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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, and 13 are amended in the current application.
Claim 8 is canceled in the current application.
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from consideration in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) over claims 1, 5, 6, and 12 set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
However, the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) over claim 13 still remains, because the issue set forth below still remains.
Applicant argues that Su does not teach “edges of an orthographic protection of the coating layer on a plane where the ultra-thin glass is located are protruded relative to edges of the ultra-thin glass,” because the claimed the coating layer is directly coated on an outer surface of the claimed ultra-thin glass without having an intervening adhesive layer such as disclosed by Su.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. The grounds of rejection have been updated as set forth below to reflect the present claim amendments.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., being directly coated, and without bonding via an intervening adhesive layer) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Moreover, the present claims use the transitional phrase “comprises.” The transitional term "comprising" (“comprises”), which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2111.03. The claimed invention is open-ended, and does not exclude the inclusion of additional layers or features. Therefore, any additional features of Su’s display device and flexible cover plate are permitted and can be included as reasonable intervening elements.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention achieves improved drop resistance and reliability.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., improved drop resistance and improved reliability) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Moreover, Su teaches the flexible display cover reduces damage caused by external forces to a display and improves protection by diffusing and eliminating impact forces (Su, [0005]-[0012], [0068]). These teachings are considered to be relevant and analogous to the asserted improved drop resistance and reliability characteristics.
Additionally, it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record,” see MPEP 2145, I. It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding improved drop resistance and reliability must be supported by objective evidence, a declaration, or an affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001.”
Claim Objections
Claims 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 15-19 were withdrawn in accordance with Applicant’s Restriction Election filed February 13, 2026. Claims 15-19 no longer appear in the claim set filed July 24, 2026. Claims 15-19 should either be presented with identifiers reciting “(Withdrawn),” or canceled with identifiers reciting “Canceled.” For the purposes of examination, Claims 15-19 are still considered to be withdrawn and presented in their form as shown in the claim set filed October 12, 2022.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the orthographic projection of the organic film." Claim 13 depends from claim 11 and claim 1, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to refer to an unrecited orthographic projection of the organic film, the previously recited orthographic projection of the adhesive film, or the previously recited orthographic protection of the shielding layer. For the purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as referring to an unrecited orthographic projection of the organic film and instead reciting “an orthographic projection of the organic film.”
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2021/0120691 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Su teaches a display device comprising a display panel substrate 12, a flexible display cover plate 11 disposed on the display panel; where the flexible display cover plate 11 improves protection and covers the display panel substrate 12 (i.e., encapsulates the display panel) and is disposed on a light emitting side of the display panel substrate 12; the flexible display cover plate 11 comprises a second cover plate 1122 that includes ultra-thin glass, a protective coating layer, and a flexible thin film; a bonding layer 1121; and a first cover plate 111 that includes ultra-thin glass, a protective coating layer, a flexible thin film, and a hardened coating layer (Su, Abstract, [0005]-[0039], [0058]-[0065], [0088]-[0091], Figs 3, 14). Su teaches the protective coating layers, hardened coating layer, and flexible thin films can be formed of a polymer material or an organic material (Su, [0012], [0017], [0020], [0064], [0067], [0069]). Su teaches the ultra-thin glass has a thickness of 0.01 to 0.2 mm (10 to 200 microns) (Su, [0011]). Su’s ultra-thin glass thickness closely encompasses the interpreted ultra-thin thickness range of 15 to 150 microns, and therefore, renders obvious the range (MPEP 2144.05). Su teaches edges of an orthographic projection of the first cover plate 111 protective coating layer, flexible thin film, and/or hardened coating layer is protruded relative to edges of the second cover plate 112 ultra-thin glass as denoted by the gap 113 (Su, [0014]-[0015], [0074]-[0076], Figs 10-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
269
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Su – Figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
317
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Su – Figure 10
PNG
media_image3.png
307
555
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Su – Figure 14
Regarding Claim 2, Su teaches edges of an orthographic projection of the first cover plate 111 protective coating layer, flexible thin film, and/or hardened coating layer is protruded relative to edges of the second cover plate 112 ultra-thin glass (Su, [0014]-[0015], [0074]-[0076], Figs 10-11). Su teaches a difference between the protruded edges forms a gap 113, where the length and width of the second cover plate 112 are 90% to 99.99% relative to the first cover plate 111 (Su, [0014]). Although Su remains silent regarding a specific quantitative value of the gap 113, taking a basis of a first cover plate 111 with length x width of 50 mm x 50 mm (50000 microns x 50000 microns) yields a gap 113 range of [50000 – 0.9*(50000)]/2 = [50000 – 45000]/2 = 2500 microns; [50000 – 0.9999*(50000)]/2 = [50000 – 49995]/2 = 2.5 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that Su’s 90% to 99.99% length x width range teachings yield embodiments having gap 113 ranges that overlap the claimed range of 15 microns or less, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05, MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 3, Su teaches the flexible display cover plate 11 is formed of the first cover plate 111 that comprises the protective coating layer (i.e., a first coating layer) and the hardened coating layer 1112 (i.e., a second coating layer) and the second cover plate 112 that also comprises protective coating layers, where the hardened coating layer is disposed on a surface that is away from the second cover plate 112 ultra-thin glass (Su, [0012]-[0029], [0069]-[0079], Figs 6-12).
Regarding Claim 4, Su teaches the flexible display cover plate 11 is formed of the first cover plate 111 that comprises the protective coating layer (i.e., one of the first coating layers) and the hardened coating layer 1112 (i.e., the second coating layer) and the second cover plate 112 that also comprises protective coating layers (i.e., second and third instances of the first coating layers), where these layers are all alternately arranged within the flexible display cover plate 11 stacked structure (Su, [0012]-[0029], [0069]-[0079], Figs 6-12).
Regarding Claim 5, Su teaches the protective coating layers, hardened coating layer, and flexible thin films can be formed of a polymer material or an organic material, where polymer materials include PET (polyester), PI (polyimide), and acrylic resin (Su, [0012], [0017], [0020], [0064], [0067], [0069]).
Regarding Claim 6, Su teaches the protective coating layers, hardened coating layer, and flexible thin films can further comprise inorganic materials that include oxides (Su, [0012], [0017], [0067]).
Regarding Claim 7, Su teaches the thickness of the hardened coating layer is from 0.1 μm to 100 μm (Su, [0021]). Su’s range overlaps the claimed range of 15 to 300 microns, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, Su teaches edges of an orthographic projection of the first cover plate 111 protective coating layer, flexible thin film, and/or hardened coating layer is protruded relative to edges of the second cover plate 112 ultra-thin glass (Su, [0014]-[0015], [0074]-[0076], Figs 10). Su teaches a difference between the protruded edges forms a gap 113, where the length and width of the second cover plate 112 are 90% to 99.99% relative to the first cover plate 111 (Su, [0014]). Although Su remains silent regarding a specific quantitative value of the gap 113, taking a basis of a first cover plate 111 with length x width of 50 mm x 50 mm (50000 microns x 50000 microns) yields a gap 113 range of [50000 – 0.9*(50000)]/2 = [50000 – 45000]/2 = 2500 microns; [50000 – 0.9999*(50000)]/2 = [50000 – 49995]/2 = 2.5 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that Su’s 90% to 99.99% length x width range teachings yield embodiments having gap 113 ranges that encompass the claimed range of 30 microns to 100 microns, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05, MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 10, Su teaches the flexible display cover plate 11 comprises a flexible thin film layer exhibiting specific light transmittance property (i.e., a shielding layer) that is disposed within and exists near edges of the flexible display cover plate 11 stacked structure, a bonding layer 1121 (i.e., an adhesive film), and an organic material-based protective coating layer 1114 disposed on a side of the bonding layer 1121 away from the ultra-thin glass (Su, [0012]-[0029], [0069]-[0079], Figs 6-12).
Regarding Claim 11, Su teaches the flexible display cover plate 11 comprises a bonding layer 1121 (i.e., an adhesive film) and an organic material-based protective coating layer 1114 disposed on a side of the bonding layer 1121 away from the ultra-thin glass (Su, [0012]-[0029], [0069]-[0079], Figs 6-12). Su teaches the organic material-based protective coating layer 1114 comprises a first area and a peripheral area, where an orthographic projection of the bonding layer 1121 is located within a range of an orthographic projection of the first area (Su, Figs 6, 10). Su teaches the flexible display cover plate 11 comprises a flexible thin film layer exhibiting specific light transmittance property (i.e., a shielding layer) that can be disposed within the second cover plate 112 within a range of the peripheral area discussed above on a surface closer to the second cover plate 112 ultra-thin glass (Su, [0018]-[0019], [0067]-[0069]).
Regarding Claim 12, Su teaches edges of an orthographic projection of the first cover plate 111 protective coating layer, flexible thin film, and/or hardened coating layer is protruded relative to edges of the second cover plate 112 ultra-thin glass, where the protruded edges do not overlap with the second cover plate ultra-thin glass (Su, [0014]-[0015], [0074]-[0076], Figs 5-10).
Regarding Claim 13, Su teaches an orthographic projection of the first cover plate 111 organic material based flexible thin film covers an orthographic projection of the first cover plate 111 protective coating layer and hardened coating layer (Su, [0014]-[0020], [0064]-[0076], Figs 5-10).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights