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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Regarding Baby et al. (WO2021041882), Baby et al. has been removed as prior art in view of Applicants’ statement of common ownership.
Regarding Jones (USPub20180217639), in view of the previous Office Action’s improperly citing Baby et al’ thickness and bend radius in the rejection of Jones, the rejection has been modified making the present Office Action Non-Final.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
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) 1-2, 5, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1 and a2) as
being anticipated by Jones et al. (USPub20180217639), as evidenced by USPub20190023611, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jones or further in the alternatively, as obvious over Jones in view of USPub20190023611.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 17 and 18: Jones et al. teaches a foldable apparatus comprising a foldable substrate comprising a substrate thickness defined between first and second opposing major surfaces and a central portion between first and second portions in a direction of a length of the substrate (abstract, figures).
The foldable substrate is annealed to relax stresses so as to reduce or eliminate bending stress and can be made to have substantially no tensile or compressive stress through a bend region (see 0099-0101, 0109-011, 0114, 0163, 0166, 0168). The foldable substrate can be that of glass (amorphous material) (0006, 0054, 0062, 0067, 0158-0159).
While Jones may not mention such neutral stress at a parallel plate distance as claimed, Jone’s substrate meets the claimed structure, is annealed bent similar to that disclosed by Applicants’ and it appears from Applicants’ Fig 8 that plate distance (i.e. 811) will also be affected by substrate thickness and bend radius.
In the instant case, given that Jone’s substrate thickness can be 25-400micron (0062) which meets Applicants’ thickness and Jone’s substrate is configured to achieve a bend radius (see entirety of the disclosure and Figures) with Jones providing Examples of radii being that which overlap Applicants’ radius (see 0060), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same results when measured similarly (MPEP 2112).
It is noted for the record that while the Examiner does acknowledge that Applicants’ disclosure appears to discuss duration of annealing that may not be explicitly mentioned in Jones, in the instance Applicants attempt to argue that it is not just the act of annealing as is taught by Jones that is critical, but that the disclosed duration is also critical for arriving at the claimed feature, the following is noted.
Jone’s does teach annealing their substrate (i.e. heating at annealing point) (see 0166-0167) and while Jone’s may not explicitly state the duration, Jone’s substrate to be annealed is that of aluminosilicate glass (0062). Given that ‘611 explicitly states that time required to anneal glass varies but is typically between 1-4hours, one skilled in the art would reasonably expect an annealing duration of 1-4 hours to be implicit within Jone’s, or at the very least, be rendered obvious.
Given that Jone’s substrate meets that claimed and is made similarly to Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting features when measured similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 2: While Jones et al. does not mention their substrate having a fictive temperature substantially equal to the substrates anneal point temperature, the following is noted.
Initially, as discussed above, Jone’s substrate has the same structure, neutral stress at the claimed plate distance and even has the same thickness and bend radius as Applicants’.
Further, Applicants’ disclosure as a whole suggests that the fictive temperature of a substrate is relaxed and lowered to be substantially equal to that of the substrate’s anneal temperature when the substrate is heated at its annealing point for a duration of 20min to 168hours and even 20min to 3hours (see for instance pub par 0139 listing more limited ranges).
In the instant case, Jone’s does teach annealing their substrate (i.e. heating at annealing point). While Jones may not explicitly state the duration, as mentioned above, Jone’s substrate to be annealed is that of aluminosilicate glass and given that ‘611 explicitly states that time required to anneal glass varies but is typically between 1-4hours, one skilled in the art would reasonably expect an annealing duration of 1-4 hours to be implicit within Jone’s, or at the very least, be rendered obvious.
Given that Jone’s substrate meets that claimed and is made similarly to Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting features (MPEP 2112).
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, 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.
2. Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (USPub20180217639) or alternatively Jones and USPub20190023611 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6: Jone’s substrate is configured to achieve a bend radius (see entirety of the disclosure and Figures) with Jones providing Examples of radii being that which overlap Applicants’ radius (see 0060) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 19: Jone’s substrate thickness can be 25-400micron, 1-20micron, etc. (0062) overlapping the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
3. Claim(s) 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (USPub20180217639) or alternatively Jones and USPub20190023611 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of either one of Gross (WO2020028284, rejection based on corresponding English document USPub20210269353) or Gross (USPub20190062203).
Regarding claims 3 and 4: Jones does teach throughout that their substrate is ion exchanged (i.e. compressive stress regions) but Jones just does not explicitly discuss the percentage of the substrate thickness as required by claim 3 or the stress values as required by claim 4. However, note that Jone’s substrate is an aluminosilicate glass having a thickness of 80micron-2mm that is ion exchanged and to be used as a foldable cover glass for use in foldable displays.
As Gross ‘284, who similarly teaches an aluminosilicate glass with overlapping thickness (see 0083 for instance) that is ion exchanged and is suitably used as a foldable cover glass for use in foldable displays (see entire document), discloses that in such folding applications in which bending stresses are experienced it is desirable to ion exchange the glass to form first and second depth of layer regions extending from the first and second opposing main surfaces, each to a depth of 10% or more the substrate thickness (0083, 0021), and to make the stress of each of the regions 1000-1500MPa (0084) for increased strength, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Jones to include ion exchanging their glass to form first and second depth of layer regions extending from the first and second opposing main surfaces, each to a depth of 10% or more the substrate thickness (MPEP 2144.05) and to make the stress of each of the regions 1000-1500MPa for increased strength.
As Gross ‘203, who similarly teaches an aluminosilicate glass with overlapping thickness (see 0042 for instance) that is ion exchanged and is suitably used as a foldable cover glass for use in foldable displays (see entire document), discloses that in such folding applications in which bending stresses are experienced it is desirable to ion exchange the glass to form first and second depth of layer regions extending from the first and second opposing main surfaces, each to a depth of 0.25t or less (25% or less the thickness) the substrate thickness (0007), and to make the stress of each of the regions 950-1250MPa (0043) for increased strength, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Jones to include ion exchanging their glass to form first and second depth of layer regions extending from the first and second opposing main surfaces, each to a depth of 0.25t or less the substrate thickness (MPEP 2144.05) and to make the stress of each of the regions 950-1250MPa for increased strength.
Regarding claim 7: Jones does teach electronic devices wherein their glass substrate is to be used as a foldable cover glass over a display (see entire document) but Jones just does not disclose the structure of the device in the manner claimed.
However, given that Gross ‘353 and Gross ‘203, who each similarly disclose electronic devices wherein foldable cover glasses are to be over a display, teach that such devices desirably comprise a structure and arrangement as claimed (see 0043 and 0095 in ‘353 and 0053 in ‘203), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Jones to include their electronic devices having a structure and arrangement as claimed in order to obtain a desirable device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 12, 2026 with respect to Baby et al. no longer being prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections over Baby et al. have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Office Action mistakenly citing Baby et al.’s thickness and radii teachings in the rejection under Jones has been fully considered and are persuasive. The Jones rejection has been changed making the present Office Action Non-Final.
Applicants’ argument that Jones only discloses thicknesses with regards to a ceramic but the substrate now in claim 1 comprising glass is not persuasive.
While the Examiner acknowledges that Jones may use the term “ceramic”, it is clear upon reading Jones as a whole that the “ceramic” term therein is not being used in its traditional sense (i.e. ceramic being crystalline material rather than amorphous glass). Instead, it is clear that Jones is merely uses “ceramic” as a term to cover not just crystalline materials but to also cover amorphous inorganic materials including glass.
The Examiner provides the following few citations in Jones for clarity of record to show that the substrate being glass is covered by Jone’s use of the term “ceramic”.
[0062] In some embodiments, a cover layer suitable for use with the electronic devices disclosed herein includes one or more ceramic layers or substrates. The ceramic layers or substrates may have a substantially uniform thickness or may vary in thickness as illustrated in embodiments described herein. In some embodiments, the thickness of the ceramic layer or substrate ranges from 25 μm to 400 μm. In additional embodiments, the thickness of the ceramic layer or substrate is from 1 μm to 20 μm, from 5 μm to 15 μm, or from 1 μm to 10 μm. As used herein, the terms “ceramic,” “ceramic material,” and “ceramic layer” may be used to describe materials having both crystalline and amorphous inorganic materials. Example ceramics include, but are not limited to, metal oxide-based materials. Metal oxide-based materials include, but are not limited to, silica-based materials (e.g., glasses such as aluminosilicate and borosilicate glasses), alumina-based materials (e.g., single-crystalline and polycrystalline sapphire), zirconia-based materials, and mixed metal oxides such as spinel-based materials (e.g., magnesium aluminum oxide)
[0006] Additional embodiments described herein relate to electronic devices including flexible cover sheets. The electronic devices may further include a flexible display layer. An example electronic device comprises a display layer and a cover layer coupled to the display layer and defining a foldable region, wherein the display layer and the cover layer are configured to be moved between a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration by bending the cover layer along the foldable region. In embodiments, the foldable region of the cover layer comprises a ceramic material, such as a glass, a metal oxide ceramic, or other ceramic material. In further embodiments, the ceramic material defines at least a portion of an exterior surface of the electronic device.
[0054] The following disclosure relates to electronic devices having a flexible or bendable region. More specifically, the embodiments described herein are directed to an electronic device having a display layer and a cover layer that are configured to fold or bend along a flexible or bendable region. The flexible cover layer may be formed from a ceramic material (e.g., glass, strengthened glass, sapphire, zirconia) to provide some measure of protection for the flexible display from impact or other potential damaging contact. The flexible cover layer may also provide structural support for the display along both the folded and non-folded regions of the device. As used herein, a cover layer may also be referred to as a cover sheet or simply as a cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights