper sides of the plurality of bars” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons discussed above for claim 13.
Further regarding claim 16, the limitation “the bending plate is disposed among the plurality of bars” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear in what sense the bending plate is both “between the flexible display and the multi-bar” as required by claim 13 and “among the bars” as recited in claim 16. It is unclear whether “among” is used here according to its dictionary definition to mean “in the midst of; surrounded by”1 (meaning that the bending plate is in the midst of, or surrounded by, the bars). If so, this appears to be inconsistent with the bending plate being “between the flexible display and the multi-bar.” For these reasons, it is unclear what arrangement of the bending plate is being claimed.
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.
(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.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,200,881, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses a display assembly (rolling display arrangement 2, Fig. 1) of an electronic device (14) comprising:
a flexible display (15) including:
a first area visible from an outside of the electronic device (at top in P1 and P2, Fig. 1b) both in an open state (extended position P2, Fig. 1b) and a closed state (retracted position P1, Fig. 1b); and
a second area extending from the first area, invisible from the outside in the closed state (at bottom in P1, Fig. 1b), and visible from the outside in the open state (at top in P2, Fig. 1b);
a multi-bar (plurality of support rods 5, Figs. 3-4; col. 4:55-62) disposed on a rear surface of the flexible display (15) and configured to support the flexible display (as part of foldable support structure 1 which “supports the display 15,” col. 6:17-22) in the closed state (P1) and in the open state (P2), the multi-bar (5) including a plurality of bars (support rods 5) disposed at predetermined intervals (see Fig. 3); and
a bending plate (foldable sheet 3, Figs. 2-4) disposed between the flexible display (15) and the multi-bar (5; col. 4:63-5:3),
wherein the bending plate (3) comprises a support plate (at 3 in Figs. 3-5, the support plate being the solid strips between slits 7a, 8a) and a reduction section (at slits 7a, 8a), and the support plate is located to correspond to and attach (at attachments 6, Fig. 5) to an upper surface of each of the plurality of bars (5; col. 5:37) and the reduction section (at 7a, 8a) is located to correspond to and overlap the predetermined intervals (see Figs. 3-4). See col. 2:44-49.
Regarding claim 14, Li further discloses the bending plate (3) comprises the support plate located to overlap upper sides of the plurality of bars (5; see Figs. 3-5, “allowing as much of the foldable sheet [3] to be directly supported by the support rods [5],” col. 2:45-49) and a lower surface of the flexible display (15, Fig. 1; col. 6:17-22).
Regarding claim 15, Li further discloses the bending plate (3) is disposed between a lower part of the second area of the flexible display (i.e., the part of the display 15 that is folded and unfolded as the display 15 moves between the retracted state P1 and the expanded state P2, Fig. 1b) and an upper part of the multi-bar (5; see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 16, it appears to the examiner that Li may be considered to disclose the bending plate (3) being disposed among the plurality of bars (5), in the sense of extending between the bars (e.g., at the H-shaped portion of the plate 3 defined by the slits 7a, 8a, see Figs. 3 and 5; col. 5:41-49), as this limitation is best understood by the examiner in view of the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 2021/0385315, hereinafter Cha) in view of Li.
Regarding claim 1, Cha discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a first housing (first frame 101);
a second housing (second frame 102) configured to be movably combined with the first housing (¶ 99), wherein the electronic device has an open state (Fig. 2b) where the second housing (102) is drawn out from the first housing (101) or a closed state (Fig. 2a) where the second housing (102) is entered into the first housing (101);
a flexible display (151) disposed on the first housing (101) and the second housing (102) and including:
a first area (fixed portion 151a) exposed to an outside of the electronic device both in the open state (Fig. 2b) and the closed state (Fig. 2a; see ¶ 105); and
a second area (variable portion 151c) extending from the first area (151a), accommodated inside a space formed by the first housing (101) and the second housing (102) while the electronic device is in the closed state (e.g., a space enclosed by a rear face cover 1025, Fig. 4; ¶ 0130), and exposed to the outside of the electronic device in the open state (see Fig. 2b, ¶ 105);
a multi-bar (rolling plate 104, Figs. 19-22) supporting at least part of the flexible display (151), the multi-bar (104) including a plurality of bars (support bars 1041) disposed at predetermined intervals (see Fig. 22); and
a bending plate (rolling sheet 1045/10462, ¶ 143) disposed between the flexible display (151) and the multi-bar (104), the bending plate (1045/1046) comprises a plurality of support plate parts (i.e., the solid parts between grooves of the rolling plate 1045/1046; see Fig. 21c) and a plurality of lattice pattern parts (“multiple grooves extending in the third direction,” ¶ 145), each of which is alternately arranged (see Fig. 21c),
wherein each of the plurality of lattice pattern parts is located to correspond to and overlap a space between adjacent bars of the plurality of bars (“The grooves in the kerf pattern may be formed between the multiple support bars 1041,” ¶ 145).
Cha does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of support plate parts is attached to an upper surface of each of the plurality of bars, respectively. However, Li teaches a similar electronic device comprising a multi-bar (support rods 5, Figs. 3-4; col. 4:55-62) and a bending plate (foldable sheet 3, Figs. 2-4) comprising a plurality of support plate parts (at 3 in Figs. 3-5, between slits 7a, 8a) and a plurality of lattice pattern parts (at slits 7a, 8a), each of which is alternately arranged (see Fig. 4a), wherein each of the plurality of lattice pattern parts (7a, 8a) is located to correspond to and overlap a space between adjacent bars of the plurality of bars (5; see Figs. 3-4; col. 2:44-49), and each of the plurality of support plates is attached to an upper surface of each of the plurality of bars (5), respectively (“Each support rod 5 is connected to the foldable sheet 3 by means of a plurality of attachments 6 … on each side of each first slit 7a and each second slit 8a,” col. 5:32-37). Li teaches that this arrangement advantageously “allow[s] as much of the foldable sheet as possible to be directly supported by the support rods.” Col. 2:44-49. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cha by configuring each of the lattice pattern parts to correspond to and overlap a space between adjacent bars of the plurality of bars and respectively attaching each of the plurality of support plate parts to an upper surface of each of the plurality of bars, as taught by Li, in order to improve the support of the foldable sheet by the support rods.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Cha teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Cha further teaches a first adhesive member configured to attach the bending plate (1045/1046) to a lower surface of the flexible display (151), and a second adhesive member configured to attach the bending plate (1045/1046) to an upper surface of the multi-bar (104/1041). See ¶ 144: “An adhesive tape may be attached to both surfaces of the rolling sheet 1045 to bond the rolling sheet 1045 to the support bars 1041 to bond the rear surface of the display unit 151 to the rolling sheet 1045.”
Regarding claims 3-5, the modified Cha teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Cha further teaches the first adhesive member is attached to an upper surface of the bending plate (1045/1046; ¶ 144) (claim 3) and the second adhesive member is attached to a lower surface of the bending plate (1045/1046; ¶ 144) (claim 4). While Cha does not explicitly describe the extent of the respective surfaces to which the adhesive members are attached, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the direction given by Cha, to attach the first and second adhesive members to the entire upper and lower surfaces of the bending plate, respectively (claims 3 and 4), or to attach the second adhesive member to the part of the lower surface of the bending plate that overlaps the upper surfaces of the bars (claim 5), as an obvious arrangement for accomplishing the purpose taught by Cha of bonding the upper and lower surfaces of the rolling sheet to the lower surface of the display and the upper surfaces of the support bars, respectively, since the court has held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of engineering design choice when the rearrangement of parts would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Cha teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Cha further teaches the plurality of lattice pattern parts are formed with uniform cuts (i.e., grooves; see Fig. 21, ¶ 145). See also Li, Figs. 4-6.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Cha teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Cha further teaches the bending plate (1045/1046) is disposed between a lower part of the second area (151c) of the flexible display (151) and an upper part of the multi-bar (104/1041; see Figs. 20-22, ¶ 148).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Cha teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Cha further teaches the bending plate (1045/1046) connects each of the plurality of bars (1041; “a rolling sheet 1045 to fix the multiple support bars 1041,” ¶ 144).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Cha teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Cha further teaches the bending plate (1045/1046) is formed of a metal material (¶ 144).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Cha teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Cha further teaches each of the plurality of bars (1041) includes an upper surface (at bottom in the orientation shown in Fig. 22) formed with a first width, a lower surface (at top in Fig. 22) formed with a second width that is narrower than the first width, and a lateral surface (at sides of each bar 1041 in Fig. 22) formed at an incline at a predetermined angle between the upper surface and the lower surface (see Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Cha teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Cha further teaches that the lateral surface of each of the plurality of bars is formed to be inclined by an angle greater than 90 degrees so that the upper surface is wider than the lower surface. See Fig. 22. Cha does not explicitly disclose the specific range of angles, but the angle shown in Fig. 22 appears to be very similar to the angle of 100 to 110 degrees disclosed by Applicant. Compare Applicant’s Fig. 15C to Fig. 22 of Cha (see annotated partial view of Cha’s Fig. 22 below, shown inverted for ease of comparison). Considering the very similar prior art, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cha by selecting an angle within the range of 100 to 110 degrees for the inclination of the lateral surface, since the court has held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range; see, e.g., col. 21:33-36, the claimed range being given “[a]s an example.”
PNG
media_image1.png
192
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the modified Cha teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Cha further teaches a corner of the upper surface and a corner of the lower surface for each of the plurality of bars (1041, Fig. 22) are formed to have a predetermined curvature (see Fig. 22).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Cha.
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 13. Li does not disclose first and second adhesive members. However, Cha teaches a similar display assembly (Fig. 22) comprising a first adhesive member (“adhesive tape,” ¶ 144) configured to attach a bending plate (rolling sheet 1045/1046) to a lower surface of a flexible display (to “bond the rear surface of the display unit 151 to the rolling sheet 1045,” id.); and a second adhesive member (“adhesive tape may be attached to both surfaces of the rolling sheet 1045,” id.) configured to attach the bending plate (1045/1046) to an upper surface of a multi-bar (“to bond the rolling sheet 1045 to the support bars 1041,” id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Li to select first and second adhesive members as taught by Cha to perform the function of attaching the bending plate to the lower surface of the flexible display and the upper surface of the multi-bar, respectively, in order to efficiently and reliably attach the bending plate between the display and the multi-bar.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Li teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17. Cha further teaches the first adhesive member is attached to an upper surface of the bending plate and the second adhesive member is attached to a lower surface of the bending plate (“attached to both surfaces of the rolling sheet 1045,” ¶ 144). While Cha does not explicitly describe the extent of the respective surfaces to which the adhesive members are attached, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the direction given by Cha, to attach the first and second adhesive members to the entire upper and lower surfaces of the bending plate, respectively, or to attach the second adhesive member to the part of the lower surface of the bending plate that overlaps the upper surfaces of the bars, as an obvious arrangement for accomplishing the purpose taught by Cha of bonding the upper and lower surfaces of the rolling sheet to the lower surface of the display and the upper surfaces of the support bars, respectively, since the court has held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of engineering design choice when the rearrangement of parts would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/JOSHUA KADING/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved August 14 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/among
2 In Cha, reference number “1045” is used in the specification to denote the rolling sheet, which is understood to correspond to reference number “1046” used throughout the figures.
Prosecution Insights