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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 July 2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are pending in the application. Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Amendments to the claims 1 and 16, filed on 13 July 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 13 July 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the applicants arguments and amendments to the claim.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 13 July 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection made of record, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants argue that neither Jin or He alone or in combination disclose the relationship between the edges of the window member (i.e., the first edge being the inner edge, and the second edge being the outer edge during bending) and the outer edge having a greater radius of curvature than the inner edge. Such that, when the electronic device is folded, the window member bends, and deformation increases as the distance from the center of curvature increases, wherein the inner edge has a smaller deformed length, while the outer edge has a greater deformed length -- the second edge may have a greater radius of curvature than the first edge because the second edge is the outer portion when the window member is bent and may have a greater amount of deformation, thereby making the second edge more resistant to damage. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, for the purposes of examination, the office has construed the "radius of curvature" for the second edge and the first edge to be with respect to their individual profiles when viewed in a projection along the first direction (see Figures 13A and 13B of the filed specification), in that the claims as presented do not indicate the radius of curvatures being with respect to the window member being in a "bent" configuration -- as said radius of curvature is claimed as being with respect to the first edge and the second edge and not said inner edge and said outer edge.
Secondly, overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: the results must fairly compare with the prior art, the claims must be commensurate in scope, and the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP §716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. MPEP §716.02(b). Applicants showing of allegedly unexpected results is not commensurate in scope and Applicant does not explain (via showing) why the results are unexpected and significant. The Applicant provides no working examples in the specification to show unexpected results. Furthermore, the claims are broader in that they do not explicitly recite the second edge may have a greater radius of curvature than the first edge because the second edge is the outer portion when the window member is bent and may have a greater amount of deformation, thereby making the second edge more resistant to damage. Because claims are broader than the showing and there is no explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the mitigation of stress imbalance to only occur when the first edge and the second edge are asymmetrical only in the folding area, the showing of unexpected results is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "the outer edge has a greater radius of curvature that the inner edge", "when the electronic device is folded, the window member bends, and deformation increases as the distance from the center of curvature increases", "the inner edge has a smaller deformed length, while the outer edge has a greater deformed length", "the second edge may have a greater radius of curvature than the first edge because the second edge is the outer portion when the window member is bent and may have a greater amount of deformation, thereby making the second edge more resistant to damage", "differential deformation between inner and outer edges of a folding-area window member", and/or "the outer edge, which experiences greater deformation during bending, has a greater radius of curvature than the inner edge") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicants' argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, He provides the rational to modify one edge/corner of ultra-thin glass to have one shape, and to modify another edge/corner of the ultra-thin glass to have a different shape/profile (i.e., to have asymmetric edges) (see figures 6 and [0052] of He). As such, it would have been obvious to have modified the first edge and the second edge of the window member disclosed by Jin to have --the first edge and the second edge by asymmetrical to each other--, since such a change would have amounted to a mere change in shape of the edges. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Therefore, in light of the applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the rejections are still valid over Jin in view of He.
Claim Interpretation
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --the first edge and the second edge are asymmetrical with respect to one another, wherein, when the window member is bent, the first edge is an inner edge of the window member and the second edge is an outer edge of the window member, wherein, in the in the second portion corresponding to the folding area and when the window member is bent, the first edge is an inner edge of the window member and the second edge is an outer edge of the window, and wherein the second edge has a radius of curvature greater than a radius of curvature of the first edge-- in lines 16 to 23. With regards to "radius of curvature" for the first edge and the second edge, said radius of curvature has been interpreted by the examiner to be in the case where the window member is not bent, and to be with respect to the shape of the first edge and the second edge along the second direction (i.e., the first edge and the second edge each have a circular profile, with each having different radius of curvatures). (That is to say, the radius of curvature for both the first edge and the second edge are not considered to pertain to the bending of the window member (see figures 13A to 13B of the filed specification).)
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation in lines 17 to 23:
wherein, when the window member is bent, the first edge is an inner edge of the window member and the second edge is an outer edge of the window member, wherein, in the in the second portion corresponding to the folding area and when the window member is bent, the first edge is an inner edge of the window member and the second edge is an outer edge of the window, and wherein the second edge has a radius of curvature greater than a radius of curvature of the first edge
which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read:
wherein, when the window member is bent, the first edge is an inner edge of the window member and the second edge is an outer edge of the window member, wherein, in the in the second portion corresponding to the folding area and when the window member is bent, the first edge is the[[an]] inner edge of the window member and the second edge is the[[an]] outer edge of the window member, and wherein the second edge has a radius of curvature greater than a radius of curvature of the first edge.
Appropriate correction is required.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (KR 2020-0070904 A).
Regarding Claim 16: Jin teaches an electronic device comprising a housing and a flexible display (ref. #100 and #200), wherein the flexible display comprises a display panel (ref. #120; "flexible display panel"), at least a portion of which is bendable, and a window member (ref. #130; "cover window") formed on an exterior of the display panel, wherein the flexible display panel includes a display area (ref. "AA") and a non-display area (ref. "NA") (figures 1 to 4, [0001]-[0002], [0049], and [0053]-[0082] of Jin). Jin also teaches that the cover window is made of glass (which is considered equivalent to the claimed "transparent material") and comprises a first portion (i.e., the non-folding area [ref. "NFA"]) having a first thickness and a second portion (i.e., the folding area [ref. "FA"]) extending from the first portion in a first direction, at least a portion of the second portion having a thickness a thickness substantially equal to the first thickness (figure 1 to 3, [0062]-[0065] of Jin). It is also taught by Jin that at least the second portion comprises an edge area extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and having a second thickness less than the first thickness (figure 2 and [0066] of Jin). (In the instant case, the claimed "housing" comprises the resin (ref. #140) to the outer frame (ref. #290) disclosed by Jin. Furthermore, portion of the cover window bounded by the display area (ref. "AA") in the NFA is considered equivalent to the claimed "non-bendable portion", and would have a thickness that is greater than the thickness ("second thickness") at the end of the tapered edge.)
Jin teaches the claimed electronic device, but does not explicitly recite --to provide increased impact resistance while maintaining bending performance--. However, the window member of Jin has the same structure and the same material as applicants (e.g., a window member comprising a transparent material, wherein the window member comprises a first portion having a first thickness and a second portion extending from the first portion in a first direction, wherein at least a portion of the second portion spaced from an edge thereof has a thickness substantially equal to the first thickness, wherein the second portion comprises an edge area located at a boundary of the second portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and the edge area has a second thickness less than the first thickness, the second thickness being present in the edge area such that the second portion is non-uniform in thickness along the second direction, wherein the second portion is a bendable portion of the window member, and wherein the window member further includes a non-bendable portion having a thickness that is larger than the second thickness of the edge area of the second portion; (figures 1 to 4, [0001]-[0002], [0049], and [0053]-[0082]) of Jin and ([0009], [0010], [0015], [0123], and [0139]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the window member of Jin inherently possesses the feature of providing increased impact resistance while maintaining bending performance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 2020-0070904 A) in view of He et al. (US 2018/0101253 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Jin discloses an electronic device comprising a housing and a flexible display (ref. #100 and #200), wherein the flexible display comprises a display panel (ref. #120; "flexible display panel"), at least a portion of which is bendable, and a window member (ref. #130; "cover window") formed on an exterior of the display panel (figures 1 to 4, [0001]-[0002], and [0053]-[0082] of Jin). Jin also discloses that the cover window is made of glass (which is considered equivalent to the claimed "transparent material") and comprises a first portion (i.e., the NFA) having a first thickness and a second portion (i.e., the FA) extending from the first portion in a first direction, at least a portion of the second portion having a thickness a thickness substantially equal to the first thickness (figure 1 to 3, [0062]-[0065] of Jin). It is also disclose by Jin that at least the second portion comprises an edge area extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and having a second thickness less than the first thickness (figure 2 and [0066] of Jin). (In the instant case, the housing comprises the resin (ref. #140) to the outer frame (ref. #290) disclosed by Jin.) Specifically, Jin provides for --an electronic device comprising: a housing; and a flexible display comprising a display panel, at least a portion of which is bendable, and a window member comprising a transparent material and provided at an exterior of the flexible display, wherein the display panel comprises a folding area, a first area disposed on one side of the folding area, and a second area disposed on an opposite side of the folding area, wherein the window member comprises a first portion having a first thickness and a second portion extending from the first portion in a first direction, wherein the second portion corresponds to the folding area of the display panel, wherein at least a portion of the second portion spaced from an edge thereof has a thickness substantially equal to the first thickness, wherein at least a portion of the second portion comprises an edge area located at a boundary of the second portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the edge area comprises a first edge and a second edge and has a second thickness smaller than the first thickness, wherein, when the window member is bent, the first edge is an inner edge of the window member and the second edge is an outer edge of the window member, wherein, in the in the second portion corresponding to the folding area and when the window member is bent, the first edge is the inner edge of the window member and the second edge is the outer edge of the window member--.
Jin fails to disclose --the first edge and the second edge are asymmetrical with respect to each other--.
He discloses an electronic device structure comprising an ultra-thin glass (ref. #12), which can have edges that are of different shapes (i.e., a right angle, rounded, chamfered, or semicircle) (figure 6 and [0052] of He).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the edges of different shapes disclosed by He with the first edge and second edge of the electronic device disclosed by Jin in order to have --the first edge and the second be asymmetrical to each other--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the edges of different shapes disclosed by He with the first edge and second edge of the electronic device disclosed by Jin, from the stand-point of improving bending performance of the glass ([0052] of He). (In the instant case, such a change to the first edge and the second edge of Jin to another shape (i.e., an arc-shaped corner [ref. #205]) as disclosed by He (figure 6 and [0052] of He), would have amounted to a mere change in shape. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Specifically, He provides the rational to modify one edge/corner to have one shape, and to modify another edge/corner to have a different shape/profile (i.e., asymmetric edges).)
Jin in view of He does not explicitly recite that --the second edge has a radius of curvature greater than a radius of curvature of the first edge--. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the radius of curvature of at least the second/outer edge to be greater than the radius of curvature of the first/inner edge, since such a change would have amounted to a mere change in shape. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). (In the instant case, the upper side has a larger radius of curvature and the lower side has a smaller radius of curvature (see figure 6 of He); wherein the edge would be configured such that the second/outer edge is the upper side and the first/inner edge is the lower side when combined with Jin.)
Regarding Claim 2: Jin in view of He discloses that the second portion includes the bendable portion of the display panel (figures 1 to 3 of Jin).
Regarding Claim 3: Jin in view of He discloses that the first edge is bend in one direction and the second edge is bent in an opposite direction (figures 2, 4, and [0066] of Jin; figure 6 and [0052] of He).
Regarding Claim 5: Jin in view of He discloses that the second thickness of the edge area of the second portion decreases as a distance from a portion of the second portion adjacent to the first portion increases (figures 2 and 3 of Jin). (In the instant case, as the distance along the transverse direction of the edge area increases, the thickness of the edge area decreases.)
Regarding Claim 6: Jin in view of He discloses that the housing further comprises a side surface structure (ref. #290; "outer frame") configured to protect the flexible display, the side surface structure being disposed to correspond to the second portion of the window member (figures 1 to 4, [0060], and [0068]-[0071] of Jin).
Regarding Claim 7: Jin in view of He discloses that the housing further comprises an impact absorbing material (ref. #140; "resin") disposed to correspond to the second portion of the window member (figures 1 to 4 and [0079] of Jin).
Regarding Claim 8: Jin in view of He discloses that the housing further comprises a waterproof member (ref. #150; "thin film metal layer") comprising a water blocking material disposed to correspond to the second portion of the window member (figures 1 to 4 and [0079] of Jin).
Regarding Claim 9: Jin in view of He discloses that the waterproof member further comprises a portion filling a gap between a top surface of the window member and the housing (figures 1 to 4 and [0069]-[0070] of Jin).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 2020-0070904 A) in view of He et al. (US 2018/0101253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seonghoon et al. (KR 2020-0108754 A).
Jin in view of He is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 10: Jin in view of He fails to disclose --a hinge structure including a hinge, wherein the housing comprises: a first housing connected to the hinge structure and comprising a first surface and a second surface facing opposite to the first surface; and a second housing connected to the hinge structure and comprising a third surface and a fourth surface facing opposite to the third surface, the second housing structure configured to be folded with the first housing about the hinge structure--.
Seonghoon discloses a foldable electronic device including a hinge structure, a first housing structure (ref. #110) and a second housing structure (ref. #120) connected in opposite direction to each other in the hinge structure (ref. #164), and a flexible display arranged to span the first housing structure and the second housing structure when opened 180°, wherein the first housing structure includes a first surface (ref. #111) arranged to face the front of the electronic device, a second surface (ref. #112) facing in an opposite direction to the first surface, and a first side member (ref. #113) surrounding at least a portion of a space between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the second housing structure includes a third surface (ref. #121) arranged to face the front of the electronic device, a fourth surface (ref. #122) facing in an opposite direction to the third surface, and a second side member (ref. #123) surrounding at least a portion of a space between the first surface and the second surface (figures 1 to 3, [0005], and [0021]-[0025] of Seonghoon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the foldable electronic device of Seonghoon with the electronic device of Jin in vie of He in order to have --a hinge structure including a hinge, wherein the housing comprises: a first housing connected to the hinge structure and comprising a first surface and a second surface facing opposite to the first surface; and a second housing connected to the hinge structure and comprising a third surface and a fourth surface facing opposite to the third surface, the second housing structure configured to be folded with the first housing about the hinge structure--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the foldable electronic device of Seonghoon with the electronic device of Jin in view of He, from the stand-point of having a flexible display arranged to receive support from at least a portion of the second housing through the hinge module from at least a portion of the first housing ([0014] of Seonghoon).
Regarding Claim 11: Jin in view of He and Seonghoon discloses that the flexible display is visible from outside through at least one surface of the housing and extends from the first surface of the first housing to the third surface of the second housing (figures 1, 2, and [0048] of Seonghoon).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 2020-0070904 A) in view of He et al. (US 2018/0101253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2018/0049328 A1).
Jin in view of He is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 12: Jin in view of He fails to disclose --the housing comprises a first surface, a second surface facing away from the first surface, a first side surface surrounding at least a portion of a space between the first surface and the second surface, and a second side surface facing away from the first side surface, and at least a portion of the housing is configured to slide such that a distance between the first side surface and the second side surface is variable--.
Choi discloses a sliding display device (ref. #100) comprising a housing (ref. #120) and a flexible display (ref. #140), wherein the housing includes a first edge region (ref. "FER"), a second edge region (ref. "SER"), a display region (ref. "DR"), and that the housing can be expanded such that a distance between the FER and the SER is variable (figures 1 to 2, and [0024]-[0031] of Choi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the sliding display device of Choi as the housing of the electronic device disclosed by Jin in view of He in order to have --the housing comprises a first surface, a second surface facing away from the first surface, a first side surface surrounding at least a portion of a space between the first surface and the second surface, and a second side surface facing away from the first side surface, and at least a portion of the housing is configured to slide such that a distance between the first side surface and the second side surface is variable--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the sliding display device of Choi as the housing of the electronic device disclosed by Jin in view of He, from the stand-point of having a housing that is expanded or contracted in a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, wherein a flexible display panel slides out from the housing when expanded, and contracted when the housing is contracted ([0004] of Choi).
Regarding Claim 13: Jin in view of He and Choi discloses that the flexible display comprises a first area visible from outside through at least one surface of the housing and a second area extending from the first area, and based on sliding of the portion of the housing, at least a portion of the second area is visible from outside through at least one surface of the housing (figures 1 to 2, and [0024]-[0031] of Choi).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 2020-0070904 A) in view of He et al. (US 2018/0101253 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ran (US 2020/0029451 A1).
Jin in view of He is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 14: Jin in view of He fails to disclose that --the housing surrounds at least a portion of the flexible display, and the housing includes an opening at one side thereof to accommodate the flexible display and to allow the flexible display to be extracted from the housing, and the housing comprises a guide configured to guide the flexible display--.
Ran discloses a portable electronic apparatus (ref. #100) comprising a housing (ref. #20), a flexible display screen (ref. #62), a rotating shaft (ref. #64), and a support strap (ref. #624), wherein the flexible display screen is wound around the rotating shaft, wherein the flexible display screen can be drown out and unfolded from the housing, and wherein the support strap is wound or unfolded on the rotating shaft along with the flexible display screen, the support strap being configured to support the flexible display screen (figures 1 to 4, [0047]-[0057] of Ran). Ran also discloses a strip-shaped slot (ref. #2252) through which the flexible display screen passes (figure 3 and [0052] of Ran).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the portable electronic apparatus of Ran with the electronic device of Jin in view of He in order to have --the housing surrounds at least a portion of the flexible display, and the housing includes an opening at one side thereof to accommodate the flexible display and to allow the flexible display to be extracted from the housing, and the housing comprises a guide configured to guide the flexible display--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the portable electronic apparatus of Ran with the electronic device of Jin in view of He, from the stand-point of having a large portable screen that occupies less space ([0003] and [0007] of Ran).
Regarding Claim 15: Jin in view of He and Ran discloses that the flexible display comprises a first area, at least a portion of which is exposed outside the housing, and a second area extending from the first area and configured to be at least partially rolled around the guide, wherein the first area is extendible based on the second area being unrolled from the guide (figures 1 to 4 and [0047]-[0057] of Ran).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights