DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 and 3-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 11, the limitation “wherein the first coating solution and the second coating solution include different types of ions” renders the claim indefinite. The claim already recites that the first coating solution includes a first ion and the second coating solution includes a second, different ion, therefore the first and second coating solution already include different types of ions. However, claims 13-15 which depend from claim 11 require that the first coating solution further includes the second ion and the second coating solution further includes the first ion, so the limitation cannot be interpreted to require that “include different types of ions” means that each solution exclusively includes one of the first or second ion. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as redundant. Claims 1 and 20 comprise a similar limitation “the first part and second part include different types of ions” and also already recite that the first and second ions are different, and will therefore be interpreted the same way. Claims 3-10 and 12-19 depend from and further limit independent claims 1 and 11 and are therefore correspondingly indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baby (U.S. PGPub 2022/0291712).
Regarding claim 1, Baby comprises a cover window (Fig. 3, [0166]), comprising:
a first area and a second area disposed adjacent to the first area (Fig. 3, [0166], first/central area 251, second/outer area 221/231),
a base layer disposed in the first area and the second area and having flexibility in the first area (201, [0166], Figs. 3, 5),
a functional layer disposed on at least one surface of the base layer ([0206], compressive stress regions) and including
a first part disposed in the first area and including a first ion ([0219]-[0222], central compressive stress region at surface 209, alkali metal ions including first ion sodium and second ion potassium, [0206]); and
a second part disposed in the second area and including a second ion different from the first ion ([0207]-[0210], first compressive stress region at surface 223, alkali metal ions including first ion sodium and second ion potassium, [0206]), wherein an ionic radius of the second ion is greater than an ionic radius of the first ion and the first part and second part include different types of ions (first ion sodium, second ion potassium, [0210], [0222], [0206]; potassium has larger ionic radius).
Regarding claim 3, Baby teaches wherein the first part includes a first amount of the first ion, and the second part includes the first amount of the second ion ([0007], [0360]).
Regarding claim 4, Baby teaches wherein the first part includes a first amount of the first ion, the second part includes a second amount of the second ion, and the second amount is greater than the first amount ([0231]).
Regarding claim 5, Baby teaches the first part has a first thickness in a thickness direction of the base layer, and the second part has a second thickness greater than the first thickness in the thickness direction (Fig. 3).
Regarding 6, Baby teaches wherein a first compressive stress is formed in the first part, a second compressive stress is formed in the second part, ([0209]) and a maximum value of the second compressive stress is greater than a maximum value of the first compressive stress (Tables 4-5, Examples I-J).
Regarding claim 7, Baby teaches wherein a same tensile stress is formed in the first area and the second area of the base layer (Tables 4-5, Examples F-H).
Regarding claim 8, Baby teaches a groove is formed on an upper surface of the cover window in the first area (Fig. 3, [0189], 219).
Regarding claim 10, Baby teaches wherein the functional layer includes a first functional layer disposed on a first surface of the base layer (first/second parts) and a second functional layer disposed on a second surface opposite to the first surface of the base layer (Fig. 3, [0207], compressive stress region at surface 225; [0213], compressive stress region at surface 235; [0219], compressive stress region at surface 213).
Regarding claim 11, Baby teaches a method for manufacturing a cover window ([0204]), the method comprising:
forming a base member including a glass substrate (Fig. 11, step 1101, [0290], substrate 201);
applying a first coating solution including a first ion to at least one surface of the base member in a first area, the first area of the base member having flexibility (Fig. 20, [0298], coating solution 2003, [0299] first ion sodium, second ion potassium),
applying a second coating solution including a second ion different from the first ion to the at least one surface of the base member in a second area disposed adjacent to the first area (Fig. 19, [0295], coating solution 1903, [0296], first ion sodium, second ion potassium),
heating the base member on which the first and second coating solutions are formed (Fig. 21, [0302]), and
removing the first and second coating solutions (Fig. 22, [0303]),
wherein the first coating solution and the second coating solution include different types of ions, and an ionic radius of the second ion is greater than an ionic radius of the first ion (first ion sodium, second ion potassium, [0210], [0222], [0206]; potassium has larger ionic radius).
Regarding claim 13, Baby teaches wherein the base member further includes the second ion ([0360], after heating, the ions enter the substrate), the first coating solution further includes the second ion, and the second coating solution further includes the first ion ([0298], [0296], both solutions contain both ions, see rejection of claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, Baby teaches wherein a ratio of the first ion and the second ion in the first coating solution and a ratio of the first ion and the second ion in the second coating solution are different, the first coating solution includes a first amount of the first ion, the second coating solution includes a second amount of the first ion, and the second amount is greater than the first amount ([0300], coating solution 2003 (first coating solution) comprises less sodium than coating solution 1903 (second coating solution)).
Regarding claim 15, Baby teaches wherein a ratio of the first ion and the second ion in the first coating solution and a ratio of the first ion and the second ion in the second coating solution are same, the first coating solution includes a first amount of the first ion, the second coating solution includes a second amount of the first ion, and the second amount is greater than the first amount ([0300], coating solution 2003 (first coating solution) comprises a smaller percentage of both potassium and sodium than coating solution 1903 (second coating solution)).
Regarding claim 16, Baby teaches wherein the base member further includes a third ion different from the first and second ions (lithium, [0282], [0274]), and an ionic radius of the second ion is greater than an ionic radius of the first ion (potassium has greater ionic radius than sodium).
Regarding claim 19, Baby teaches wherein the heating of the base member on which the first and second coating solutions are formed includes forming a cover window including a base layer in the first area and the second area (Fig. 21, [0288]), and a functional layer formed on at least one surface of the base layer, and the functional layer includes:
a first part disposed in the first area and having a first thickness in a thickness direction of the base member ([0304], compressive stress regions with depths as discussed previously; [0219], first part of functional layer is compressive stress region at surface 209 with first central depth of compression),
and a second part disposed in the second area and having a second thickness greater than the first thickness in the thickness direction ([0207], second part of functional layer is compressive stress region at surface 223 with first depth of compression; [0233] first depth of compression can be greater than first central depth of compression).
Regarding claim 20, Baby comprises a display device (Fig. 8, [0204]), comprising:
a display panel including a display area that displays an image and a non-display area disposed adjacent to the display area (Figs. 8-9, [0204]),
a cover window disposed on the display panel ([0204], cover substrate 814 includes foldable substrate; [0166] foldable substrate 201) and including:
a first area and a second area disposed adjacent to the first area (Fig. 3, [0166], first/central area 251, second/outer area 221/231),
a base layer disposed in the first area and the second area and having flexibility in the first area (201, [0166], Figs. 3, 5),
a functional layer disposed on at least one surface of the base layer ([0206], compressive stress regions) and including
a first part disposed in the first area and including a first ion ([0219]-[0222], central compressive stress region at surface 209, alkali metal ions including first ion sodium and second ion potassium, [0206]); and
a second part disposed in the second area and including a second ion different from the first ion ([0207]-[0210], first compressive stress region at surface 223, alkali metal ions including first ion sodium and second ion potassium, [0206]),
wherein an ionic radius of the second ion is greater than an ionic radius of the first ion and the first part and second part include different types of ions (first ion sodium, second ion potassium, [0210], [0222], [0206]; potassium has larger ionic radius).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baby (U.S. PGPub 2022/0291712) in view of Lyu (CN 113658513 A).
Regarding claim 9, Baby does not explicitly teach wherein the cover window includes amorphous glass in the first area and crystalline glass in the second area.
Lyu teaches a cover window comprising a base layer 1 having a first part having flexibility in a first area and a second part in a second area (Fig. 1, [0033], glass 1, A1/A2), wherein the cover window includes amorphous glass in the first area and crystalline glass in the second area (Figs. 1-2, [0042]-[0043], microcrystalline region A21 formed only in non-bending region A2, otherwise the glass is amorphous).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Lyu with Baby such that the cover window includes amorphous glass in the first area and crystalline glass in the second area for the purpose of increasing the hardness of the non-bending region (Lyu, [0013], [0043]).
Regarding claim 18, Baby teaches wherein the forming of the base member includes forming a groove on an upper surface of the base member in the first area (Fig. 19) but does not explicitly teach crystallizing the glass substrate by heating the second area of the base member.
Lyu teaches a cover window comprising a base layer 1 having a first part having flexibility in a first area and a second part in a second area (Fig. 1, [0033], glass 1, A1/A2), wherein the cover window includes amorphous glass in the first area and crystalline glass in the second area (Figs. 1-2, [0042]-[0043], microcrystalline region A21 formed only in non-bending region A2, otherwise the glass is amorphous), where the crystalline glass is formed by heating the second area of the base layer to crystallize it ([0050], [0070]-[0071]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Lyu with Baby such that the method comprises crystallizing the glass substrate by heating the second area of the base member for the purpose of increasing the hardness of the non-bending region (Lyu, [0013], [0043]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baby (U.S. PGPub 2022/0291712) in view of Choi (WO 2023101327 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Baby does not teach in the embodiment of Figs. 18-21 wherein the first coating solution has a first thickness in a thickness direction of the base member, and the second coating solution has the first thickness in the thickness direction.
Choi teaches wherein the ion concentration in the glass can be controlled by changing the thickness of the salt paste ([0007], [0060]). Therefore, the thickness of the coating solution (salt paste) is a result effective variable. Mere optimization of a result effective variable is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05IIB.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Choi with Baby such that the first coating solution has a first thickness in a thickness direction of the base member, and the second coating solution has the first thickness in the thickness direction for the purpose of controlling the relative ion concentration in the first and second regions (Baby, [0007], [0360], [0231]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights