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 .
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the original disclosure for the claimed “"a material constituting a portion of the polyimide coating layer corresponding to the planar portion has a strength different from a strength of a material constituting a portion of the polyimide coating layer corresponding to the folding portion" There is no support for said limitation in the original disclosure. Applicant argues said limitation is supported by claim 10 of the KR priority application which applicant states says, “ The above PI coating layer is formed of a material having the same or different strength in the planar portion and the folding portion.” The examiner notes no certified translation of the KR application has been filed. Furthermore, the translation provided by applicant fails to support the newly claimed limitation. For instance, the translation requires the PI layer to be formed of “a material” with different strengths in the planar and folding portions. The claim, however, is open to the material of the planar portion to be distinct from the material of the folding portion. Such embodiments are not supported by the KR application.
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, 11-13, 16, 17, and 19 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), (d) Fujiwara (US 2021/0030246), and (e) WO2020/231959 (herein referred to as “Corning”).
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 surfaces 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.
Lin also does not teach the polyimide layer should fully encapsulate the glass substrate. However, Corning teaches a foldable consumer electronic device . Said device may have the glass fully encapsulated by a polymer coating, such as polyimide (0096) in order to prevent the introduction of additional flaws to the surface of the glass based article and allows any fragments produced in the event of fracture to be contained (0096). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to fully encapsulate the glass substrate of Lin with a polyimide coating. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the introduction of additional flaws to the surface of the glass based article and allows any fragments produced in the event of fracture to be contained.
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, and 16, Lim teaches the glass substrate is integrally formed (0128; whole disclosure).
With regards to claims 12, 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 and 19, 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 6/23/2026 have been fully considered.
RESPONSE TO INDEFINITENESS REJECTION
With regards to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for allegedly failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the inventor regards as the invention because of the recitation "wrap an entire region", applicant persuasively argues claim 5 has been canceled, rendering the rejection moot.
THE PRESENT CLAIMED INVENTION Is NOT OBVIOUS OVER LIM, YUN, NISHIO, GOSHIMA, AND FUJIWARA
With regards to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2023/0239384; hereinafter "Lim") in view of Yun (US 2022/0064059; hereinafter"Yun"), Nishio et al. (US 2022/0085307; hereinafter "Nishio"), Goshima et al. (US 2011/02103075; hereinafter "Goshima"), and Fujiwara (US 2021/0030246), Applicant argues the Examiner cites Fujiwara for allegedly teaching that the film of a foldable display should be made thinner at the folding portion in order to increase its flexibility and prevent cracking (paragraph [0083]) and Goshima is cited for allegedly teaching that it was known to add silane coupling agents in amounts of 1-10 pbw to a polyimide composition in order to improve adhesion to adjacent layers (paragraph [0044]). Yun is relied upon to render obvious the addition of 2-10 pbw silane coupling agent to the polyimide layer in order to increase the adhesion of the polyimide to the adjacent layers.
Applicant argues the claimed invention provide an unexpected and significant improvement in pen-drop resistance and hardness that is superior over known flexible cover windows in the prior art, and that all the structural features that provide the unexpected and significant improved resistance and hardness demonstrated by the data are recited in present Claim 1. Applicant argues the unexpected and significant improvement in pen-drop resistance and hardness demonstrated by the present invention is commensurate in scope with present Claim 1 (from which all claims directly or indirectly depend). Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as applicant has failed to demonstrate (1) the results in the specification are compared to the closest prior art; (2) the results are commensurate in scope with the claimed invention; and (3) the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. Applicant is reminded they have the burden of explaining proffered data, and the mere conclusions that the results (1) are unexpected and significant improvement in pen-drop resistance and hardness demonstrated by the present invention; (2) that said showing is commensurate in scope with present Claim 1 and (3) that the comparative examples are representative of Lin are not sufficient to establish patentability based upon secondary considerations. Applicant has not explained why said single inventive example is commensurate in scope with the claim. The inventive example demonstrates a single (unspecified) polyimide (whereas the claim is directed to any polyimide), a single thickness (the claim is not limited to with regards to thickness); the inventive example requires an unspecified primer whereas the claims require a silane coupling agent (which applicant has not demonstrated is synonymous with the primer). Applicant also has not demonstrated only a single variable is altered between the inventive and comparative examples; allowing for direct comparison. Thus, the examine maintains applicant has failed to meet their burden with regards to establishing patentability based upon secondary considerations.
With respect to Goshima, applicant argues Goshima is directed to a polyimide resin composition for semiconductor devices wherein the only disclosure of a silane coupling agent is at paragraph [0044]
which applicant argues “generically discloses” silane coupling agents amongst various other compounds. Goshima teaches the "additives described above are preferably contained in an amount of 10 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the polyimide resin component." Applicant argues nothing in Goshima teaches or suggests the specific selection of a silane coupling agent. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as case law does not require a secondary reference to teach/suggest “the specific selection” of a feature in order to demonstrate adequate motivation for an obviousness rejection. The secondary reference demonstrates a skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proposed modification with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant further argues if a silane coupling agent was selected in Goshima, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Goshima with Lim, Yun, and Nishio to include a silane coupling agent in amounts of 1-10 pbw to a polyimide composition in order to improve adhesion to adjacent layers as asserted by the Examiner because Lim, Yun, and Nishio (as well as Fujiwara) are all entirely silent regarding a silane coupling agent. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as Lim, Yun, Nishio and Fujiwara were not relied upon to render obvious the addition of a coupling agent. 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 argues the Examiner's position is based upon “routine optimization” and argues said position is entirely inconsistent with the court's recognized requirement that an adequate, articulate reasoning is required to explain why it would have been "routine optimization" to select and adjust the polyimide coating layer to include a silane coupling agent as recited in amended Claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the position is based upon the explicit teachings of the secondary reference; not a “routine optimization” position. Thus, applicant’s argument does not seem germane to the rejection of record. While applicant argues none of the cited prior references teach or suggest inclusion of a silane coupling agent much less a "polyimide coating layer having a weight ratio of polyimide to silane coupling agent of 100:2 to 100:10," the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes Goshima explicitly teaches the inclusion of coupling agent to a polyimide composition, the amount of coupling agent that should be added, and the motivation/benefit of adding said coupling agent to a polyimide composition. Thus, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument that the Examiner has provided no basis in evidence or in the cited prior art references to substantiate such an allegation to combine the teachings of Goshima with Lim, Yun, and Nishio.
Applicant argues the court has emphasized that the mere existence of prior art elements is not sufficient to render a claimed invention obvious; rather, there must be a clear reason or rationale for a
person of ordinary skill in the art to combine those elements in the claimed manner. The examiner again notes that Goshima explicitly teaches a motivation for adding a silane coupling agent to a polyimide composition; specifically, silane coupling agents are taught to improve the poloyimide film’s adhesion. It is not clear why applicant considers such a teaching to lack “a clear reason or rationale to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine those elements in the claimed manner.” Thus, the rejection is maintained.
With regards to Fujiwara, applicant argues said reference does not cure the deficiencies discussed above, as Fujiwara is also entirely silent regarding a "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 Fujiwara was never relied upon for such a teaching. Rather, Goshima (as discussed above) was understood to render said feature of the claim obvious. 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 the examiner relies upon Fujiwara for the single teaching that the film of a foldable display should be made thinner at the folding portion in order to increase its flexibility and prevent cracking (paragraph [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. However, paragraph [0083] of Fujiwara teaches an organic SOG (spin-on-glass (SOG) film that is "laid through the folding area is thinner than the other portions". The SOG film is disclosed at paragraph [0019] as well as paragraphs [0076]-[0078] and shown in Fig. 2 of Fujiwara to be a separate film provided between the first resin layer and the second resin layer, and to be made up of a siloxane-based material as the main component (paragraph [0061] of Fujiwara). Applicant argues the SOG film is not made up of polyimide, and nothing in Fujiwara teaches or suggests, much less recognize or appreciate 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 recited in present Claim 1. THE examiner respectfully disagrees an maintains the cited teachings of in would have motivated the skilled artisan to make the proposed modification to end up at the claimed invention.
Applicant additionally rgues 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. 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.
For the reasons noted herein, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are rejected for the reasons of record.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 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
Prosecution Insights