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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1 and 4-20 are currently pending, of which claims 11-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 9, and 10 have been amended and claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2015/0043174).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a window panel comprising a base substrate having a plurality of grooves (second areas 370) provided in recesses (372) (Fig. 4). The width of the grooves having a range from about tens of micrometers to about thousands of micrometers (0063), overlapping the claimed width in a first direction parallel to a main extension direction of about 80 micrometers to about 100 micrometers.
Han teaches a thickness (h2) in a lowest side of the groove in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction of smaller than about 100 micrometers (0066), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 25 to about 40 micrometers. As Han teaches an overlapping range for thickness of the base in the lowest side of the groove overlapping the claimed thickness, Han would be capable of folding at a curvature radius of about 1.5 millimeters as claimed.
Han teaches the base having a thickness of about hundreds of micrometers (0063; i.e., 200 micrometers or more) and that the thickness (h2) is equal to or smaller than about 100 micrometers, thus a ratio of the lowest side of the groove and the entire thickness of the window is about 50 percent or less.
Regarding claim 4, Han teaches that the first areas have a width W1 in a range from about tens of micrometers to about thousands of micrometers (0063), overlapping the distance of about 100 to about 200 micrometers.
Regarding the overlapping ranges in claims 1 and 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Han teaches the base material including glass or plastic (0018). As this is the same material disclosed for the body unit (see specification page 9, lines 4-5), Han would be expected to have a compressed stress of about 200 megapascals to about 800 megapascals when a reinforced layer having a thickness of about 4 micrometers to about 80 micrometers is disposed on the surface as claimed.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Regarding claim 6, Han teaches the groove defined in a first side of the window and in a side which is tensioned when bent (Fig. 4-5, 0066).
Regarding claim 10, due to the tension on the groove when bent, Han teaches where a width at an entrance of the groove is greater than a width of the groove at the base (Fig. 6).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ko et al. (US 2014/0226275).
Regarding claim 7, Han discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Han does not teach first and second grooves defined in both a first side and a second side of the window and which are alternately arranged.
Ko, in the analogous field of flexible display devices teaches a body (100) comprising folding portions (150 and 160) the folding portions including an embodiment (10C), where each surface comprises a plurality of grooves and the grooves are alternately arranged (Fig. 10C).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the groove pattern of Han to include a second set of grooves on the surface opposite the first surface and alternately arranged, as taught by Ko, to provide for flexibility at different bend angles (0016).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Ko as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Han et al (US 2018/0097197) herein after Han ‘197.
Regarding claim 8, Han in view of Ko disclose the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. Modified Han does not teach the first and second grooves having different widths in the first direction.
Han ‘197, in the analogous field of flexible display devices (0002), discloses flexible back cover comprising a plurality of opening patterns (OP, Fig. 6). Han ‘197 teaches that the opening area of the opening pattern is appropriately selected to secure a predetermined rigidity while reducing stress from deformation (0055). Han ‘197 teaches varying the width of the opening area as well as alternating the pattern resulting in a reduction of stress (Fig. 12, 0060-0062, 0070).
While not expressly teaching first and second grooves having different widths, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious based upon the disclosure of Han ‘197 that the determination of width of a groove opening is a result effective variable i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have optimized the first and second groove widths, including to have different widths, to reduce stress from bending.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2018/0162095).
Regarding claim 9, Han discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Han does not teach a width at an entrance of the groove in the first direction which is less than a width in the groove in the first direction.
Lim, in the analogous field of display devices (0002), discloses a flexible display device comprising film having grooves (130). Lim teaches an embodiment where the grooves are wider near the base than at the entrance (Fig. 17).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the grooves of Han to comprise a width at an entrance that is less than a width at the base, as taught by Lim, to reduce stress and prevent damage from bending (0116).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 03/12/2026 have been entered.
Applicant argues that the claims require a specific geometric relationship between groove width, residual thickness below the groove and the ratio of residual thickness to total window thickness which together define a window structure that simultaneously achieves improved impact resistance and foldability. Applicant argues that the rejection fails to address this required interrelationship.
For obviousness it is not necessary for the prior art to suggest the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. It is well established that one of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in the prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings. See MPEP 2144.IV.
Applicant argues that if thickness of the body portion below the groove is too thin it cannot sufficiently absorb impact but if it is too thick it may adversely affect flexibility, and a thickness exceeding 40 µm makes 1.5R folding impossible. Applicant argues that Han merely discloses a thickness smaller than about 100 micrometers may give flexibility but does not disclose that the thickness enables a folding, particularly 1.5 R folding.
Han appreciates that the thickness affects the flexibility and teaches an overlapping range for thickness of the body, which would enable or be capable of folding at a curvature radius of about 1.5 millimeters as claimed.
Applicant argues that Han merely discloses the thickness of the base and thickness (h2) as independent dimensional parameters and does not suggest any relationship between them, thus Han does not teach the claimed ratio as a result-effective variable.
It is noted that the rejection does not set forth that the claimed ratio is a result-effective variable. Han teaches ranges for the thickness of the base and thickness (h2). The claimed ratio results from the constraints of the individual ranges. This value overlaps the claimed range.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 5 that there is insufficient evidence to establish inherency and that the compressed surface stress depends on chemical strengthening conditions, reinforced layer thickness and residual substrate geometry.
Claim 5 requires the window to have the compressed stress property “when a reinforced layer having a thickness of about 4 to about 80 micrometers is disposed on the surface of the window”. Thus, the claim requires the compressed stress when the reinforced layer having a certain thickness is on the surface of the window. Han teaches the claimed window, thus when a reinforced layer as recited in the claim is disposed on the surface of the window, the compressed stress must be met.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights