DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/1/2022 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 5, said claim is held to be indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the PI coating layer is formed to cover a front surface, a back surface, and side surfaces of the glass substrate so as to wrap an entire region of the glass substrate” Specifically, it is unclear what is meant by “wrap an entire region” if the claim further requires that the coating “cover” a front, back and side surfaces. Does “cover” require something more/less than “wrap an entire region”?
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, and 11--20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2023/0239384) in view of (a) Yun (US 2022/0064059) (b) Nishio et al (US 2022/0085307), (c) Goshima et al (US2011/02103075), and (d) Fujiwara (US 2021/0030246)
Lim teaches a glass-based flexible cover window comprising a planar portion formed so as to correspond to a planar region of a flexible display and a folding portion formed so as to be connected to the planar portion, the folding portion being formed so as to correspond to a folding region of the flexible display (abstract).
Lim does not teach the glass layer should comprise PI coating layers formed on opposite surface of the glass substrate. However, Yun teaches the application of shatterproof polyimide coating onto a flexible glass substrate in order to prevent shattering of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize Yun’s coated glass substrate as the substrate of Lim in order to improve the shatter-proof properties of the substrate.
Lim also does not teach that the glass should further comprise “an adhesive layer formed on a back surface of the glass substrate….wherein the adhesive layer has a structure including a first optically clear adhesive layer, a support film layer, and a second optically clear adhesive layer, and the support film layer is disposed between the first optically clear adhesive layer and the second optically clear adhesive layer.” However, Nishio teaches a foldable display film (abstract). Nishio teaches the flexible film may be applied to a display (00148) by using a double-sided adhesive sheet having the tradename OPTERIA MO-3006C (00123). The examiner notes the OPTERIA MO series of double sided adhesive sheets are known to be optically clear. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to attach a clear double sided adhesive film such as OPTERIA MO to the back surface of the glass substrate taught in Lim. The motivation for doing so would have been Nishio teaches such double sided adhesive may be utilized to attach foldable films to underlying structures.
Lim does not teach the polyimide coating layer is made of material such that the polyimide coating layer has different strengths at the planar portion and the folding portion. However, Fujiwara teaches that the film of a foldable display should be made thinner at the folding portion in order to increase its flexibility and prevent cracking(0083). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed to make the polyimide coating thinner in the foldable sections of the display taught by Lin in view of Yun in order to increase their flexibility.
Said references also do not teach that the polyimide should further comprise a silane coupling agent. However, Goshima teaches that it is known to add silane coupling agents in amounts of 1-10 pbw to a polyimide composition in order to improve adhesion to adjacent layers (0044). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add 2-10pbw silane coupling agent to the polyimide layer in order to increase the adhesion of the polyimide to the adjacent layers.
With regards to claim 2, Yun teaches the PI coating layer is formed on opposite surfaces of the glass substrate (abstract).
With regards to claim 3, Yun teaches the PI coating layer has a thickness of 1 to 50 um (0017).
With regards to claim 6, Yun teaches the PI coating layer is formed on the glass substrate by coating (0092). With regards to the limitation that the coating “is then UV-hardened,” the examiner note said limitation is a method limitation. The courts have held the method of making a product does not patentably distinguish a claimed product from a product taught in the prior art unless the method of making the product inherently results in a materially different product. In the present application, no such showing has been made.
Similarly, with regards to claim 7, the limitation that “the PI coating layer is formed on the glass substrate by any one of bar coating, slot-die coating, and dip coating” is understood to be a method limitation. The courts have held the method of making a product does not patentably distinguish a claimed product from a product taught in the prior art unless the method of making the product inherently results in a materially different product. In the present application, no such showing has been made
With regards to claim 8, Yun teaches a functional layer may be formed on the PI coating layer formed on a front surface of the glass substrate (abstract).
With regards to claim 9, Lim teaches a buffer layer formed between a back surface of the glass substrate and a display panel (abstract).
With regards to claims 11, 14, and 16, Lim teaches n the glass substrate is integrally formed (0128; whole disclosure).
With regards to claims 12, 15, and 17, Lim teaches the glass substrate is formed such that the folding portion is slimmer than the planar portion (abstract).
With regards to claims 13 18, 19, and 20, Lim teaches the glass substrate is formed such that the folding portion is divided into two or more pieces (see 0124-0128).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant argues claim 5 has been amended to clarify. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive for the reasons noted above.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With regards to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable overLim (US 2023/0239384; hereinafter "Lim") in view of Yun (US 2022/0064059; hereinafter "Yun") and Nishio et al. (US 2022/0085307; hereinafter "Nishio"), applicant argues claim 1 (from which the rest of the claims
directly or indirectly depend) has been amended to require "a polyimide coating layer formed on the glass substrate, the polyimide coating layer having a weight ratio of polyimide to silane coupling agent of 100:2 to 100:10," and to recite "wherein the polyimide coating layer is made of a material configured such that the polyimide coating layer has different strengths at the planar portion and the folding portion", which is further distinguishable over the combination of Lim, Yun, and Nishio, which do not teach or suggest all the limitations as set forth in amended Claim 1. Said argument is noted but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant further argues Lim does not teach or suggest "a polyimide coating layer formed directly on an entire surface of the glass substrate, the polyimide coating layer having a weight ratio of polyimide to silane coupling agent of 100:2 to 100:10," as recited in amended Claim 1. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as Lim was never relied upon for such a teaching. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues Yun’s teaching regarding "the application of a shatterproof polyimide coating onto a flexible glass substrate in order to prevent shattering the substrate" does not cure this deficiency. Specifically, applicant argues Yun does not teach or suggest "a polyimide coating layer formed on the glass substrate, the polyimide coating layer having a weight ratio of polyimide to silane coupling agent of 100:2 to 100:10," as recited in amended Claim 1. Said argument is noted but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Furthermore, applicant argues the combination of Lim and Yun also does not teach or suggest an adhesive layer comprising a first optically clear adhesive layer, a support film layer, and a second optically clear adhesive layer, as recited in amended Claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes OPTERIA MO-3006C is a double sided adhesive; thus, it is understood to comprise adhesive layers on either said of a support film. Additionally, applicant argues neither Lim or Yun teach or suggest that "the polyimide coating layer is made of a material configured such that the polyimide coating layer has different strengths at the planar portion and the folding portion" as set forth in amended Claim 1. Said argument is noted but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Yun with Lim to include Yun's shatterproof polyimide coating "to improve the shatter-proof properties of the substrate" as asserted by the Examiner, and there would have been no reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the present claimed invention by doing so because
because Lim already teaches inclusion of a buffer member "disposed on the glass member" (paragraph [0010]) either above and/or below the glass member (paragraphs [0130] and [0131] of Lim). Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as applicant teaches the laminate may further comprise a buffer layer 400, below the glass. Applicant further notes a buffer layer and a scattering prevention film 440 may be disposed on the glass member 410. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as applicant is not comparing the claimed invention to the closest prior art. Furthermore, the claimed invention does not exclude the presence of additional layers between the glass layer and the polyimide film.
Applicant further argues the disclosure in paragraph [0006] of Lim that that "a polyimide film has relatively low hardness” demonstrates one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to include a shatterproof polyimide coating as taught in Yun especially since, Lim did not teach including such a coating and instead taught a buffer member and scattering prevention film - each of which is made of a material different from polyimide - to serve that purpose. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive for the reasons of record. Specifically, Lim teaches a shatterproof film is desirably applied to the glass substrate and Yun teaches polyimide films may be used for such a purpose.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason or motivation to combine Nishio with Lim and Yun in order to arrive at the claimed invention for the same reasons discussed above. Said argument is not persuasive for the reasons noted above.
Applicant further argus that, even if a prima facie case of obviousness is established, Table 1 demonstrates the presently claimed glass-based flexible cover window has been shown to provide an unexpected and significant improvement in pen-drop resistance and hardness that is superior over known flexible cover windows in the prior art. Applicant contends Table 1 demonstrates the exemplary flexible cover window of the present claimed invention with a PI coating layer formed directly on the entire surface of the glass substrate and having a weight ratio of PI to primer of 100:5, within the scope of amended Claim 1 demonstrated unexpectedand significantly improved hardness and resistance over each of the Comparative Examples 1-3. Applicant asserts all the structural features that provide the unexpected and significant improved resistance and hardness demonstrated by the data are recited in amended Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787