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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on June 20, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 14, and 17 are amended; claims 4, 12, and 13 are canceled; resulting in claims 1-3, 5-11, and 14-20 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, in light of the previous amendments to claim 1 replacing the phrase “opening ratios” with “area ratios”, it is suggested to amend the limitation in claim 16 reciting “wherein an opening ratio of the glass layer corresponding to the first and second regions is different from an opening ratio of the glass layer corresponding to the third region” to --wherein an area ratio of the third openings formed in the first and second regions is different from an area ratio of the plurality of openings formed in the third region-- in order to use consistent language throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 5-11, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘111 (US 2020/0313111, previously cited) in view of Cheng (CN 110767094, previously cited) and Sunwoo et al. (KR 102162567, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kim ‘111 teaches an electronic device (10) comprising a display (14) mounted in a housing (12), wherein the housing may have first and second housing portions that rotate with respect to each other as the device is folded about its bend axis (22) using hinge (20) or other flexible structures joining the first and second housing portions ([0028], Figs. 1, 3, 4). The display (14; flexible display) includes a flexible portion (14B; bendable third portion) located between portions (14A, 14C; first and second portions) ([0032], Figs. 1, 6).
Kim ‘111 teaches that the display (14) comprises a display cover layer (24; window layer) provided over underlying display layers (66; display panel, subsidiary material layer), wherein the cover layer includes transparent dielectric layers (62-1, 62-2) made of glass ([0083], [0088], see Fig. 14 reproduced below). As illustrated in Fig. 6, the display cover layer can include rigid portions (24A; first and second regions) which correspond to portions (14A; first and second portions) of the display, and a flexible portion (24B; third region) which aligns with flexible region (14B) of the display ([0044]-[0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
268
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The lower transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer, sheet of glass) has a plurality of slits (82; openings) formed in the flexible portion (24B; third region), wherein an index-matching layer (86-2; filling member) is provided to fill the slits ([0084]-[0085], Figs. 14, 18). Kim ‘111 teaches that the slits may extend entirely through the transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) ([0091], Fig. 14). Therefore, as shown in Fig. 14, the slits are formed to pass through the second surface of the transparent dielectric layer facing the display panel layers from the first surface facing the outside of the electronic device. Kim ’111 further teaches that the index-matching layer has an index of refraction that is close to or equal to the index of refraction of transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) in order to avoid the slits being visible to a user [0085]. Therefore, the transparent dielectric layer has a first refractive index which is substantially equal to the second refractive index of the index-matching layer.
Although Kim ’111 teaches that the slits are formed in the transparent dielectric layer to increase the flexibility thereof and to mitigate visible artifacts caused by materials having different indices of refraction ([0084]-[0085]), the reference does not expressly teach that the slits are formed to have different area ratios depending on a local curvature of the glass layer as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of flexible display devices, Cheng teaches a flexible display device (80) comprising a flexible display panel (81) covered by a flexible cover (82) [0068]. Similar to Kim ‘111, Cheng teaches that the flexible cover comprises a hardened layer having filling holes (openings) filled with a first filling material (filling member) to improve the flexible cover’s ability to release bending stress, thereby reducing the risk of cracks caused by bending ([0031], [0035], [0042], Figs. 2-6).
PNG
media_image2.png
289
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in Figs. 4a-4b, Cheng further teaches an embodiment in which the widths (area ratios) of the filling holes gradually decrease from the bending line (L) to both sides of the flexible cover, where such a configuration is said to improve the stress release capability of the flexible cover plate ([0042]-[0043]). Therefore, Cheng teaches that the plurality of filling holes are formed to have different area ratios depending on a curvature of each bent region when the display is in a folded state, where the curvature of each bent region is understood to correspond to its distance from the bending line.
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 electronic device of Kim ‘111 by forming the slits to have different area ratios in the bending portion as claimed, as taught by Cheng, in order to improve the stress release capacity of the cover layer containing the slits, thus reducing the risk of cracks caused by bending the electronic device.
Kim ‘111 in view of Cheng differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach that first and second boundary areas of the first and second surfaces and the inner surfaces of each of the plurality of openings are tapered or curved.
However, in the analogous art of flexible display devices, Sunwoo et al. teaches a flexible cover window for a flexible display, comprising first and second windows (110, 120) formed of glass and disposed on an upper portion of a flexible display, a third window (130) formed between the first and second windows and disposed in a folding area of the flexible display, and a transparent resin portion (150) filled between the first and second windows, wherein the third window is formed as a single window or a plurality of third windows ([0025], Figs. 1-4). Therefore, the spaces between the first and second windows and the third window which are filled with transparent resin correspond to the claimed plurality of openings formed in the third region of the glass layer. Similar to Kim ‘111 and Cheng, Sunwoo et al. teaches that the transparent resin material is selected so as to have almost the same refractive index as glass [0105]. Sunwoo et al. further teaches that the end portions (first and second boundary areas) of the first, second, and third windows in contact with the transparent resin portion are formed with a chamfer portion or with a smooth curved shape (tapered or curved) so as to minimize the specular reflection of the first and second windows, thereby minimizing the visibility of the boundary ([0052], [0070]-[0074], Fig. 3).
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 electronic device of Kim ‘111 in view of Cheng by forming the first and second boundary areas to be tapered or curved, as taught by Sunwoo et al., in order to minimize specular reflection and visibility of the boundary of the glass.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kim ’111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Fig. 14 above, Kim ‘111 further teaches that a second index-matching layer (86-1; planarization layer) is stacked on the second surface of the transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) and is made of the same material as the first index-matching layer (86-2; filling member) ([0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claims 7-9, Kim ’111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Kim ‘111 further teaches that the display cover layer includes an upper transparent dielectric layer (62-1; additional glass layer) stacked on the first surface of the lower transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) and a self-healing layer (64; first polymer layer) stacked on the upper transparent dielectric layer ([0048], [0089]). Kim ‘111 teaches that the transparent dielectric layers (62-1, 62-2) may both be glass layers, and that the self-healing layer may be formed from polymer ([0048], [0083], [0088]). Therefore, the upper transparent dielectric layer and the self-healing layer together correspond to the claimed protective layer which is stacked on the first surface.
Regarding claim 10, Kim ’111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above, and Kim ‘111 further teaches that the thickness of the lower dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) may be greater than the thickness of the upper dielectric layer (62-1; additional glass layer) [0084].
Regarding claim 11, Kim ’111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above, and Kim ‘111 further teaches that the display cover layer includes a second index-matching layer (86-1; second polymer layer) disposed between the transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) and the display layers (66; display panel), wherein the index-matching layer may be formed from a polymer material ([0087], Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 14, Kim ’111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. It is noted that the limitation recited in claim 14 does not set forth a particular shape or arrangement structure of the plurality of openings. The electronic device of Kim ‘111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. meets all of the limitations of claim 1 and thus inherently satisfies the limitation of claim 14 requiring that the bendability of the third region depends on a shape or an arrangement structure of the plurality of openings.
It is further noted that Kim ‘111 teaches that any desired number and shapes of slits (82; openings) may be formed in the transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) ([0097]), such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the teachings of Kim ‘111 that the shape or arrangement structure of the plurality of openings can be selected based on the desired flexibility and bending characteristics of the electronic device.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Kim ‘111 teaches an electronic device (10) comprising a display (14) mounted in a housing (12; bendable housing), wherein the display (14; flexible display) includes a flexible portion (14B; bending portion) that overlaps the bend axis (22), and the housing may contain a hinge (20) or other flexible structure to allow the device to bend about the bend axis (22) ([0028], [0032], Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6). Kim ‘111 teaches that the display (14) comprises a display cover layer (24; window layer) provided over underlying display layers (66; display panel, subsidiary material layer), wherein the cover layer includes transparent dielectric layers (62-1, 62-2) made of glass ([0083], [0088], Fig. 14). As illustrated in Fig. 6, the display cover layer includes a flexible portion (24B) that corresponds to the flexible region (14B; bending portion) of the display ([0044]-[0045]).
The lower transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer, sheet of glass) has a plurality of slits (82; openings) formed in the flexible portion (24B; bending portion), wherein an index-matching layer (86-2; filling member) is provided to fill the slits ([0084]-[0085], Figs. 14, 18). Kim ‘111 teaches that the slits may extend entirely through the transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) ([0091], Fig. 14). Therefore, as shown in Fig. 14, the slits are formed to pass through the second surface of the transparent dielectric layer facing the display panel layers from the first surface facing the outside of the electronic device. Kim ’111 further teaches that the index-matching layer has an index of refraction that is close to or equal to the index of refraction of transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) in order to avoid the slits being visible to a user [0085]. Therefore, the refractive index of the transparent dielectric layer is substantially equal to the refractive index of the index-matching layer.
Although Kim ’111 teaches that the slits are formed in the transparent dielectric layer to increase the flexibility thereof and to mitigate visible artifacts caused by materials having different indices of refraction ([0084]-[0085]), the reference does not expressly teach that the slits are formed to have different area ratios depending on a local curvature of the glass layer as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of flexible display devices, Cheng teaches a flexible display device (80) comprising a flexible display panel (81) covered by a flexible cover (82) [0068]. Similar to Kim ‘111, Cheng teaches that the flexible cover comprises a hardened layer having filling holes (openings) filled with a first filling material (filling member) to improve the flexible cover’s ability to release bending stress, thereby reducing the risk of cracks caused by bending ([0031], [0035], [0042], Figs. 2-6).
As illustrated in Figs. 4a-4b, Cheng further teaches an embodiment in which the widths (area ratios) of the filling holes gradually decrease from the bending line (L) to both sides of the flexible cover, where such a configuration is said to improve the stress release capability of the flexible cover plate ([0042]-[0043]). Therefore, Cheng teaches that the plurality of filling holes are formed to have different area ratios depending on a curvature of each bent region when the display is in a folded state, where the curvature of each bent region is understood to correspond to its distance from the bending line.
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 electronic device of Kim ‘111 by forming the slits to have different area ratios in the bending portion as claimed, as taught by Cheng, in order to improve the stress release capacity of the cover layer containing the slits, thus reducing the risk of cracks caused by bending the electronic device.
Kim ‘111 in view of Cheng differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach that first and second boundary areas of the first and second surfaces and the inner surfaces of each of the plurality of openings are tapered or curved.
However, in the analogous art of flexible display devices, Sunwoo et al. teaches a flexible cover window for a flexible display, comprising first and second windows (110, 120) formed of glass and disposed on an upper portion of a flexible display, a third window (130) formed between the first and second windows and disposed in a folding area of the flexible display, and a transparent resin portion (150) filled between the first and second windows, wherein the third window is formed as a single window or a plurality of third windows ([0025], Figs. 1-4). Therefore, the spaces between the first and second windows and the third window which are filled with transparent resin correspond to the claimed plurality of openings formed in the region of the glass layer corresponding to the bending portion. Similar to Kim ‘111 and Cheng, Sunwoo et al. teaches that the transparent resin material is selected so as to have almost the same refractive index as glass [0105]. Sunwoo et al. further teaches that the end portions (first and second boundary areas) of the first, second, and third windows in contact with the transparent resin portion are formed with a chamfer portion or with a smooth curved shape (tapered or curved) so as to minimize the specular reflection of the first and second windows, thereby minimizing the visibility of the boundary ([0052], [0070]-[0074], Fig. 3).
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 electronic device of Kim ‘111 in view of Cheng by forming the first and second boundary areas to be tapered or curved, as taught by Sunwoo et al., in order to minimize specular reflection and visibility of the boundary of the glass.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Kim ’111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 above, and Kim ‘111 further teaches that the display cover layer includes an upper transparent dielectric layer (62-1; additional glass layer) stacked on the first surface of the lower transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) and a self-healing layer (64; first polymer layer) stacked on the upper transparent dielectric layer ([0048], [0089]). Kim ‘111 teaches that the transparent dielectric layers may both be glass layers, wherein the thickness of the lower dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) may be greater than the thickness of the upper dielectric layer (62-1; additional glass layer), and that the self-healing layer may be formed from polymer ([0048], [0083]-[0084], [0088]). Therefore, the upper transparent dielectric layer and the self-healing layer together correspond to the claimed protective layer which is stacked on the first surface of the window layer.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘111 (US 2020/0313111, previously cited) in view of Cheng (CN 110767094, previously cited) and Sunwoo et al. (KR 102162567, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim ‘052 (US 2016/0357052, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Kim ‘111 teaches that the slits (82; openings) are formed in the flexible portion (24B; third region) of the transparent dielectric layer (62-2; glass layer) to increase the flexibility thereof ([0084]), and Cheng teaches that the widths of the filling holes (421; openings) gradually decrease from the bending line (L) towards the side edges of the flexible cover in order to improve the stress release capacity of the cover layer, thus reducing the risk of cracks caused by bending the flexible display device ([0042]-[0043], Figs. 4a-4b), the combination of references does not specifically teach that the third region includes first and second sub-regions having first and second openings as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of flexible display devices, Kim ‘052 teaches a foldable display device (100) comprising a cover window (190), a display panel (110), and a backplate (180) including opening patterns (182) in a folding region (FR) thereof ([0036], Fig. 3). In an embodiment of the foldable display device, Kim ‘052 teaches that the folding region (FR; third region) of the backplate includes edge portions (ED; second sub-regions) and a center portion (CN; first sub-region) interposed between edge portions, wherein opening patterns (782; second openings) in the edge portions have a first width (w1), while opening patterns (782; first openings) in the center portion have a second width (w2) which is larger than the first width ([0151]-[0152], Fig. 9A). Kim ‘052 teaches that when the backplate is in a folded state, the backplate has a first curvature radius in the edge portion (ED) and a second curvature radius in the center portion (CN) which is smaller than the first curvature radius ([0153], Fig. 9B). Accordingly, Kim ‘052 teaches that the size (opening ratio) of the opening pattern may be gradually increased from the edges to the center while maintaining a constant spacing between openings in order to decrease or relax the stress on the display device in the regions where the curvature radius is the highest, such that damage to the display panel can be reduced or prevented ([0155]-[0156]).
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 electronic device of Kim ‘111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. by adjusting the opening ratio of the first and second openings in first and second sub-regions of the third region according to the curvature of the sub-regions during bending such that the second opening ratio is lower than the first opening ratio, as taught by Kim ‘052, in order to more effectively decrease the stress on the electronic device in areas of high curvature radius, thus reducing or preventing damage to the display panel that may occur during bending.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘111 (US 2020/0313111, previously cited) in view of Cheng (CN 110767094, previously cited) and Sunwoo et al. (KR 102162567, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee ‘012 (US 2022/0093012, previously cited).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kim ’111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Kim ‘111 further teaches that the display cover layer (24) may include flexible regions (24B) in rigid areas (14A; first and second portions) of display (14) (e.g., in areas of the display that do not bend) ([0045]), the combination of references does not expressly teach a plurality of third openings formed in the first and second regions of the glass layer.
However, in the analogous art of flexible display devices, Lee ‘012 teaches a cover window (10) having a bendable area (BA; third region) located between first and second flat areas (FAa, FAb; first and second regions), which correspond to the bendable area and first and second flat areas of the display device (1) ([0071], Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2D). Lee ‘012 teaches that the cover window may include patterns (110; openings) in the bendable area and may further include dummy patterns (120a, 120b; third openings), wherein the patterns and dummy patterns are formed as grooves (111, 121a, 121b) in the glass base film (11; glass layer) of the cover window ([0073]-[0075]). Similar to Kim ‘111, Lee ‘012 teaches that the grooves are filled with soft portions (12, 13a, 13b; filling material) having a refractive index that corresponds to (e.g., matches) that of the base film, wherein the soft portions used to fill the grooves may be made of the same material as the soft portions used to fill the dummy grooves ([0079], [0082]).
PNG
media_image3.png
525
775
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee ‘012 further teaches that the patterns (110; openings) are provided to improve the flexibility characteristics of the cover window, while the dummy patterns (120, 120b; third openings) are provided to improve the visibility of the cover window, for example, to prevent or reduce the visibility of the bendable area ([0078], [0083]). As illustrated in Fig. 2A, reproduced above, Lee ‘012 teaches that the lengths of the first and second dummy patterns are gradually reduced as a distance from the bendable area is increased so that a color of the cover window may not be suddenly changed around a border between the bendable area and the first and second flat areas ([0083]-[0084], Figs. 2A, 4A, 5A, 8A). Thus, Lee ‘012 teaches that by forming the openings such that an opening ratio of the glass layer is different between the first and second regions and the third region, it may be more difficult to recognize a color difference between the regions [0095].
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 electronic device of Kim ‘111 in view of Cheng and Sunwoo et al. by forming third openings in the first and second regions having an opening ratio different from an opening ratio of the openings formed in the third region, as taught by Lee ‘012, in order to make it more difficult to recognize a color difference between the third, bendable region and the adjacent first and second regions, thus improving the optical properties of the window layer.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 1, 14, and 17 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed June 20, 2025. However, the previous objection to claim 16 has not been addressed by the Applicant’s arguments or amendments and has therefore been maintained in the office action above.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 directed to Han et al. (US 2024/0032229), it is noted that the present application has received the benefit of the foreign priority date upon receipt of the English translation of the foreign priority document. Han et al. is no longer eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) given that its publication date and effective filing date are both after the effective filing date of the present invention. The previous rejections based on Kim ‘111 in view of Han et al. and Sunwoo et al. are therefore withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections relying on Cheng, the Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the remarks that Cheng fails to teach the claimed feature requiring that the plurality of openings are formed to have different area ratios within a certain region of the third region depending on a specified local curvature of each bent interval of the glass layer when the electronic device is in a folded state. In particular, the Applicant argues that although Cheng teaches a gradual decrease of the widths of the filling holes, the distance from the bending line L in Cheng is not the same as the claimed local curvature.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, Cheng teaches a flexible cover plate having filling holes (openings) with widths that gradually decrease from the center bending line (L) toward both sides of the flexible cover ([0042]-[0043], Figs. 4a-4b). Cheng further teaches that when the flexible cover is bent, the bending stress shows a tendency of gradually decreasing from the bending line (L) toward both sides [0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ‘bending stress’ of each bent interval of the flexible cover when in a folded state directly corresponds to the local curvature of each bent interval. It is understood based on the teachings of Cheng that the bending stress is the highest at the bending line (L) where the curvature of the flexible cover is the greatest, thus requiring the widest filling holes, while at a distance further from the bending line, smaller filling holes are used because the bending stress is lower due to the smaller curvature.
Cheng teaches that the width of the filling holes gradually decreases from the bending line toward both sides in order to improve the stress release capability of the flexible cover [0043]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Cheng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the openings to have different area ratios within the bending region, where the area ratios depend on a local curvature of each bent area (i.e., depending on the bending stress of each bent interval) of the glass layer when in a folded state, in order to improve the stress release capability thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koo et al. (US 2019/0132987) is cited as additional evidence that the formation of openings having different area ratios depending on a specified local curvature of each bent interval is well-known. Koo et al. teaches an electronic device comprising a flexible frame having a flexible portion which includes a first region including a first plurality of holes having a first size and a second region including a second plurality of holes having a second size (Abstract). The first region is positioned closer to the center axis of the flexible frame than the second region, and an area ratio of the first plurality of holes is greater than an area ratio of the second plurality of holes (Abstract, Fig. 1). The first portion is bendable up to a maximum first curvature, and the second portion is bendable up to a maximum second curvature, where the first curvature is larger than the second curvature due to the area ratio of the first holes being greater than the area ratio of the second holes ([0015], Fig. 2).
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785