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 Notes
Claims 1-19 are currently pending of which claims 13-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 18-29 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-11, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell-Clarke et al. (US 2013/0216740) and further in view of Youngkyong et al. (KR20230049573A).
Regarding claim 1, Russell-Clarke discloses a method for creating a flexible portion in a rigid material where, the material includes brittle material such as glass (0042). The material having two opposed sides, a circumferential edge, and a flexible first section between two adjoining rigid second sections (Fig. 4c). The flexible portion (204) comprising a plurality of openings including a first opening shaped as a fold that comprises two limbs intersecting to form a vertex (e.g., the diamond shape Fig. 4A, B, 0064).
Russell-Clarke does not disclose the two limbs intersecting to form a single vertex.
Youngkyong, in the analogous field of flexible display devise (0002), teaches a folding area comprising through holes (321) and ribs (323). Youngkyong teaches wherein a through hole (321) has a wave shape (Fig. 6B). The wave shape comprising two limbs intersecting to form a single vertex.
PNG
media_image1.png
216
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have shaped the openings of Russell-Clarke in a wave shape, as taught by Youngkyong, to provide a more flexible shape and prevent stress in specific areas of the rib (0105).
Regarding claim 2, Youngkyong teaches a plurality of openings including two adjacent openings with a protrusion between (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 3, given a horizontal bending direction, the wave-shaped openings of Russell-Clarke in view of Youngkyong teach at least a feature of the arrangement of openings defining a bending direction for the two second sections with an angle drawn between the bending direction and one of the two limbs.
Regarding claim 4, Russell-Clarke does not expressly teach satisfying a relationship selected from
E
x
d
2
x
R
X
a
r
c
t
a
n
(
h
l
l
)
<1000MPa,
E
x
d
2
x
l
X
a
r
c
t
a
n
(
p
R
)
<1000MPa, and combinations thereof.
However, Russell-Clarke teaches that in determining the desired geometric pattern, the desired bending direction or axis, bending angle or degree, size of apertures and/or spring rate for the flexible portion are analyzed. Russell-Clarke teaches that different angles/width of the pattern affects the bending radius and that the aesthetic appearance and type of material must be taken into account (0045). Russell-Clarke further teaches that based on the size/shape, or other characteristics of the geometric pattern, the force on the flexible portion may be adjusted so that the flexible portion returns to a first position when the bending force is released or allowed to remain partially or fully bent (0078).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the geometric pattern including arrangement of the opening and interconnectors, their size, and their shape, to satisfy a relationship as claimed in claim 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust these parameters for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Youngkyong teaches the openings arranged side by side forming a row which is parallel to the horizontal bending direction (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Youngkyong teaches a plurality of openings arranged and shaped so that a path can be defined along a first interconnector and along a bar connected thereto to a second interconnector along another bar at an opposite end of the second interconnector and a path comprising line segments along the starts and edge of an apex point of the opening includes at least one acute angle and at least one obtuse angle (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 8, Russell-Clarke does not expressly teach satisfying the bending relationship (i) or (ii) in claim 8.
However, as discussed above, Russell-Clarke teaches that in determining the desired geometric pattern, the desired bending direction or axis, bending angle or degree, size of apertures and/or spring rate for the flexible portion are analyzed. Russell-Clarke teaches that different angles/width of the pattern affects the bending radius and that the aesthetic appearance and type of material must be taken into account (0045). Russell-Clarke further teaches that based on the size/shape, or other characteristics of the geometric pattern, the force on the flexible portion may be adjusted so that the flexible portion returns to a first position when the bending force is released or allowed to remain partially or fully bent (0078).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the geometric pattern including arrangement of the opening and interconnectors, their size, and their shape, to satisfy a relationship as claimed in claim 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust these parameters for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Russell-Clarke does not expressly teach the flexibility of the first section being 2 times higher or 4 times higher than the two second sections. However, Russell-Clarke teaches that the geometric pattern may be analyzed or predetermined by a user by taking into account desired characteristics for the flexibility of the rigid material, including a desired bending degree (0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as flexibility through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Russell-Clarke teaches the flexible first section forming a hinge for the two second sections (0036, Fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 17, Russell-Clarke teaches that the openings may have a varying width (0038 and 0066).
Regarding claim 19, Russell-Clarke discloses a method for creating a flexible portion in a rigid material where, the material includes brittle material such as glass (0042). The material having two opposed sides and a flexible first section between two adjoining rigid second sections (Fig. 4c). The flexible portion (204) comprising a plurality of openings and interconnectors (236), the openings including a first opening shaped as a fold that comprises two limbs intersecting to form a vertex (e.g., the diamond shape Fig. 4A, B, 0064). The flexible first section forming a hinge for the two second sections (0036, Fig. 4C).
Russell-Clarke does not disclose the two limbs intersecting to form a single vertex.
Youngkyong, in the analogous field of flexible display devise (0002), teaches a folding area comprising through holes (321) and ribs (323). Youngkyong teaches wherein a through hole (321) has a wave shape (Fig. 6B). The wave shape comprising two limbs intersecting to form a single vertex.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have shaped the openings of Russell-Clarke in a wave shape, as taught by Youngkyong, to provide a more flexible shape and prevent stress in specific areas of the rib (0105).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell-Clarke in view of Youngkyong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0049428).
Regarding claim 12, modified Russell-Clarke discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Russell-Clarke further teaches that the geometric pattern may include one or more patterns, and that the patterns may be different to have selected first and second bending radius (0046).
Russell-Clarke does not expressly teach that the first sections (e.g., bending sections) are each between two second sections.
Lee, in the analogous field of flexible materials (0005), teaches a flexible display panel comprising a plurality of folding areas and rigid areas (Fig. 14A-C).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the device of Russell-Clarke to include the bending seconds a hinges between two second sections, as taught by Lee, for use as a foldable display device (0006).
Regarding claim 18, modified Russell-Clarke discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Russell-Clarke does not disclose the openings at least partially filled with plastic and including a feature as claimed in claim 18.
Lee teaches flexible display comprising plurality of folding areas as discussed above. Lee teaches the window including a plurality of layers including a more durable layer and a flexible layer having a lower elastic modulus then the rigid durable layer (0082). The flexible layer including a silicone (0085).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the rigid layer of Russell-Clarke to be partially filled with a layer of flexible silicone, as taught by Lee, to provide for easier folding in the flexible area (0101).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell-Clarke in view of Youngkyong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Da et al. (US 2021/0070650)
Regarding claim 16, modified Russell-Clarke discloses the limitation of claim 1 as discussed above. Russell-Clarke does not teach a suitable glass composition.
Da, in the analogous field of flexible glass substrates (0002), teaches a glass composition comprising 40 to 75 wt% SiO-2 (0068), 15 to 30 wt% Al2O3 (0069), 0 to 20 wt% B2O3 (0069), 0 to 7 wt% Li2O (0070), 4 to 30 wt% Na2O (0071), 0-10 wt% K2O (0072), MgO and CaO 0 to 30 wt% (0074), ZnO, ZrO2, and TiO2 0 to 5 wt% (0075).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the glass of Russell-Clarke to include a glass composition as taught by Da, to provide a glass with improved impact resistance and overall flexibility (0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 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, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have been entered accordingly the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the new combination of prior art.
Conclusion
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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781