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 Invention I in the reply filed on 10 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are indefinite because of the respective recitations that the first, second, and third portions form a first layer. This gives the wrong impression that the portions altogether form the first layer, as opposed to the first layer being present in each of the first, second, and third portions. What is actually disclosed is a chemically strengthened glass having first, second, and third portions; wherein the glass has a surface compressive stress layer (viz. the first layer), the first layer located in the first, second, and third portions. The latter interpretation is used in prior art rejections below.
As claims 2-11 and 13-19 respectively depend on claims 1 and 12, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claims 1 and 12, claims 2-11 and claims 13-19 are also held to be rejected.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6; and claims 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2018/0217639 A1 (“Jones”).
Considering claims 1 and 5; and claims 12 and 17, Jones discloses a foldable display comprising a foldable glass substrate having a thinned portion corresponding to the region subject to folding and a flexible display layer located on the foldable glass substrate. (Jones ¶¶ 0127-0131 and Figs. 13-14). In a particular embodiment, Jones discloses that the glass substrate (which can be an aluminosilicate or a soda lime glass) is subject to selective chemical strengthening, such that thinner portion of the glass is strengthened to a shallower depth than a thicker portion. (Id. ¶¶ 0158-0161 and Fig. 22, reproduced infra). As clearly shown in Fig. 22 of the reference, most of the full-thickness region of the glass has a compressive stress layer having a thicker depth D2 (thereby reading on the claimed first portion and first layer of the first portion), almost all of the thinned portion has a compressive stress layer having a thin depth D1 (thereby reading on the claimed second portion and first layer of the second portion), and there is a section located between the two aforementioned regions, in which depth of compressive stress layer increases from D1 to D2 (thereby reading on the claimed third portion and first layer of the third portion gradually transitioning between respective depths of the first layer at the other two portions).
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that Jones anticipates claims 12 and 17 (and therefore also claims 1 and 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
255
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Considering claim 6, as is well-known and as is expressly stated in Jones, ion exchange in glass occurs as a larger ion (usually potassium ion) is exchanged for a smaller ion (ion of sodium or lithium). (Id. ¶ 0159). This exchange is as such by definition a surface phenomenon, limited by the extent to which potassium can diffuse into the bulk glass, and the compressive stress layer extends to a point at which potassium ion can no longer diffuse into the substrate (viz. a location where potassium concentration is the lowest in the surface layer). (Id. ¶ 0161). This phenomenon is exactly what is recited in claim 6.
Considering claim 13, Jones discloses the usage of a filler material 1406 to fill the thinned portion, wherein the filler material 1406 is located between thinned portion of the glass substrate and the display. (Id. Fig. 14C). Jones further discloses that the filler is flexible or pliable and may be an acrylic- or silicone- (viz. siloxane) based polymer. (Id. ¶ 0128).
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 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, as respectively applied to claims 1 and 12 above.
Considering claims 8 and 19, Jones is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (foldable display, in particular one having a chemically strengthened glass having a central thinned portion). Jones discloses radius of curvature less than 10 mm, which overlaps the range recited in claims 8 and 19. 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. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 2-4, 7, 10, and 11; and claims 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0392038 A1 (“Park”). Alternatively claims 1-11 and claims 12-19 are rejected over Park in view of Jones.
Considering claims 2-4, 7, and 9-11; and claims 14-16 and 18, although Jones discloses general parameter re: its bendable ion exchanged glass having a thinned folding region, wherein the ion exchanged glass has a compressive stress layer exhibiting variable thickness depending on a respective overall thickness at a respective location, Jones does not provide exact measurements.
Park teaches a bendable ion exchanged glass having a thinned folding region, wherein the ion exchanged glass has a compressive stress layer exhibiting variable thickness depending on a respective overall thickness at a respective location. (Park ¶¶ 0101-0106 and Fig. 10). Park is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (foldable display, in particular one having a chemically strengthened glass having a central thinned portion). Furthermore, it is noted that the variable compressive stress layer thicknesses in both references are effected by first masking the respective thinned region and applying ion exchange treatment to rest of the pre-strengthened glass article, followed by a second step in which the mask is removed and the partially-strengthened glass article is subject to further ion exchange treatment at all surfaces. (See Jones ¶ 0161 and Park ¶ 0106). It can thus be concluded that both the processes utilized and the end aims in the two references are substantially similar. As such person of ordinary skill in the art has reasonable expectation of success that teachings from one reference can be applied to the other.
Park teaches that the thinned portion has thickness of 30 µm and compressive stress layer depth of 5-6 µm, while the thicker portion has thickness of 100 µm and compressive stress layer depth of 15-20 µm. (Park Fig. 10). These values read on the various values recited in claims 2-4 and 7 and claims 14-16 and 18.
Alternatively, the teaching in Jones re: a thinner portion of the glass is strengthened to a shallower depth than a thicker portion can be applied to the bendable ion exchanged glass of Park. Jones shows that even when there are only two thicknesses involved, the compressive stress layer has a transition region in which thickness of the compressive stress layer transitions from that of the thinned region to that of the thicker region. As such, the same can be applied to the glass whose thinned portion(s) has a trapezoidal depression(s). Either way, claims 1-8 and claims 12-19 are obvious.
Considering claim 10, proportional merely requires two values to be expressed as a ratio. This is clearly the case as discussed above.
Considering claim 11, Park teaches inclination angle of 1° to 50°. (Park ¶ 0064).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2025/0136501 A1 (“Allan”).
Considering claim 9, the compressive stress values of at various positions (of respective different thicknesses) of a bendable ion exchanged glass having a thinned region are known. For instance, Allan teaches central (thinned) compressive stress region having stress of upwards of 1,500 MPa. (Allan ¶¶ 0265-0266). Similar values are taught for the compressive stress layer at the thicker regions. (Id. ¶¶ 0254 and 0255). As such, the relationship is known to be satisfied from the prior art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. 18/158,510 (soon to be issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,591,274) in view of Jones. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-13 of the ‘510 Application otherwise recite features found in claims 1-11 of the Instant Application. The features not recited (e.g. usage for a foldable display and a region having compressive stress layer thickness intermediate that of the thickest and thinnest regions) are all taught in Jones.
Concluding Remarks
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
Prosecution Insights