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 .
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.
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.
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, 4, 6, 10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (KR 102369002, previously cited) in view of Han (US 10074824, previously cited), and Goto (US 4430416).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang teaches a method for manufacturing a display device which is divided into a folding region and a non-folding region ([0024]), and includes a support member (100) in which a plurality of openings (400) is defined corresponding to the folding region ([0029]), and a display module (“display panel”) disposed in an upper portion of the support member ([0077]), the method comprising: providing a preliminary support member (100) including carbon or glass ([0012], [0037]); providing a mask (200; [0041]) in which a plurality of mask openings (forming pattern layer 300 as viewed in fig 1) is defined on the preliminary support member ([0042]); spraying an abrasive on the preliminary support member exposed by the plurality of mask openings ([0053]; described as “sand blasting”); and removing the mask ([0058]); wherein between the providing the preliminary support member and the providing the mask on the preliminary support member, providing a sacrificial layer (“thin film layer”) on the preliminary support member, wherein the mask is disposed on the sacrificial layer ([0044]; sacrificial layer formed “before forming the mask layer” on the preliminary support member 100).
Hwang does not explicitly describe the carbon or glass material is in the form of a carbon or glass fiber reinforced plastic. However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Han teaches a method of manufacturing a display device wherein a provided preliminary support layer (200) includes carbon or glass fiber reinforced plastic (col 6, lines 53-61). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a material reinforced by carbon or glass fiber as the preliminary support member of Hwang, as carbon and glass reinforced materials are known as being suitable for use in flexible display support members dur to their light weight and high strength as taught by Han (col 6, lines 53-61).
Hwang does not teach the sacrificial layer comprises a silicone-based resin. However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Goto teaches a blasting method wherein a sacrificial layer (“adhesive layer”) is provided on a preliminary support member (“etchable material”; col 6, lines 44-48), wherein a mask (resist 7) is disposed on the sacrificial layer, wherein the sacrificial layer comprises a silicone-based resin (col 6, lines 49-57). As the sacrificial layer of Hwang is provided to improve adhesion between the preliminary support member and the mask ([0044]), and Goto teaches that silicone-based resins are known for use in adhering masks to the workpiece (col 6, lines 44-57), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a silicone-based resin as the material of the sacrificial layer of Hwang, silicone-based resins being known to a person of ordinary skill as providing the intended effect of adhesion between the elements.
Regarding claim 4, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang further teaches providing the mask on the preliminary support member comprises: providing a preliminary mask (200) on the preliminary support member and defining the plurality of mask openings on the preliminary mask (as described [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Hwang further teaches the providing the mask on the preliminary support member further comprises, before defining the plurality of mask openings on the preliminary mask, providing a support substrate including a same material as that of the preliminary mask on a lower surface facing an upper surface of the preliminary support member (as shown in fig 1, a support substrate 200 is formed on a lower surface of the preliminary support layer 100 and faces the upper surface, which has the preliminary mask (also labeled 200); [0041-0042] describes forming these layers (which is the same masking material) on the upper and lower surfaces before forming the opening pattern in the mask). While Hwang is silent as to the sequence of providing the preliminary mask and support substrate it has been held that “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.). The claimed sequence of providing the support substrate “between” providing the preliminary mask and forming the mask openings (this effectively claims providing the preliminary mask before the support substrate) achieves no unexpected result and would be an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill. Furthermore, as the claimed sequence is among a finite number of predictable solutions (the layers 200 of Hwang may be formed on the top surface before the bottom surface (the claimed solution), the layers may be provided on the bottom surface before the top surface, or the layers may be simultaneously provided), this would have been obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I. E.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support substrate between the providing of the preliminary mask and defining the plurality of mask openings.
Regarding claim 10, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang further teaches the spraying the abrasive on the preliminary support member comprises: defining sacrificial openings on the sacrificial layer exposed by the plurality of mask openings ([0044]; thin film layer is patterned together with the mask 200) and defining openings in the preliminary support member exposed by the plurality of mask openings and the sacrificial openings ([0053]; blasting happens through patterned openings).
Regarding claim 15, Hwang as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang further teaches the mask (200) has a thickness of 20 to 500 micrometers ([0081]), fully encompassing the claimed range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mask with a thickness of about 30 to 100 micrometers in the method of Hwang as claimed, as this range is fully encompassed by Hwang and known to provide an effective mask for the abrasive processing of the support member.
Regarding claim 16, Hwang as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang further teaches the preliminary support member has a thickness of 50 to 300 micrometers ([0039]), fully encompassing the claimed range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a preliminary support member with a thickness of about 120 to 200 micrometers in the method of Hwang as claimed, as this range is fully encompassed by Hwang and known to provide a support member with appropriate strength, folding characteristics and processability as taught by Hwang ([0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang further teaches the mask (200) with mask openings forming pattern (300; fig 3) is used as a mask to form openings (400) in the support member by sandblasting ([0053], [0082]), indicating that the abrasive (sand) passes through each of the plurality of mask openings. As this would be impossible with an abrasive having a greater diameter than a width of the mask openings, the disclosure of Hwang implicitly discloses a width of each of the plurality of openings in a first direction (any direction, as the claim does not define a particular direction) is greater than a diameter of the abrasive.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Han, and Goto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moser (US 2021/0008689, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang, further implies a hardness of the abrasive being greater than a strength of the preliminary support member ([0082]; as the abrasive forms the openings in the support member through blasting, the abrasive must be harder than the preliminary support member), and the Mohs hardness of the abrasive being less than that of the mask ([0082], as the mask is used as a pattern layer to define the holes where the abrasive penetrates). In other words, if the abrasive were harder than the mask, the mask would be destroyed in the blasting process, and if the mask were softer than the preliminary support member, the abrasive would not form holes in the preliminary support member through blasting. Furthermore, Moser teaches a blasting process wherein a mask (120) “is capable of withstanding” an abrasive spraying process ([0030]), and further describes the hardness of the chosen abrasive relative to the blasted material directly impacts the ability of the abrasive to penetrate the material ([0031]). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an abrasive in the method of Hwang such that the Mohs hardness of the abrasive is less than a strength of the mask and greater than a strength of the preliminary support member, as Moser explicitly teaches choosing the relative strength of the abrasive, mask, and workpiece material directly effects the tendency to penetrate the workpiece ([0030-0031]), and Hwang desires the abrasive to penetrate the support member and not the mask (Hwang [0082]).
Regarding claim 13, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang does not teach the mask comprises at least one of a stainless steel alloy, an Invar alloy, aluminum, copper, or thermoplastic polyurethane. However, it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07). Moser teaches a blasting process using a mask (120) which comprises a stainless steel alloy ([0030]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select stainless steel as the material of the mask of Hwang, as stainless steel is known to be suitable as a mask in an abrasive blasting process, and has the requisite strength to be capable of withstanding the abrasive blasting as taught by Moser ([0030]).
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Han, and Goto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wee (US 2010/0285725, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang is silent as to a material of the abrasive. However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Furthermore, Wee teaches an abrasive blasting method including spraying an abrasive on a workpiece ([0023]), wherein the abrasive comprises aluminum oxide ([0024]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select aluminum oxide as the abrasive material in the method of Hwang, as aluminum oxide is known to be suitable as an abrasive blasting material as taught by Wee, and is known to have the strength required to penetrate a workpiece without damaging a mask layer (Wee [0068]).
Regarding claim 14, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang is silent as to a particular average diameter of the abrasive. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.). Applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range. Furthermore, Wee teaches a method of abrasively blasting a workpiece wherein the abrasive particles have an average diameter ranging from 5 to 2800 micrometers ([0024]), fully encompassing the claimed range. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an abrasive having an average diameter between 30 and 100 micrometers in the method of Hwang, as abrasives with a diameter within this range are known for blasting as taught by Wee ([0024]), and the particle size is a known results effective variable which effects the ability of the blasting process to remove material from the workpiece as taught by Wee ([0015]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Han, and Goto as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hirokai (WO 2007/091476, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Hwang is silent as to exactly how the plurality of mask openings on the preliminary mask are defined ([0042] describes a “patterning” process on a mask layer which is a photoresist coating, but is silent as to the specifics of the process), and therefore does not teach wet-etching the preliminary mask. Hirokai teaches a method of blasting a pattern onto a workpiece by defining a pattern in a preliminary mask ([0109]), wherein the mask is a photoresist coating (“photosensitive resin layer”), wherein the desired pattern is formed by wet-etching the preliminary mask ([0109]; the unexposed portions of the photoresist coating are “dissolved and removed” to form openings in the mask for subsequent blasting). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). As Hwang uses a photoresist coating to form the mask (Hwang [0042]) and Hirokai teaches patterning a photoresist coating by wet-etching the preliminary mask ([0109]), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize wet-etching to define the plurality of mask openings in the preliminary mask of Hwang, as wet-etching is a known technique in the field of abrasive blasting for achieving the predictable result of exposing a desired blast pattern on a workpiece as taught by Hirokai ([0109]), which technique allows fine opening patterns as taught by Hirokai ([0109]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Han, and Goto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moser (US 2021/0008689, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hwang does further teaches defining the plurality of mask openings on a preliminary mask ([0042]; “patterning” preliminary mask 200). Hwang does not teach defining the plurality of mask openings before providing the mask on the preliminary support member (in Hwang, the mask is provided on the preliminary support layer before defining the openings). However, it has been held that “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.). Furthermore, Moser teaches a method of forming a plurality of openings in a workpiece by abrasively blasting the workpiece through a patterned mask, including steps for defining a plurality of mask openings (124) on a preliminary mask (120; [0030]; opening pattern is formed by EDM or waterjet cutting) and then providing the mask on the workpiece ([0030] describes positioning the mask on the workpiece, where the mask already includes the openings therein). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the steps of Hwang such that the defining of the openings in the preliminary mask occurs before providing the mask on the preliminary support member, as this reversal does not change the outcome of the subsequent blasting process and is a known sequence for achieving the predictable result of providing a patterned mask on a workpiece as taught by Moser ([0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as described above. Hwang further teaches the mask (200) is directly disposed on the preliminary support member (as shown in fig 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Han, and Goto as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Komatsu (US 5989689, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Hwang does not teach a Mohs hardness of the sacrificial layer is less than a Mohs hardness of the abrasive. Komatsu teaches a method of forming a pattern in a workpiece through the use of a mask (col 4, lines 39-41) which is attached to the workpiece via a sacrificial layer (“PSA film”) having a hardness less than a hardness of a sprayed abrasive (col 2, lines 39-50; the film is “blastable” and immediately removed by the sprayed abrasive, and thus is determined to have a lower hardness than the abrasive). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sacrificial layer in the method of Hwang which has a Mohs hardness less than that of the abrasive, as this ensures the sacrificial layer does not significantly prevent the abrasive from abrading the workpiece as taught by Komatsu (col 2, lines 39-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that the prior art of Hwang and Han do not teach the claimed silicone-based resin material of the sacrificial layer. However, as detailed above, the newly relied upon Goto reference renders this limitation obvious.
Regarding claim 6, applicant argues that the claimed sequence of providing the preliminary mask and support substrate is not taught by Hwang. These arguments are persuasive. While this claimed feature is not explicitly described by Hwang, as detailed in the rejection above, the teachings of Hwang are sufficient to render such a sequence obvious for a person of ordinary skill. See the rejection above for additional discussion. As the basis of the rejection of claim 6 has changed, this office action is being made nonfinal. Examiner regrets any inconvenience to the applicant.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 112b rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723