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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I, claims 1-7 and 9-14, in the reply filed on February 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 24, 2026.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al (U.S. Patent # 10,020,462) in view of Choi et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0043858).
In the case of claim 1, Ai teaches a method for manufacturing a window in the form of a display layer made of glass (Abstract). The display layer was a glass pattern comprising a first and second non-pattern part in the form of outer portions 24A and 24C which were planar and a pattern part in the form of portion 24B between portions 24A and 24C which comprised grooves 30 (Column 5 Lines 24-34, Column 5 Line 53 through Column 6 Line 45 and Figure 5 and 8-13). Ai teaches a step wherein the patterns/grooves 30 were filled with a second resin 32 in the form of a clear elastomeric polymer to form a first surface of the pattern part (Column 6 Lines 46-60 and Figures 12 and 13). Furthermore, as shown in Figures 12 and 13 the first filling pattern of filler 32 filled grooves 30 were spaced apart from each other.
Ai does not teach having provided a first resin onto the surfaces of the first and second non-pattern/outer portions and having provided a third resin onto the first surface of the pattern part/filled grooves to cover the filling patterns. However, Ai does teach having formed hard coating layer over the portions 24A, 24B and 24C (Column 7 Lines 13-25 and Figure 17).
Choi teaches a method for manufacturing a display device including preparing a display panel comprising a folding area between first and second non-folding areas wherein a resin was provided onto the surface of the panel to form a protection layer (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0016). The method of Choi comprised printing/providing a first resin in the form of first resin RS1 and second resin RS2 onto the first and second non-folding areas NFA1 and NFA2, respectively (Page 8 Paragraph 0147 through Page 9 Paragraph 0152 and Figures 10A-10C). Choi further teaches having printed/provided a third resin in the form of third resin RS3 onto the folded area FA (Page 9 Paragraph 0157 and Figure 10D). Furthermore, Choi teaches that this process formed a protection layer PF over the non-folding areas and the folding area (Page 9 Paragraph 0163 and Figure 10F).
Based on the teachings of Choi, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have deposited a first resin over the first and second non-pattern parts and a third resin over the first filling patterns of Ai because this was a known process in the art for forming a hard coating/protection layer on display panels.
As for claim 2, Ai teaches an embodiment wherein the first filling patterns comprising filler 32 are higher than a first surface of the pattern glass 24B (Column 6 Lines 8-60 and Figure 13).
As for claim 7, Ai teaches that the second resin/filler 32 was a clear elastomeric polymer such as silicone (Column 6 Lines 46-50). Choi teaches that the first resin in the form of RS1 and RS2 comprised an acrylic compound (Page 9 Paragraph 0151) and that the third resin RS3 was a material having a modulus different from resins RS1/RS2 (Page 9 Paragraph 0157). Therefore, the first, second and third resins of Ai in view of Choi comprised different materials from each other.
As for claims 9 and 10, as show in Figure 8 of Ai when viewed on a plane, the first grooves 30 extend in a second direction T crossing a first direction GW and are arrange din the first direction GW. Furthermore, Ai teaches that the depth D of the grooves 30 was 30 to 80 microns (Column 5 Line 63 through Column 6 Line 2) while the pattern glass 24 had a thickness of 50 to 150 microns (Column 6 Lines 15-18). Therefore, Ai teaches embodiments which overlapped with the limitation that the depth of the grooves was larger than half of a thickness of the pattern glass. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the case of claim 3, as was discussed previously, Choi taught having provided a third resin over a folding area which in Ai was a filled pattern area. However, neither reference fairly teaches or suggests that providing the third resin comprised providing a (3-1)-th resin onto the first filling patterns to cover the first filling patterns and providing a (3-2)-th resin onto a surface of the (3-1)-th resin wherein the (3-1)-th resin had a flat first suface.
In the case of claim 11, neither Ai nor Choi fairly teach or suggest having turned over the pattern glass and formed a third and a fourth part by providing the first resin onto a second surface of the first non-pattern part and the second non-pattern part; forming second filling pattern by providing the second resins to second grooves defined in a second surface of the pattern part and forming a second pattern layer by providing the third resin onto the second surface of the pattern part to cover the second filing patterns wherein the second grooves extended in a second direction crossing the first direction.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9 and 10 have been rejected and claims 3 through 6 and 11 through 14 have been objected. Claims 8 and 15 through 20 were withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights