DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 and 21-28 in the reply filed on 4-07-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner believes that the claimed “second grooves oriented in the first direction” was intended to be “second grooves oriented in the second direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, 11, 26, and 27 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: Although the prior art teaches similar windows and associated display devices, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest such a window having the filler layer geometry as set forth in the present claims 5, 9, 11, 26, and 27.
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 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park, US 2019/0334114 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Park teaches a window for a display device (Fig. 23) comprising a non-patterned portion in a non-folding region of the display device and a pattern portion in a folding region of the display device (region “FR” of Fig. 23), including a substrate having first and second grooves arranged in an alternating pattern, the first grooves oriented in a first direction and the second grooves oriented in the first direction, wherein a thickness of the substrate in the pattern portion is less than a thickness of the substrate in the non-pattern portion (“2340” of Fig. 23).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate in the pattern portion are recessed relative to the non-pattern portion (Fig. 23).
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 1-4, 6-8, 12-14, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 2019/0334114 A1, in view of Lee et al., US 2023/0200204.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 24, Park teaches a window for a display device (Fig. 23) comprising a non-patterned portion in a non-folding region of the display device and a pattern portion in a folding region of the display device (region “FR” of Fig. 23), including a substrate having first and second grooves arranged in an alternating pattern, the first grooves oriented in a first direction and the second grooves oriented in the first direction, wherein a thickness of the substrate in the pattern portion is less than a thickness of the substrate in the non-pattern portion (“2340” of Fig. 23).
The teachings of Park differ from the present invention in that Park does not teach a first and second filling layer in the first grooves and a third and fourth filling layer in the second grooves. Lee, however, teaches a similar display device comprising a patterned portion and non-patterned portion (Fig. 9) and teaches that the grooves in the pattern portion may be filled with a first filling layer (111 of Fig. 9) and a second filling layer atop the first layer (112 of Fig. 9) in order to reduce the visibility of the patterned area and prevent degradation of the product ([0066]-[0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to fill the grooves on both sides of the substrate of Park with the first and second filling layers of Lee, because doing so would reduce the visibility of the pattern area and prevent degradation of the product.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6, the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate in the pattern portion are recessed relative to the non-pattern portion, with the second filler material deposited above the first filler material (Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Park differ from the present invention in that Park does not teach any specific depths for the recessed patterned portion of the surface (i.e., does not teach a depth of 14 – 20 microns). It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate dimension for the depth of the recessed portion based on the desired dimensions of the final product and the specific materials being used. Additionally, the claimed dimensions appear to be an arbitrary recitation of a size or proportion, which cannot distinguish the claimed invention (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 12, the product of Park features the claimed geometry (Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches a protection film (230 of Fig. 23) disposed below the display module (210 of Fig. 23) and a support (250 of Fig. 23) disposed below the protection film.
Regarding claim 25, Lee depicts the upper surface of the first filling layer as being at a height that is lower than the upper surface of the non-patterned area (Fig. 9).
Claims 10 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 2019/0334114 A1, in view of Lee et al., US 2023/0200204 as applied above, and further in view of Pohl et al., US 5618872.
Regarding claims 10 and 28, the teachings of Lee differ from the present invention in that Lee does not teach that the refractive index of the filling layers may be substantially equal to that of the substrate. Pohl, however, teaches matching the refractive index of a filler to that of a substrate in order to achieve a transparent product (col. 1 ln. 27-33, col. 2 ln. 13-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the refractive index of the filling layers substantially equal of that of the substrate in the product of Park, because doing so would allow the product to be transparent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights