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, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 12-18-2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12-18-2025.
Claim Interpretation
In the claims, the term “bending area” is broadly interpreted as any area of the glass exposed by the patterning step.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “a back surface” in the 4th line. However, claim 1 already recites “a back surface” in the second line. It is unclear if these two elements are the same. If they are the same, Examiner recommends changing the 4th line to recite --the back surface--, and the claim will be interpreted as such for purposes of examination.
Claim 9 recites “the glass is wet etched by hydrofluoric acid solution”. It is unclear if this is further limiting the step of “etching the glass” from claim 1, or if claim 9 is describing a separating etching. For purposes of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted as further limiting the step of “etching the glass” from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura ‘987 (JP 2017-111987 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 1, Tamura ‘987 teaches:
forming a patterning film on a back surface of a glass (film 30 or 32 on top side of glass base material 10, Figs. 1-3, 5-6; ¶ [0017], [0027])
patterning the patterning film to expose a bending area of the glass (¶ [0018], [0027])
forming a groove overlapping the bending area on the back surface of the glass by providing abrasive particles to the exposed glass (portion 20, Figs. 1-7; ¶ [0020]-[0021])
forming an acid-resistant film on a front surface of the glass (film 30 on bottom side of glass base material 10, Figs. 5-6; ¶ [0017], [0027])
etching the glass (¶ [0019], [0020], [0022], [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Tamura ‘987 further teaches the groove is formed by a blast process using the abrasive particles (¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Tamura ‘987 further teaches removing the patterning film, after forming the groove (¶ [0024], [0029]; Figs. 4, 7).
Regarding claim 10, Tamura ‘987 further teaches removing the acid-resistant film, after etching the glass (¶ [0029]; Fig. 7).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura ‘987 (JP 2017-111987 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Huang ‘283 (US 2015/0225283 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Tamura ‘987 is silent regarding the abrasive particles being chemically stable particles from the glass, and each of the abrasive particles being alumina oxide (Al2O3). In analogous art of abrasive blasting of glass, Huang ‘283 suggests providing abrasive particles to a glass for abrading the glass, wherein the particles are alumina oxide (Al2O3), which would be chemically stable particles from the glass (¶ [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tamura ‘987 by making the abrasive particles chemically stable particles from the glass, each of the abrasive particles being alumina oxide (Al2O3), as a substitution of known abrasive particle compositions for abrasive blasting of glass, as suggested by Huang ‘283.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura ‘987 (JP 2017-111987 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) and Huang ‘283 (US 2015/0225283 A1) in view of Park ‘725 (KR 10-2014-0058725 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 5, Tamura ‘987 is silent regarding an average diameter of each of the abrasive particles. In analogous art of abrasive blasting of glass, Park ‘725 suggests that average diameter of abrasive particles for abrading glass is a result effective variable because it may be altered in order to modify speed of abrading and machining quality (p. 3, lines 1-4). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tamura ‘987 by selecting an average diameter of each of the abrasive particles for the benefit of optimizing the speed of abrading and machine quality, as suggested by Park ‘725.
Regarding claim 9, Tamura ‘987 is silent regarding the glass being wet etched by hydrofluoric acid solution. Park ‘725 suggests etching a glass after scribing the glass by wet etching by hydrofluoric acid solution (p. 5, lines 22-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tamura ‘987 by wet etching the glass by hydrofluoric acid solution as a substitution of manners for etching glass, as suggested by Park ‘725.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura ‘987 (JP 2017-111987 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Sunwoo ‘467 (US 2021/0191467 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tamura ‘987 is silent regarding the patterning film being a dry film resist (DFR). In analogous art of abrasive blasting and wet etching of glass, Sunwoo ‘467 suggests applying a patterning film which is patterned to glass before abrasive blasting and/or wet etching, wherein the patterning film is a dry film resist (DFR) (¶ [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tamura ‘987 by making the patterning film be a dry film resist (DFR) as a substitution of known films to apply to glass and to pattern before abrasive blasting and/or wet etching of the glass, as suggested by Sunwoo ‘467.
Regarding claim 7, Tamura ‘987 and Sunwoo ‘467 are silent regarding a thickness of the dry film resist. However, it has been held that a change in size of an element is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tamura ‘987 and Sunwoo ‘467 by selecting a thickness of the dry film resist that is sufficient to protect the underlying glass during the abrading and etching taught by Tamura ‘987.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura ‘987 (JP 2017-111987 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Lee ‘382 (US 2020/0328382 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tamura ‘987 is silent regarding forming a substrate on the front surface of the glass, forming a transistor layer on the substrate, forming a light emitting diode layer on the transistor layer, and forming an encapsulation layer on the light emitting diode. In analogous art of LED displays, Lee ‘382 suggests forming a substrate (substrate 301 and/or 302 of display panel 300, Fig. 13, ¶ [0094]) on a front surface of a glass (light guide member LG, ¶ [0080]-[0081]; Figs. 4, 12), forming a transistor layer on the substrate (transistor layer 303, Fig. 13) ¶ [0094]), forming a light emitting diode layer on the transistor layer (“light emitting diode”, ¶ [0044]; light emitting element layer 304, Fig. 13, ¶ [0094]), and forming an encapsulation layer on the light emitting diode (encapsulation layer 305, Fig. 13, ¶ [0094]) in order to use the glass as a light guide in an LED display (¶ [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tamura ‘987 by forming a substrate on the front surface of the glass, forming a transistor layer on the substrate, forming a light emitting diode layer on the transistor layer, and forming an encapsulation layer on the light emitting diode in order to use the glass as a light guide in an LED display, as suggested by Lee ‘382.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura ‘987 (JP 2017-111987 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 12, Tamura ‘987 does not explicitly state that forming the groove is performed in a first chamber, and etching the glass is performed in a second chamber different from the first chamber. However, any building, room, box, or enclosure can be considered a chamber, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the steps in some sort of chamber or chambers in order to control the environment around the glass. As such, the forming the groove and the etching the glass can only be performed in the same chamber or in different chambers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try either option in the method of Tamura ‘987 with a reasonable expectation of success of forming the groove and etching the glass. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using different chambers in the method of Tamura ‘987 in order to contain and avoid contamination between the abrasive particles and the etchant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741