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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-2, 10-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baby et al. (US 2022/0291712 A1) in view of Chen et al., (“Pixelligent; White Paper: Low Chromatic Aberration Nanocomposite,” November 2015).
Baby et al. discloses a foldable cover (i.e., window) for a display. See paragraph [0070].
Figure 2 of Baby et al. has been annotated below to show where the features of claim 1 are present (see also paragraphs [0173]; [0179]; and [0188] of Baby et al.):
PNG
media_image1.png
465
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baby et al. teaches the portion 261 may have a difference in refractive index with respect to the substrate of about 0.05 or less, preferably 0.001 to 0.05. See paragraph [0241]. This range overlaps the difference in refractive index recited in claim 1, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. The index of refraction is measured at 589 nm. See paragraph [0239].
Baby et al. teaches embodiments in which the user is viewing the display through the substrate 201 and adhesive layer 261. See Figures 6 and 7, and paragraph [0243].
Baby et al. further teaches the embodiments in which a separate material 241 is employed in the recess as in Figures 6 and 7. Baby et al. teaches these embodiments may be substituted with the embodiment in which the adhesive 261 is in the recess as in Figure 2. See paragraph [0189].
Baby et al. differs from claim 1 by failing to teach a difference in Abbe No. between the adhesive 261 (i.e., filling portion) and the substrate 201.
Chen et al. teaches extracting more light from two different interfaced materials (i.e., an adhesive and glass substrate) occurs when both the index of refraction and the Abbe Number match. See the first full paragraph of page 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have matched the Abbe numbers and the refractive index of the adhesive and the substrate in the article of Baby et al. because more light would be extracted from the display.
Baby et al. teaches the features of claim 2 in Figures 1-2 where a folding axis 102 is in the concave portion.
As to claims 10-11, Baby et al. teaches the adhesive 261 forms a cover layer and also fills the concave portion as a single body in Figure 1.
As to claim 12, Baby et al. teaches the substrate may have a thickness of 125 µm to 200 µm in paragraph [0038].
As to claim 13, Baby discloses a display including a foldable cover (i.e., window). See paragraph [0070]. Figure 3 of Baby et al. has been annotated below to show where the features of claim 14 are present (see also paragraphs [0173]; [0179]; and [0188] of Baby et al.):
PNG
media_image2.png
506
986
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Baby et al. teaches the portion 261 (or 241) may have a difference in refractive index with respect to the substrate of about 0.05 or less, preferably 0.001 to 0.05. See paragraphs [0239] and [0241]. This range overlaps the difference in refractive index as recited in claim 13, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. The index of refraction is measured at 589 nm. See paragraph [0239].
Baby et al. teaches embodiments in which the user is viewing the display through the substrate 201 and adhesive layer 261. See Figures 6 and 7, and paragraph [0243].
Baby et al. further teaches the embodiments in which a separate material 241 is employed in the recess as in Figures 6 and 7. Baby et al. teaches these embodiments may be substituted with the embodiment in which the adhesive 261 is in the recess as in Figure 2. See paragraph [0189].
Baby et al. differs from claim 13 by failing to teach a difference in Abbe No. between the adhesive 261/241 (i.e., filling portion) and the substrate 201.
Chen et al. teaches extracting more light from two different interfaced materials (i.e., an adhesive and glass substrate) occurs when both the index of refraction and the Abbe Number match. See the first full paragraph of page 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have matched the Abbe numbers and the refractive indices of the adhesive and the substrate in the display of Baby et al. because more light would be extracted from the display.
Baby et al. teaches the features of claim 14 in Figures 1-3 where a folding axis 102 is parallel with in the concave portion.
As to claims 20, Baby et al. teaches the adhesive 261 forms a cover layer and also fills the concave portion as a single body in Figure 2.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baby et al. (US 2022/0291712 A1) in view of Fujiwara (JP 2011105784 A).
As to claim 21, Baby discloses a display including a foldable cover (i.e., window). See paragraph [0070].
Baby et al. teaches a folding axis 102 extending in one direction adjacent a non-folding direction. See Figures 1-3.
The window is formed of glass. See paragraph [0063].
The glass window (201) is disposed on the display module (307). See Figure 7.
Figure 7 of Baby et al. has been annotated below to show where the features of claim 21 are present (see also paragraphs [0173]; [0179]; and [0188] of Baby et al.):
PNG
media_image3.png
734
781
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Baby et al. teaches embodiments in which the user is viewing the display through the substrate 201 and adhesive layer 261. See Figures 6 and 7, and paragraph [0243].
Baby et al. further teaches the embodiments in which a separate material 241 is employed in the recess as in Figures 6 and 7. Baby et al. teaches these embodiments may be substituted with the embodiment in which the adhesive 261 is in the recess as in Figure 2. See paragraph [0189].
Baby et al. teaches the adhesive layer 241/261 may be an optically clear adhesive having an index of refraction of 1.4 to 1.55. See paragraphs [0239] and [0241].
Baby et al. differs from claim 21 by failing to disclose an Abbe No. of the optically clear adhesive 241/261.
Fujiwara discloses a curable composition for use as an adhesive and sealant. See the abstract and paragraph [0005]. The composition has an index of refraction of about 1.5 and an Abbe No. of 40 or more. See paragraphs [0007]. Fujiwara exemplifies compositions having an index of refraction of 1.50 and 1.51 and Abbe No’s of 46. See Table 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed the adhesive composition of Fujiwara et al. in the display of Baby et al. The rationale for doing so is that it has been held to have been obvious to have selected a known material (i.e., an adhesive having an index of refraction of 1.50 or 1.51 and an Abbe No. of 46) based upon its suitability for its intended purpose as an adhesive having a refractive index of 1.45-1.55. See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 15-19 and 22-27 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0107499 A1 teaches an optical adhesive, NOA 148, having a refractive index of 1.48 and Abbe number of 48 (paragraph [0071]). US 2022/0390985 A1 teaches a display having a recessed substrate and filler with a difference in index of refraction of within 0.01 (paragraph [0093]). US 2018/0217639 A1 teaches a foldable substrate having a recessed substrate and filler. See Figures 13-20B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784