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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 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 an alkali metal cation slurry 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 dipping 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.
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 and 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 evidenced by AstroAlloysInc. Silicone Rubber Fiberglass Heat Tape 2016 as provided herein and referred to AstroAlloysInc.
Regarding claim 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.
Yao discloses a heat resistant tape of polyamide has a glass fiber (0007)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190299542 [0070] heat resistant tapes with glass and/or cellulose fiber matrix
US 8618234 silicone based tape with heat-resistant material
CN 112071531 and glass fiber, paper tape. Paper has cellulose
Additional tape references are provided herein
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 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