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 Interpretation
In the remarks filed with the 1.111 Response of 7 November 2025 (“Response”), Applicant takes the position that based on dictionary definitions of concave and convex, concavo-convex must be interpreted to necessarily entail features whose respective minima/maxima must be curved. (See Response pg. 7 ¶ 1, citing to respective definitions of the terms in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Applicant is reminded of the following from MPEP § 2111.01 (emphases added):
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art.
In particular as it pertains to the ordinary and customary meaning of a term, MPEP § 2111.01 states the following (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005), emphases added):
The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including "the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”
The four factors listed as they pertain to concavo-convex are determined as follows.
a) the words of the claims themselves
No specific definition is set forth.
b) the rest of the specification as filed
Applicant made no mention that concavo-convex must entail features whose respective minima/maxima are curved.
c) the prosecution history
Not applicable as it is presently being shaped.
d) extrinsic evidence.
Applicant has only provided respective dictionary definitions for concave and convex, but not for concavo-convex. It is also noted that the particular definitions represent only definitions used in specific context. For instance, both concave and convex polygons are known; yet neither entails curvature, only whether a figure has a pointed portion projecting outwards or inwards.
However, in the related arts (of decorative structures for mobile displays), the present Applicant (viz. Samsung) has filed at least two applications in which concavo-convex are defined to include angular minima/maxima.
In U.S. 2018/0157375 A1, the present Applicant states at ¶ 0105 thereof (underline added):
However, exemplary embodiments are not limited to the structures shown in FIG. 4C and FIG. 4D, and the first concavo-convex portion 522 and the second concavo-convex portion 532 may have any of various shapes, such as a columnar shape, a prismatic shape, a pyramid shape, and a hemispherical shape.
In U.S. 2021/0255667 A1, the present Applicant states at ¶ 0012 thereof (underline added):
The concave-convex pattern may include a plurality of concave portions recessed toward the second surface, with at least some of the concave portions having a truncated cone shape or a hemispherical shape.
As shown in each of the references, the respective concavo-convex features may be minima/maxima that are curved, but they do not have to be and can in fact be features having angular minima/maxima. These evidences, being 1) from the field of endeavor and 2) from the present Applicant, are much more pertinent than mere dictionary definitions provided by Applicant. Furthermore, these also represent probative evidence that the scope for the shape of minima/maxima extends beyond just minima/maxima having curved shapes.
As the claims are interpreted according to broadest reasonable interpretation, as the present Applicant did not set forth a special definition in the Instant Application, and as it can be demonstrated that the present Applicant is well-aware of the fact that concavo-convex pertains only to the presence of projections and/or depressions but otherwise does not further require such shapes to have respective curved minima/maxima, this definition used in the art (series of projections and/or depressions, with respective minima/maxima not further limited by shape) is considered to be the BRI of concavo-convex.
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”).
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
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
In view of amendments to claim 19, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over CN ‘839 and Fujii has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over CN ‘839 and Jo is not persuasive, for the reasons set forth in ¶¶ 1-5, 11, and 12 above.
Concluding Remarks
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 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