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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 2/26/25 were previously entered. Claims 2 and 20 stand cancelled. This leaves claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22 currently active and pending.
The rejection below has been updated to reflect the amendments to the claims.
In view of the Appeal brief filed on 11 November 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New Grounds of rejection aare set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/FRANK J VINEIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 13, 14, 16-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton (US 2021/0216100) in view of Han et al. (US 2018/0097197).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 16, 21, and 22, Smeeton teaches a substrate for a display device, where the substrate may be formed from a brittle inorganic material, such as glass (Smeeton para 54, 62, 88, 90) comprising two opposing sides and a circumferential edge (Smeeton fig 1B), where the substrate has at least three sections, including at least one first section (Smeeton fig 1A, item 110) and two second sections (Smeeton fig 1A, items 120A,B), where the first section is between the two second sections (Smeeton fig 1A).
Smeeton further teaches that the first section comprises a plurality of openings through the full thickness (i.e. from one side to the opposing side) of the substrate (Smeeton para 55; fig 1A items 116) to provide the first section with higher flexibility than the second sections (Smeeton, para 14). Smeeton additionally teaches that the openings are arranged in lines where adjacent openings are separated by a first web, and the openings of a second line are separated from the first by a second web, and where the webs are offset from each other (Smeeton annot. fig 1A, below). Smeeton teaches that the lines of the openings (116) may be rectilinear (straight lines), oblong (rounded contour), narrower at both ends than the middle and other shapes (Smeeton fig 1A, 2A, 4A-D) and that the first section (110) forms a hinge for the two second sections (120A,B).
Because Smeeton teaches the same structure, with the same materials, as claimed, Smeeton would be expected to possess properties such the first section would provide for stresses at surfaces generated by bending would be at least 50% less than a similar unstructured element and that when the first section of the element is structured such that bending the first section about a bending axis until breakage results in the element breaking into two fragments, where a combined weight of the two fragments is 95% the weight of the element. 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), See MPEP 2112.01.
Finally, Smeeton teaches that the shape of the openings is not limited to those explicitly disclosed in their specification (Smeeton para 83).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Smeeton does not explicitly teach the claimed shape of the opening where the openings have a varying width along their longitudinal direction, where there are two maxima spaced apart in the longitudinal direction, with a minimum width located between the two maxima.
Smeeton and Han are related to perforated substrates in flexible display devices. Han teaches an element with at least three sections, a flexible first section (R3), with two second sections (R1, R2) where the first section has openings with an oblong shape with maxima of width at each longitudinal end, and a minimum of width located between the two maxima (Han fig 10, para 64-67) where this shape provides a reduction in bending stress applied to the flexible substrate (Han para 71; fig 12).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the openings of Smeeton to be oblongs with two maxima of width at each longitudinal end and minimum of width between as taught by Han because this shape provides a reduction in bending stress applied to the flexible substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Smeeton in view of Han teaches an inorganic, brittle, flexible material as above for claim 1. Smeeton illustrates that the first and second webs are interconnected (Smeeton annot. fig 1A) and that when the first section is bent, the web portions undergo rotational (torsional) strain (Smeeton fig 1C). Further Smeeton illustrates that there may be varying number of lines of openings, for example, 5 lines in Figure 1A or 10 lines in Figure 2A. Smeeton shows at least 4 sections of the interconnecting ‘web’ being bent in figure 1C, or at least 4/5; Figure 2C shows 8/10 segments undergoing strain. Both of these meet the claimed requirement that ‘at least 1/3 of the total webs in the mesh’ undergo torsional strain.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 14, Smeeton in view of Han teaches an inorganic, brittle, flexible material as above for claim 1. Smeeton further teaches that the Young’s Modulus (stiffness) of the glass substrate is typically between 50 and 80 GPa (Smeeton para 60) while the Young’s Modulus of the two filler materials, which may be plastics such as elastomers, acrylic resins, and other UV curable optical adhesive materials (Smeeton para 59) in the openings (116), the first is between 10 kPa and 100 MPa, and the second is 100 MPa and 5 GPa (Smeeton para 59). Both materials have Young’s modulus well below half that of the substrate material, as such, it would follow that the flexibility of the first section would be at least two times higher than that of the second sections. Smeeton further teaches that the filler material may have substantially similar or the same refractive index as the substrate material (Smeeton para 87).
Regarding claims 17-19, Smeeton teaches a substrate for a display device, where the substrate may be formed from a brittle inorganic material, such as glass (Smeeton para 54, 62, 88, 90) comprising two opposing sides and a circumferential edge (Smeeton fig 1B), where the substrate has at least three sections, including at least one first section (Smeeton fig 1A, item 110) and two second sections (Smeeton fig 1A, items 120A,B), where the first section is between the two second sections (Smeeton fig 1A). Smeeton further teaches that the first section comprises a plurality of openings through the full thickness (i.e. from one side to the opposing side) of the substrate (Smeeton para 55; fig 1A items 116) to provide the first section with higher flexibility than the second sections, thus allowing for the substrate to fold and have the two second sections moveable relative to each other, even to the point that the two second sections may ‘face’ each other in parallel (Smeeton, para 14; fig 1A,F; fig 2A,E). Smeeton additionally teaches that the openings are arranged in lines where adjacent openings are separated by a first web, and the openings of a second line are separated from the first by a second web, and where the webs are offset from each other (Smeeton annot. fig 1A). Finally, Smeeton teaches that the lines of the openings (116) may be rectilinear (straight lines), oblong (rounded contour), narrower at both ends than the middle and other shapes (Smeeton fig 1A, 2A, 4A-D) and that the first section (110) forms a hinge for the two second sections (120A,B).
Finally, Smeeton teaches that the shape of the openings is not limited to those explicitly disclosed in their specification (Smeeton para 83). As such, barring a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size and/or shape of the openings as taught by Smeeton, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A, B). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to alter the size and/or shape of the openings to have two maxima of a width that are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction, with an intermediate minimum of the width located between the maxima.
However, Smeeton does not explicitly teach the claimed shape of the opening where the openings have a varying width along their longitudinal direction, where there are two maxima spaced apart in the longitudinal direction, with a minimum width located between the two maxima.
Smeeton and Han are related to perforated substrates in flexible display devices. Han teaches an element with at least three sections, a flexible first section (R3), with two second sections (R1, R2) where the first section has openings with an oblong shape with maxima of width at each longitudinal end, and a minimum of width located between the two maxima (Han fig 10, para 64-67) where this shape provides a reduction in bending stress applied to the flexible substrate (Han para 71; fig 12).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the openings of Smeeton to be oblongs with two maxima of width at each longitudinal end and minimum of width between as taught by Han because this shape provides a reduction in bending stress applied to the flexible substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton in view of Han as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kim (US 2018/0138442).
Regarding claim 7, Smeeton in view of Han teaches an inorganic, brittle, flexible material as above for claim 1. Smeeton further teaches that there may be one or more folding regions and one or more non-folding regions (Smeeton para 54).
Smeeton in view of Han is silent with respect to specifically having a first section encompass one of the second sections, with the other second section encompassing the first section.
Smeeton in view of Han and Kim are related in the field of folding display devices. Kim teaches an embodiment with a first non-folding region (NFA1; a first “second section”), a second non-folding region (NFA2; second “second section”), a third non-folding region (NFA3; a third “second region” and two folding regions, FA1 and FA2 (Kim para 116, figs 4C, 5C). Kim shows that the FA1 and FA2 are each encompassed by NFA1/NFA2 and NFA2/NFA3, respectively (Kim fig 4C, 5C); thus, in turn, FA1 and FA2 encompass NFA2 (Kim fig 4C, 5C). Kim further teaches this arrangement provides for a display device with an improved curved shape and resistance to layers separating or delaminating.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flexible display device of Smeeton in view of Han to have the NFA1/FA1/NFA2/FA2/NFA3 arrangement of flexible and non-flexible regions by incorporating the second folding region and third non-folding region as taught by Kim because this would provide for an improved curved display device with resistance to delamination.
Claims 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton in view of Han as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Xue et al. (US 2020/0199013).
Regarding claims 9-12 and 15, Smeeton in view of Han teaches a glass, brittle, flexible material as above for claim 8.
Smeeton in view of Han is silent with respect to the composition of the glass.
Smeeton in view of Han and Xue are related in the field of flexible display cover glasses. Xue teaches a glass composition as follows (in wt%)(Xue para 27, 43, unless otherwise noted): SiO2 52-66; B2O3 0-8; Al2O3 15-25; Na2O 0-20; Li2O 0-6; MgO 0-6; ZrO2 0-2.5; SnO2 0.01-1; K2O 0-5; ZnO 0-4; TiO2 0-2; CaO 0-5; and BaO 0-5 (Xue para 77-78). Further, the DoL is 30 µm or less (Xue para 35). Xue teaches this toughened composition has improved bendability, chemical toughening property, and radiation stability (Xue para 2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the glass composition as taught by Xue as the glass substrate of Smeeton because this would provide the display glass of Smeeton with improved bendability, chemical toughening property, and radiation stability. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Smeeton in view of Han in view of Xue overlaps with the instantly claimed compositional proportions and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 3-19, 21, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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 B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 2/20/26