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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected methods, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of Group I, claims 1-7 was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 12, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Baby et al. (WO2021041882, rejection based on corresponding English document PN12,481,316).
Regarding claim 1: Baby 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 comprising a neutral stress configuration (in its bent state) at a parallel plate distance such as 20mm or even 50mm (Col. 3, line 33-40, Figure 5-7, Col. 55, lines 44-67 bridged to Col. 56, lines 37-38 and 48).
Regarding claim 5: The substrate thickness can be 80micron to 2mm (Col. 2, lines 2-3, Col. 6, lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 6: The substrate can achieve a bend radius of 5mm (Col. 6, lines 38-45, Col. 56, line 64).
Regarding claim 7: Baby et al. also teaches consumer electronic products with the claimed structure (see Col. 36, lines 18-29).
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.
2. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a2) as being anticipated by Baby et al. (WO2021041882, rejection based on corresponding English document PN12,481,316), as evidenced by USPub20190023611, or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baby in view of USPub20190023611.
Regarding claim 2: While Baby 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, Baby’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, Baby does teach annealing their substrate (i.e. heating at annealing point). While Baby may not explicitly state the duration, Baby’s substrate to be annealed is that of aluminosilicate glass (Col. 21, lines 15-16) 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 Baby, or at the very least, be rendered obvious.
Given that Baby’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).
3. Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 7 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 Jone’s in view of USPub20190023611.
Regarding claim 1: 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).
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, Jone’s substrate thickness can be 80micron to 2mm (Col. 2, lines 2-3, Col. 6, lines 62-67) which meets Applicants’ thickness and can achieve a bend radius of 5mm (Col. 6, lines 38-45, Col. 56, line 64) also meeting Applicants’.
Given the similarities, 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).
Regarding claim 5: The substrate thickness can be 80micron to 2mm (Col. 2, lines 2-3, Col. 6, lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 6: The substrate can achieve a bend radius of 5mm (Col. 6, lines 38-45, Col. 56, line 64).
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.
4. Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baby et al. (WO2021041882, rejection based on corresponding English document PN12,481,316).
Regarding claim 3: A first compressive stress region extends to a first depth of compression from the first major surface and a second compressive stress region extends to a second depth of compression from the second major surface. The first and second depths can be 10-30% the substrate thickness (Col. 7, lines 15-32, 55-60, Col. 38, lines 37-47, Col. 44, lines 57-67) overlapping the ranges claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4: The first and second compressive stress regions can comprise a CS of 700MPa or more and 1500MPa or less (Col. 8, lines 22-40, Col. 39, lines 10-25, Col. 44, lines 25-40).
5. 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.
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