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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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 19-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunwoo et al. (KR 102264276) with (US 2022/0079161), as an English language translation, in view of Ko et al. (US 2022/0082732) and Sunwoo et al. (US 2021/0191467).
Regarding claim 19, Sunwoo (2022) teaches an antibacterial flexible cover window (Paragraph [0002]). The cover window, as illustrated in figure 4, includes glass susbtrate having a folding portion which is slimmer than the planar portion (“a flexible cover window containing a flat portion disposed on a flat area of a flexible display and a folding portion formed in connection to the flat portion and disposed on a folding area of the flexible display, the cover window comprising: a glass substrate in which the folding portion is formed to have a smaller thickness than the flat portion”) (Paragraph [0085]; Fig. 4). The glass substrate is then provided with a primer layer which is formed to surround all of the surfaces of the glass susbtrate (“a first coating layer formed on the glass substrate containing the folding portion”) (Paragraph [0085]). An antibacterial layer is then formed on the primer layer (“a second coating layer formed on the first coating layer”) (Paragraph [0085]).
Sunwoo (2022) is silent with respect to the primer layer being completely cured before the addition of the antibacterial layer. Sunwoo is additionally silent with respect to a difference (Max.-Min.) between a maximum thickness value (Max.) and a minimum thickness value (Min.) of a coated structure composed of the glass substrate and the first and second coating layers is between 3 um to 7 um, and wherein a difference (AC-B) between an average thickness (AC) of the coated structure in the flat portion and an average thickness (B) of the coated structure in the folding portion is between -0.5 um to 1.9 um.
Sunwoo (2021) teaches a flexible cover window formed from a glass substrate having a pattern thereon (Paragraph [0016]; Fig. 6a-6b). A transparent resin layer is provided on and fills the pattern layer providing a flat surface opposite the filled pattern (Paragraph [0106]; Fig. 6a-6b). The flat surface is substantially uniform so as to provide improved visibility and bonding properties wherein no empty air spaces are provided (Paragraph [0098]).
Ko teaches a cover window and a method of manufacturing a cover window which includes a base layer, a first coating layer and a second coating layer on the first coating layer (Paragraphs [0005]-[0011]). The method includes placing the first coating layer on an upper surface of the base layer and then processing the first coating layer which is then followed by the application of the second coating layer and secondary processing of the coating (Paragraphs [0132]-[0144]). This method of performing primary processing after application of the first coating layer provides a significant reduction in the deviation of the thickness of the first coating layer (Paragraph [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the primer layer and the antibacterial layer to be substantially uniform so as to improve visibility and bonding properties by preventing empty spaces from being present as taught by Sunwoo (2021). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the primer layer and the antibacterial layer such that the primer layer is first processed in order to reduce the deviation in thickness of the primer layer in order to achieve the above-described uniformity, as taught by Ko. Additionally, it would have been obvious to optimize the uniformity of the coating layers in order to be less than 0.2 microns in order to improve the visibility and bonding properties as taught by Sunwoo (2021). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A): "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Concerning the limitations of a difference (Max.-Min.) between a maximum thickness value (Max.) and a minimum thickness value (Min.) of a coated structure composed of the glass substrate and the first and second coating layers is between 3 um to 7 um, and wherein a difference (AC-B) between an average thickness (AC) of the coated structure in the flat portion and an average thickness (B) of the coated structure in the folding portion is between -0.5 um to 1.9 um, it is noted that these limitations are the result of the materials and methods of forming the cover windows of claim 1 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical materials and methods would result in identical products with identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the instant case, the cover windows of claim 1 only require the glass substrates with the thinner folding region compared to the flat regions with a first and second coatings on the substrate as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sunwoo (2022) teaches an identical structure as discussed above and shown below.
Concerning the methods of applicant’s invention, the instant application only appears to indicate that the curing of the first coating layer, followed by the application of the second coating layer is critical in achieving the claimed uniformity properties (PGPUB, Paragraphs [0087]; [0110]-[0112]).
This method is taught by Sunwoo (2022) further in view of Sunwoo (2021) and Ko as discussed above wherein the processing of the first coating layer followed by the application of the second layer results in the reduction of deviation of the thickness of the first coating layer (i.e. thickness uniformity).
Therefore, the combination of Sunwoo (2022), Sunwoo (2021) and Ko teaches identical methods and materials as applicant’s invention. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these identical materials and methods would result in identical properties, including uniformity properties such as the instantly claimed difference (Max.-Min.) between a maximum thickness value (Max.) and a minimum thickness value (Min.) of a coated structure composed of the glass substrate and the first and second coating layers is between 3 um to 7 um, and wherein a difference (AC-B) between an average thickness (AC) of the coated structure in the flat portion and an average thickness (B) of the coated structure in the folding portion is between -0.5 um to 1.9 um.
Regarding claim 20, Sunwoo teaches the flexible cover windows as discussed above with respect to claim 19. As discussed above, and illustrated in figure 4, the primer payer is provided on all surface of the glass substrate.
Regarding claim 22, Sunwoo teaches the flexible cover windows as discussed above with respect to claim 19. The primer layer may have a thickness of 0.1 to 10 microns and the antibacterial layer may have a thickness of 2 to 20 microns (Claim 7 and Claim 10).
Regarding claim 23, Sunwoo teaches the flexible cover windows as discussed above with respect to claim 19. Sunwoo teaches the antibacterial coating being formed via bar coating (Paragraph [0062]).
Additionally, the limitation requiring the coating layers to be formed by a bar coating process or roll coating process is a product-by-process limitation. MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, the process limitations do not provide any further structural limitations to the final product of claim 19. As such, the flexible cover windows of Sunwoo as discussed above teach the final product of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Sunwoo teaches the flexible cover windows as discussed above with respect to claim 19. As discussed above, Sunwoo (2021) teaches the optimization of the thickness uniformity to be 0.2 microns or less in order to improve visibility and bonding properties.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunwoo et al. (KR 102264276) with (US 2022/0079161), as an English language translation, in view of Ko et al. (US 2022/0082732) and Sunwoo et al. (US 2021/0191467) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Walther et al. (US 2017/0183255).
Regarding claim 25, Sunwoo teaches the flexible cover windows as discussed above with respect to claim 19.
Sunwoo is silent with respect to the glass substrate being subjected to a plasma treatment.
Walther teaches a coated chemically strengthened flexible thin glass (Paragraph [0003]). The glass may be provide with plasma activation in order to result in an additional improvement in the adhesion property of an adhesion promoting layer (Paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the glass substrate of Sunwoo to further have a plasma activation in order to provide additional adhesion to the primer layer as taught by Walther.
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 19-20 and 22-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,146,067 in view of Sunwoo et al. (KR 102264276) with (US 2022/0079161) as an English language translation and Ko et al. (US 2022/0082732).
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent ‘067 teaches a flexible cover window which teaches each of the limitations of instant claim 19, with the exception of a second coating layer being formed on the coating resin composition.
Sunwoo teaches the flexible cover window as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 19. The cover windows include an antibacterial coating layer in order to provide antibacterial properties (Paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form a second coating layer on the flexible cover windows of U.S. Patent ‘067 as a second coating layer in order to provide antibacterial properties as taught by Sunwoo.
U.S. Patent ‘067 is silent with respect to a difference (Max.-Min.) between a maximum thickness value (Max.) and a minimum thickness value (Min.) of a coated structure composed of the glass substrate and the first and second coating layers is between 3 um to 7 um, and wherein a difference (AC-B) between an average thickness (AC) of the coated structure in the flat portion and an average thickness (B) of the coated structure in the folding portion is between -0.5 um to 1.9 um.
Ko teaches a cover window and a method of manufacturing a cover window which includes a base layer, a first coating layer and a second coating layer on the first coating layer (Paragraphs [0005]-[0011]). The method includes placing the first coating layer on an upper surface of the base layer and then processing the first coating layer which is then followed by the application of the second coating layer and secondary processing of the coating (Paragraphs [0132]-[0144]). This method of performing primary processing after application of the first coating layer provides a significant reduction in the deviation of the thickness of the first coating layer (Paragraph [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first coating layer to be processed before the addition of the second coating in order to reduce a deviation in thickness of the first coating layer as taught by Ko. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect this method to result in identical properties, as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 19.
Claims 20 and 22-25 are additionally rejected in view of the claims of U.S. Patent ‘067 and the references cited above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections.
Claims 19-20 and 22-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-29 of copending Application No. 18/119,407 in view of Ko et al. (US 2022/0082732).
Claim 18 of application ‘407 teaches a flexible cover window comprising a glass substrate, an adhesive buffer layer (“first coating layer”) and a TPI layer (“second coating layer”). Furthermore, claim 27 teaches the folding portion may be made thinner than the flat portion. Therefore, claims 18 and 27 teach each of the limitations of instant claim 19.
Application ‘407 is silent with respect to a difference (Max.-Min.) between a maximum thickness value (Max.) and a minimum thickness value (Min.) of a coated structure composed of the glass substrate and the first and second coating layers is between 3 um to 7 um, and wherein a difference (AC-B) between an average thickness (AC) of the coated structure in the flat portion and an average thickness (B) of the coated structure in the folding portion is between -0.5 um to 1.9 um.
Ko teaches a cover window and a method of manufacturing a cover window which includes a base layer, a first coating layer and a second coating layer on the first coating layer (Paragraphs [0005]-[0011]). The method includes placing the first coating layer on an upper surface of the base layer and then processing the first coating layer which is then followed by the application of the second coating layer and secondary processing of the coating (Paragraphs [0132]-[0144]). This method of performing primary processing after application of the first coating layer provides a significant reduction in the deviation of the thickness of the first coating layer (Paragraph [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first coating layer to be processed before the addition of the second coating in order to reduce a deviation in thickness of the first coating layer as taught by Ko. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect this method to result in identical properties, as discussed above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 19.
Claims 20 and 22-25 are additionally rejected in view of the claims of application ‘407 and the references cited above with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 7-10, applicant argues that the amendment to claim 19 overcomes the cited art of Sunwoo (2022) and Sunwoo (2021). Specifically, the amendment now requires a difference (Max.-Min.) between a maximum thickness value (Max.) and a minimum thickness value (Min.) of a coated structure composed of the glass substrate and the first and second coating layers is between 3 um to 7 um, and wherein a difference (AC-B) between an average thickness (AC) of the coated structure in the flat portion and an average thickness (B) of the coated structure in the folding portion is between -0.5 um to 1.9 um. The amendment describes a uniformity which is the result of the method of curing the first coating layer and then, subsequently, applying the second coating layer. This amendment overcomes the cited art such that the previous office-action relied upon product-by-process in order to teach the second coating layer being formed after the first coating layer is completely cured. Now the complete curing of the first coating layer and applying the second coating layer results in the claimed, amended properties.
The examiner concedes in that the amendment now requires further consideration of the method step of applying the second coating layer following curing of the first coating layer in order to achieve the claimed properties. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in further view of Ko and Sunwoo (2021) which teaches the claimed method steps in order to achieve thickness uniformity or a reduction in deviation of thickness as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 19.
The current rejection is made FINAL in view of the amendments to claim 19.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights