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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 11/03/2025, in which claims 1 and 24 were amended, claim 8 was cancelled, claims 4, 9-11, 13-23, 25-27 were withdrawn, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR10-2021-0132691 filed on 10/06/2021. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application KR10-2021-0132691 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application KR10-2021-0132691 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application KR10-2021-0132691 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al. (US Pub. 20210201712) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20220206529), Hyun et al. (US Pub. 20220209165) and Paskiewicz et al. (US Pub. 20210402742).
Regarding claim 1, Chun et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0002], [0005], [0006], [0010]-[0011], [0038]-[0048] a display apparatus comprising:
a display panel which is foldable with respect to a folding axis [CL][paragraph [0005], [0011]]; and
a cover window [100] disposed on the display panel [paragraph [0011]], wherein a folding portion [A1] and a peripheral portion [A2] adjacent to the folding portion [A1] are defined in the cover window [100],
wherein the cover window [100] includes:
a first layer [130] including a plurality of projection portions [132] apart from each other in a first direction;
a second layer [120] partially concave to accommodate the plurality of projection portions [132] and coupled to the projection portions [132] with a gap therebetween; and
a resin [140] filled in the gap;
wherein the first layer [130] is a film layer;
wherein a thickness of an area [A1] of the second layer [120], which accommodates the plurality of projection portions [132], is less than a thickness of an area [A2] of the second layer [120] which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions [132].
PNG
media_image1.png
328
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chun et al. fails to disclose
the second layer is a glass layer.
Paskiewicz et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0017]
the second layer [302] is a glass layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Paskiewicz et al. into the method of Chun et al. to include the second layer is a glass layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chun et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of the second layer of a cover window [paragraph [0017] of Paskiewicz et al.].
Chun et al. fails to disclose
the thickness of the area of the second layer, which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is less than a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions.
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 2
the thickness of the area of the second layer [114], which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is less than a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer [114] which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions
PNG
media_image2.png
331
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee et al. further suggests in paragraph [0056], [0058] a height of the plurality of projection portions can be adjusted. In other words, Lee et al. implicitly discloses that the thickness of the area of the second layer which accommodates the plurality of projection portions can be adjusted. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for the thickness of the area of the second layer which accommodates the plurality of projection portions such as: the thickness of the area of the second layer which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is greater than/less than/equal to a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try the thickness of the area of the second layer which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is less than a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer with a reasonable expectation of success.
For further providing support, Hyun et al. is cited.
Hyun et al. discloses in Fig. 2
the thickness [t2] of the area of the second layer [121], which accommodates the plurality of projection portions [122] is less than a half of the thickness [t1] of the area of the second layer [121] which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions [122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hyun et al. and Lee et al. into the method of Chun et al. to include the thickness of the area of the second layer, which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is less than a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chun et al. in the above manner for the purpose of achieving improved folding properties without a decrease in impact resistance [paragraph [0057]-[0058] of Lee et al., paragraph [0067]-[0068] of Hyun et al.].
Regarding claim 2, Chun et al. discloses in paragraph [0037], [0042] wherein a material [polyethylenenaphthalate (PEN), polyimide (PI)] included in the first layer [130] is different from a material [an acryl-based or epoxy-based material, or an organic-inorganic hybrid coating layer] included in the second layer [120].
Regarding claim 3, Chun et al. discloses in Fig. 2 wherein the plurality of projection portions [132] is disposed in the folding portion [A1].
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein the folding portion has a radius of curvature when folded, and a length of an area in which the plurality of projection portions is disposed is greater than π times the radius of curvature” directs to property of the folding portion and an area in which the plurality of projection portions is disposed. Chun et al. disclosed in Fig. 2 the claimed folding portion and an area in which the plurality of projection portions is disposed. Thus, the folding portion and an area in which the plurality of projection portions is disposed disclosed by Chun et al. would possesses the claimed property of “the folding portion has a radius of curvature when folded, and a length of an area in which the plurality of projection portions is disposed is greater than π times the radius of curvature”. 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 12, Chun et al. discloses in Fig. 2 wherein the plurality of projection portions [132] is disposed to interlock with the second layer [120].
Regarding claim 24, Chun et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0002], [0005], [0006], [0010]-[0011], [0038]-[0048] a display apparatus comprising:
a display panel which is foldable with respect to a folding axis [CL][paragraph [0005], [0011]]; and
a cover window [100] disposed on the display panel [paragraph [0011]], wherein a folding portion [A1] and a peripheral portion [A2] adjacent to the folding portion [A1] are defined in the cover window [100],
wherein the cover window [100] includes:
a first layer [130] including a plurality of projection portions [132];
a second layer [120] including a plurality of accommodation patterns which accommodates the plurality of projection portions [132].
wherein the first layer [130] is a film layer;
wherein a thickness of an area [A1] of the second layer [120], which accommodates the plurality of projection portions [132], is less than a thickness of an area [A2] of the second layer [120] which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions [132].
PNG
media_image3.png
423
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
328
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chun et al. fails to disclose
the second layer is a glass layer.
Paskiewicz et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0017]
the second layer [302] is a glass layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Paskiewicz et al. into the method of Chun et al. to include the second layer is a glass layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chun et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of the second layer of a cover window [paragraph [0017] of Paskiewicz et al.].
Chun et al. fails to disclose
the thickness of the area of the second layer, which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is less than a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions.
Lee et al. discloses in Fig. 2
the thickness of the area of the second layer [114], which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is less than a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer [114] which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions
PNG
media_image2.png
331
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee et al. further suggests in paragraph [0056], [0058] a height of the plurality of projection portions can be adjusted. In other words, Lee et al. implicitly discloses that the thickness of the area of the second layer which accommodates the plurality of projection portions can be adjusted. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for the thickness of the area of the second layer which accommodates the plurality of projection portions such as: the thickness of the area of the second layer which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is greater than/less than/equal to a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try the thickness of the area of the second layer which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is less than a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer with a reasonable expectation of success.
For further providing support, Hyun et al. is cited.
Hyun et al. discloses in Fig. 2
the thickness [t2] of the area of the second layer [121], which accommodates the plurality of projection portions [122] is less than a half of the thickness [t1] of the area of the second layer [121] which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions [122].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hyun et al. and Lee et al. into the method of Chun et al. to include the thickness of the area of the second layer, which accommodates the plurality of projection portions is less than a half of the thickness of the area of the second layer which does not accommodate the plurality of projection portions. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chun et al. in the above manner for the purpose of achieving improved folding properties without a decrease in impact resistance [paragraph [0057]-[0058] of Lee et al., paragraph [0067]-[0068] of Hyun et al.].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 20220206529) and Hyun et al. (US Pub. 20220209165) and Paskiewicz et al. (US Pub. 20210402742) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shin et al. (US Pub. 20160014881).
Regarding claim 6, Chun et al. fails to disclose
wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the resin have a same refractive index as each other.
Shin et al. discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0060]
wherein the first layer [610 and 621], the second layer [upper portion of 623] and the resin [lower portion of 623] have a same refractive index as each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Shin et al. into the method of Chun et al. to include wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the resin have a same refractive index as each other. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chun et al. in the above manner for the purpose of enhancing transmissivity and visibility of the cover window [paragraph [0060] of Shin et al.]. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 12, 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893