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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s claim amendment and remarks have lead to confusion over claim 4. Claim 4 requires a solution in which alkali metal cation is dissolved. A solution having something dissolved therein typically requires a liquid, such as water however it is common to refer to chemical reinforcement salts as bath, or molten salt. Examiner would like Applicant to clarify on record what the presently claimed solution entails. For the purpose of this examination the slurry/dipping of Hwang in salt are considered to meet claim 4 given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Claim 1 recites:
“wherein the first and second chemical reinforcement processes are performed using the same ion exchange treatment”
There are definitively active steps of “performing a first chemical reinforcement process of the base glass substrate and a second chemical reinforcement process of the base glass substrate” however there is no absolute active step that defines what is considered the “ion exchange treatment” the term “treatment” is not used in the specification as originally filed. It is unclear if Applicant intends this to mean the method of application, such as submerging the glass substrate in a salt bath, or the exact same salt bath composition is used for performing a first chemical reinforcement process of the base glass substrate and a second chemical reinforcement process of the base glass substrate, or the exact same salt bath temperature, and/or time is used for performing a first chemical reinforcement process of the base glass substrate and a second chemical reinforcement process of the base glass substrate.
In general the term, treatment means subjection of something to the action of an agent or process by Merriam-Webster dictionary thus as used in claim 1 it can comprise various steps or manner of performing said steps. Without more and without anything in the specification correlating to this amendment it renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hwang et al. KR102111138 as cited in the English publication US 20210107826
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a method of manufacturing a foldable display [0003] comprising;
Providing a base glass substrate comprising a folding portion (portion F in Fig. 5 [0087]-[0088]) and non-folding portion (portion P in Fig. 5 [0087]-[0088]) which is disposed adjacent the folding portion and having a thickness greater than the folding portion as depicted in Fig. 5 and included below
PNG
media_image1.png
226
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hwang discloses performing a chemical reinforcement process on the base substrate [0089]
Hwang discloses performing a chemical reinforcement process on the non-folding portion (P) comprising covering the top and bottom of the folding portion (F) with a heat-resistant member, or heat-resistant masking tape, providing a chemical reinforcement process and removing the heat-resistant tape from the folded part [0095]-[0100], [0104].
Hwang discloses another chemical reinforcement process, corresponding to the claimed second chemical reinforcement process, where both the folding portion (F) and planar part (P) undergo a chemical reinforcing process [0104] (last step of Fig. 5).
Hwang states the thickness of the compressive stress layer, or DOL, is deeper in the planar part (P) than the folded part (F) [0102]-[0104] to minimize the difference in the central tension across the substrate.
As indicated above, it is unclear what the claim limitation of the “same ion exchange treatment” definitively means. Hwang discloses substituting potassium ions for sodium in the glass substrate (at least [0100]) which is considered to meet this claim limitation of the same ion exchange treatment. Alternatively, Hwang indicates in the chemical reinforcing treatment may be performed by a process such as chemical dipping, chemical slurry, or paste reinforcing [0090] and it would be obvious to use any of these ion exchange treatment methods in the first or second chemical reinforcing step as motivated to achieve chemical reinforcing via ion exchange.
Regarding claim 2, Hwang discloses a thickness of the planar portion (P) is 50-200 microns [0059].
Regarding claim 3, Hwang discloses chemical reinforcement to create compressive stresses this is known by a skilled artisan by replacing an alkali metal ion in the glass with an alkali metal ion with a larger radius as indicated by “ion substitution” [0099].
Regarding claim 4, Hwang discloses providing a slurry solution with the second alkali metal of potassium to the surface [0098] and heating to 350-480 deg. Celsius which has sufficient specificity to anticipate present claim 4.
MPEP 2131.03: thus a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”.
Regarding claim 5, Hwang discloses a second alkali ion of potassium.
Regarding claim 7, Hwang suggests a heat resistant member is a tape [0096]
Regarding claims 8-9, Hwang suggests a polyetherimide film and necessarily does not deform at a temperature less than or equal to 500 degrees Celsius.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. KR102111138 as cited in the English publication US 20210107826 as applied above and further in view of Yao (CN 104403306).
Regarding claims 10, Hwang discloses the heat-resistant tape being a polyamide tape [0096].
Yao discloses a polyamide tape thus it is heat resistant "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Yao discloses a heat resistant tape of polyamide has a glass fiber (0007)
Claim(s) 8 is alternatively rejected and 10 is primarily rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. KR102111138 as cited in the English publication US 20210107826 as applied above and evidenced by AstroAlloysInc. Silicone Rubber Fiberglass Heat Tape 2016 as provided herein and referred to AstroAlloysInc.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Hwang discloses multiple heat-resistant tapes being a silicone based tape [0096].
AstroAlloysInc discloses a glass reinforced a silicone-based adhesive tape that is available for masking and is heat resistant at the temperatures necessary of Hwang [0099] "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. KR102111138 as cited in the English publication US 20210107826 as applied above and further in view of Hayashi (US 5698725).
Regarding claims 9-10, Hwang discloses the heat-resistant tape being a polyamide tape [0096].
Hayashi discloses a polyamide glass fiber reinforced tape (Col 1; lines 13-19) thus it is heat resistant "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant remarks that Hwang discloses the reinforcement of the planar part uses a slurry and the reinforcement of both the planar and folded portion of the substrate uses dipping and thus the first and second chemical reinforcement do not disclose using a same ion exchange treatment process (Remarks filed 06/02/2026 Page 10 ¶2) .
Examiner has indicated that the claim language of “the same ion exchange treatment process” is too vague and leaves the claim indefinite. Applicant has not specified that both chemical reinforcement steps are done by dipping in a salt bath, or both are done using a paster or slurry. Applicant uses paragraphs The present specification shows a single embodiment From Fig. 6C-E indicating it may use an alkali solution in [0107] of the published specification of the present application.
The portion of the final rejection Applicant points to for support that Hwang only discloses the first chemical reinforcing a slurry and the second chemical reinforcing is dipping is moot as the amendment has required a change to the rejection. Hwang discloses substituting potassium ions for sodium in the glass substrate (at least [0100]) which is considered to meet this claim limitation of the same ion exchange treatment. Alternatively, Hwang indicates in the chemical reinforcing treatment may be performed by a process such as chemical dipping, chemical slurry, or paste reinforcing [0090] and it would be obvious to use any of these ion exchange treatment methods in the first or second chemical reinforcing step as motivated to achieve chemical reinforcing via ion exchange.
It should also be noted that MPEP 2123 indicates "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). And Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Thus, in regard to Hwang the disclosure of the embodiment of Fig. 5 specifically does not negate from the teachings of [0090] that chemical reinforcing treatment may be performed by a process such as chemical dipping, chemical slurry, or paste reinforcing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights