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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
In view of the discussions of ¶¶ 1-5 of the Final Office Action of 13 February 2026, concavo-convex is considered to require only a series of projections and/or depressions having respective minima/maxima, but is not further limited by cross-sectional shape in a thickness direction of the glass.
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 19-27 are 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.
Claims 19 and 27 are recursively phrased, as each first introduces a glass and then stating that the glass is partially removed. While it is the case that a precursor glass had portions thereof removed to form the glass, this is not what is respectively recited. For prior art rejections below, the claims are interpreted as if removal of portions of a precursor glass were stated (in line with what is in the specification), but this limitation should not be used in order to address the issue of indefiniteness. Rather, it is suggested that Applicant recite to a reference surface coplanar with some portions of the second surface and how the step portion represents portions where glass thickness does not extend to the reference surface (as shown, e.g. in Figs. 7 and 9).
As claims 20-26 depend on claim 19, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 19, claims 20-26 are also held to be rejected.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 211207839 U (referenced below using its machine translation, “CN ‘839”) in view of WO 2019/117413 A1 (referenced below using its English-language counterpart publication U.S. 2023/0161089 A1, “Jo”) and optionally in view of U.S. 2017/0231105 A1 (“Abe”).
Considering claims 19, 20, and 27, CN ‘839 discloses a glass cover used for a display device having a display module (viz. a display panel), the glass cover being a 2D or 3D glass cover (viz. one having opposing main surfaces with respective curvatures), wherein the glass cover at its interior periphery is provided with a set of two annular grooves. (CN ‘839 pg. 5 ¶¶ 3 and 4, pg. 8 ¶ 1; and Fig. 5, reproduced infra). CN ‘839 is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (display cover glass). CN ‘839 further discloses that a respective ink layers are placed into each of the grooves, wherein each ink layer is deposited by printing. (Id. pg. 5 ¶ 5 and pg. 8 ¶¶ 3-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
247
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CN ‘839 differs from the claimed invention, as it is silent re: provision of concavo-convex surface shape to either the curved upper surface or to the grooves. However, the shaping of glass to produce a glass having a concavo-convex surface is known in the art, as taught in Jo. Specifically, Jo teaches the provision of a multilayered coating structure over both the exterior and the interior surface of a glass substrate, wherein both the exterior surface and the interior surface have respective concavo-convex structures integrated therewith. (Jo ¶¶ 0048, 0057, and 0064; and Figs. 5C and 6C).
Specifically, located on each surface is a respective multilayered coating structure comprising, in the order moving away from the concavo-convex structure that can be shaped into the glass substrate, light absorbing layer 301, light reflecting layer 201, and color layer 401 that comprises a pigment or dye. Jo is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (decorative layers used for mobile electronic devices, in particular ones incorporating a glass substrate). It is noted that the function of the ink layers of CN ‘839 and the color film of Jo are substantially the same, namely, both are used for aesthetic purposes. It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have formed concavo-convex pattern on at least the glass surfaces adjacent the grooves, in order to impart the aesthetic properties taught in Jo. (Jo ¶¶ 0005-0008).
The series of prismatic/conical structures shown in Figs. 5C and 6C read on the limitation of concavo-convex, in view of the interpretation of the term “concavo-convex” set forth in ¶¶ 1-5 above. Were this to be challenged (not conceded), it is noted that Jo also teaches curved conical structures. (Id. Figs. 10C and 10D, reproduced infra). CN ‘839 in view of Jo renders obvious claims 19, 20, and 27.
PNG
media_image2.png
145
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While it is maintained that person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that shapes as shown in Figs. 10C and 10D of Jo can be formed onto all portions of a glass substrate (including curved portions), to further bolster this assertion, it is noted that decorative surface textures can be formed onto both flat and curved main surface of a casing of a mobile phone, as is taught in Abe. (Abe ¶¶ 0062-0070 and 0144-0145; and Figs. 1, 2, and 14). Teachings of Abe would lead person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that surface features applicable to a flat main surface can be readily applied to a curved main surface, thereby making the two types of surface topographies known substitutes in the art of decorative casing structures. Applying the surface texturing and subsequent coating as taught in Jo to a main surface exhibiting curvature is thus obvious. This rationale for supporting obviousness, where a reference shows one solution (flat surface) to be a substitutable equivalent of another (curved surface), is supported under MPEP 2144.06 II.
Considering claims 21 and 22, while Fig. 5 of CN ‘839 shows a glass cover with a so-called 2D shape, a prior art glass cover of 3D shape (albeit without the two annular grooves) is shown in Fig. 2 of the reference, and it is abundantly clear that with the express mention of a 3D glass cover in describing its inventive embodiments, the structural limitations related to morphology of a 3D glass cover having two annular grooves reads on claims 21 and 22.
Considering claims 23 and 24, the light absorbing layer of Jo is taught to be a metallic material, and the light reflective layer is taught to be formed of a material such as metal oxides or thin transparent metals such as Al and Ag. (Jo ¶¶ 0102-0115).
Considering claim 25, the second, radially inward groove is spaced apart from the peripheral edge.
Considering claim 26, CN ‘839 discloses the depth of each groove in micrometers, and the width of each groove is in millimeters. Person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the range implied to be from 1 up to 1,000 of the respective units mentioned. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over CN ‘839 and Jo is not persuasive. Applicant alleges there is no reason to apply surface structuring as taught in Jo to the curved surfaces shown in CN ‘839. However, the reason for this is specific decorative effect obtained. Furthermore, applying similar features to a curved surface is known, as taught in Abe, thereby providing further reason to apply the surface structuring as taught in Jo to the curved surfaces.
Concluding Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights