CTFR 17/068,158 CTFR 93107 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 6-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al. (US 10,020,462) in view of Zhang et al. (US 9,947,882) and Youn et al. (US 2020/0183457) . Regarding claim 1 , Ai teaches electronic devices having a hinge which allows the devices to be flexed around a bend axis (Col. 1, Lines 22-24). The displays include a cover, formed from glass, which includes grooves to allow for the displays to bend (“a foldable apparatus comprising a foldable substrate foldable about an axis extending in a direction of a width of the foldable substrate, the foldable susbtrate further comprising: a first major surface, a second major surface, and a thickness (T) defined between the first major surface and the second major surface; a central portion comprising a plurality of grooves extending through the first major surface”) (Col. 1, Lines 25-32; Fig. 8). The grooves may have a width in the range of 1-200 microns and depths in the range of 5 to 100 microns wherein the thickness of the covers may be 100 microns (Col. 5, Line 65-Col. 6, Line 37). Ai is silent with respect to the spacings between the grooves. Zhang teaches electronic devices which includes a structural layer having rigid portions formed from glass and flexible portions which include a flexible material which allow for improved flexibility and isolates and absorbs impact energy so that energy does not travel two adjacent rigid structures (Col. 1, Lines 32-49). The flexible materials are provided between adjacent rigid structures and are taught to have widths of 1-200 microns along with depths of 5 to 200 microns in order to provide the flexibility such that more recesses improves the flexibility (Col. 8, Lines 30-49; Fig. 11). Furthermore, Zhang teaches the use of smaller rigid areas separated by multiple flexible materials isolates mechanical stresses to smaller areas of the display while allowing the improved flexibility (Col. 8, Lines 14-23). Youn teaches a cover window of a foldable display device which is formed from glass and protects a user from scattering of fragments due to external impact and reduces stress due to folding (Pg. 1, Paragraphs [0007]-[0009]). The window includes a folding area and non-folding areas (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0050]-[0051]). The folding areas include zigzag grooves which are more densely packed than in the non-folding areas in order to reduce the stress due to folding and to maintain rigidity in the non-folding areas (Pg. 6, Paragraph [0118]-[0122]; Fig. 3A-3B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the grooves of Ai such that the areas between the grooves (i.e. the rigid portions and the spaces between the zigzag grooves) are made smaller resulting in a more densely packed groove region such that making these areas smaller results in more isolation of mechanical stresses and improving flexibility as taught by both Zhang and Youn. MPEP 2144.05(II) : "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to form the grooves of Ai such that the areas between the grooves are made smaller in order to reduce the spread of mechanical stresses and to improve the flexibility of the covers as taught by Zhang and Youn. As such, it would have been obvious to optimize the size of these areas between the grooves with a similar range, or smaller as taught by Zhang, when compared to the widths of the grooves in order to achieve the improved flexibility and reduced mechanical stress. PNG media_image1.png 200 400 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale Furthermore, the values for the width, depth, area between the grooves and the thickness which are plugged into the equation of claim 1 results in the values as discussed below. As shown above, the resulting values range from -13.9095 to 7.45 which overlaps with that of the instantly claimed range. MPEP 2144.05(I) : In 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). PNG media_image3.png 200 400 media_image3.png Greyscale Ai additionally teaches groove parameters and thickness as discussed above and further teaches the central region as having a width of 10-1000 microns (Col. 5, Line 65-Col. 6, Line 37). The number of grooves may also range from 1-10,000 grooves (Col. 6, Lines 26-27). Ai further illustrates that the grooves may extend from one end of the cover to the other, which one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate as the grooves and the central region as having the same length (Ai, Fig. 8; Zhang, Fig. 11; Youn, Fig. 3B). As such, the calculation for volume are width*depth and the calculations are provided below. As shown above, the resulting Vg/Vc value is 0.01 to 2 which teaches values that overlaps with that of the instant claim. As discussed above, the range for the groove width/thickness is in the range of 0.01 to 2. As discussed above, the covers may be formed from glass. Regarding claim 3 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to optimize the areas between the grooves to be smaller in order to reduce mechanical stresses and to improve flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing invention to optimize the areas between the grooves to have an area between the grooves/thickness be in the range of 1.5 or less. Regarding claim 4 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the range for the groove depth/thickness is from 0.05 to 1. Regarding claim 6 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 11, the grooves may be straight and parallel to each other (Col. 6, Lines 37-45). Regarding claim 7 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As illustrated in figure 8, the grooves are substantially parallel to each other. Regarding claim 8 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1 which may have thicknesses of 100 microns. Regarding claim 9 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Ai further teaches the thickness between the bottom of the grooves and the bottom of the covers as being 20 to 60 microns (Col. 6, Lines 18-23). Regarding claim 10 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the groove width is in the range of 1-200 microns. Regarding claim 11 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Ai further illustrates that the grooves may extend from one end of the cover to the other, which one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate as the grooves and the central region as having the same length (Ai, Fig. 8; Zhang, Fig. 11; Youn, Fig. 3B). Regarding claim 13 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Ai is silent with respect to the covers having an effective minimum bend radius in a range of from 1 mm to 10 mm. However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials and the structure of the foldable substrate such that the foldable substrates are formed from glass and include grooves which have parameters which fall within the required values of the equation in claim 1 (See Instant Specification, PGPUB, Pg. 1, Paragraph [0006]; Pg. 5, Paragraph [0107]). MPEP 2112.01(I) : Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As discussed above, the combination of Ai in view of Zhang and Youn teaches covers for electronic devices, formed from glass, which include grooves that include parameters for widths, depths, thicknesses and areas between widths which result in overlapping values when applied to the equation of claim 1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the identical structures of instant claim 1 and those taught by the combination of Ai, Zhang and Youn would have identical properties as well, including an effective minimum bend radius in a range of from 1 mm to 10 mm. Regarding claim 14 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Ai further teaches the central region as having a width of 10-1000 microns (Col. 5, Line 65-Col. 6, Line 37). Regarding claim 15 , Ai teaches the covers as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Ai further teaches the grooves as including a polymer in the grooves (Col. 1, Lines 33-34). Zhang teaches electronic devices which includes a structural layer having rigid portions formed from glass and flexible portions which include a flexible material which allow for improved flexibility and isolates and absorbs impact energy so that energy does not travel two adjacent rigid structures (Col. 1, Lines 32-49). The flexible material may be an OCA to permit viewing of display layers (Col. 7, Lines 1-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the polymer in the grooves of Ai with an OCA in order to permit viewing of display layers, as taught by Zhang . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 7-10, applicant argues that the teachings of Ai, Zhang, and Youn are not combinable such that the instant claims require the substrate to be a glass-based substrate and Ai teaches a single layer whereas Zhang teaches polymeric materials in a multilayer structure. As such, the structures of Ai and Zhang are so different that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to combine the two references in order to teach the glass-based structure of claim 1. Firstly, the examiner notes that the teachings of Ai and Zhang are appropriately combinable based on the materials of Ai including both glass and polymeric materials having grooves formed within to increase flexibility and bendability and Zhang does teach polymeric materials including flexible portions filling grooves and rigid planar layers for the same purpose as Ai (See Rejection Above). Zhang further teaches the improvement in flexibility along with isolating mechanical stresses (Col. 8, Lines 14-23). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of these grooves in the structures for improvement in flexibility allow Ai to be combined with Zhang. It is further noted that the grooves of Zhang are only located in a single layer (See figures 9-11) and the multilayer structures of Zhang are not being brought into the structures of Ai. Instead, the teachings regarding the spacings or lengths of the rigid areas between grooves improving flexibility and isolating mechanical stresses is what is being applied to Ai. Youn further supports this statement such that Youn teaches folding areas with zig-zagged grooves are more densely packed in order to reduce stress during folding (Paragraphs [0118]-[0233]; Fig. 3A-3B). As such, Youn supports the teachings of Zhang that lower spacings between grooves resulting in increased flexibility of a folding area. Therefore, the examiner contends that the combination of Ai with the teachings regarding the grooves of Zhang and the grooves of Youn reducing spacing in order to increase flexibility is proper. On pages 10-11, applicant argues that none of Ai, Youn and Zhang fail to teach the parameters regarding the grooves being result-effective variables in order to achieve each of the elements of claim 1. The examiner disagrees such that each of the references of Ai, Youn, and Zhang aim to increase the flexibility of a foldable substrate through the use of grooves. Ai specifically teaches this through the application of grooves allowing the displays to bend and provides certain parameters to achieve the increased bending (Col. 1, Lines 25-32; Fig. 8; Col. 5, Line 65-Col. 6, Line 37). As discussed above, Youn and Zhang provide teachings which state that when the grooves are more closely spaced, flexibility is increased. As such, the decreasing of spacing between grooves, affects the flexibility of the substrates. Therefore, the examiner contends that the closer spacing of the grooves along with the original parameters taught by Ai result in the improved flexibility. On pages 11-19, applicant argues that the unexpected results are commensurate in scope with what is required by claim 1. Specifically, figure 12 illustrates the evidence that a ratio of Vg/Vc being 0.4 or more results in all stress ratio values being less than 1. Figures 13-16 illustrates that when Gw/T is 0.1 or more and less than 1, the equation of claim 1 is met and the stress ratios are less than 1 as well, illustrated by a dot. Applicant further notes that these figures illustrate the criticality of these values when utilized in claim 1. However, as noted in the previous rejection, dated 12/05/2025, on pages 9-10, it is noted that figure 12 illustrates numerous values when Vg/Vc is between 0.3 and 0.4. As noted on page 9, all except for 1 value, indicated by a star, in the range of 0.3 to 0.4 achieve the desired stress ratio being less than 1. Further described on page 9, there is no description in the instant specification as to why there was only a single value which did not achieve the desired stress ratio. As such, it is unclear as to how the range of 0.4 or greater provides unexpected results over values less than 0.4, such as from 0.3 to 0.4. Similarly, with respect to figures 13-16, the examiner again notes that applicant has not appeared to address the response the examiner provided on pages 9-10. Specifically, figure 13 shows values which are slightly less than 1.0 for Gw/T as shown below and would still result in values that do not satisfy the equation of claim 1. [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ] PNG media_image4.png 593 737 media_image4.png Greyscale Furthermore, each of figures 13-16 illustrate values within this range of 0.1 to 1.0 with a dot below the line designating the equation. As such, there are values within the claimed range which do not achieve the claimed equation and applicant’s arguments with respect to unexpected results are unpersuasive. Ultimately, the examiner contends that the combination of Ai, Youn and Zhang is still proper and the rejection is maintained. The current rejection is made FINAL. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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. /DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 2 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 3 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 4 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 5 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 6 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 7 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 8 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 9 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 10 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 11 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 12 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 17/068,158 Page 13 Art Unit: 1783
Prosecution Insights