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
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 of Group I, claims 1-10 was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 8, 2026.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by USPub20220225523).
Regarding claim 1: ‘523 teaches a display cover layer 14CG configured to bend about a bend axis (see entire document) and provides an example as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although ‘523’s above Figure includes interposing layers 90 and 92, ‘523 teaches that layers 90 and 92 may be omitted and the glass layers can simply be fused together (see 0058) meeting the requirement of claim 1.
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) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (USPub20220225523) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of any one of (USPub20200299185), (USPub20180304588) or (USPub20170297308).
Regarding claim 2: While ‘523 does not explicitly mention the CTE of the three glass layers, they do not appear to place limits on CTE and instead, is only generally teaching a fused glass laminate comprising first and third glass layers sandwiching a second core glass layer wherein the laminate is used as a display cover glass.
As ‘185, ‘588 and ‘308, who each similarly teach fused glass laminates comprising first and third glass layers sandwiching a second core glass layer wherein the laminate is used as a display cover glass, teach it being desirable for such second core glass layer to have a higher CTE than that of the outer first and second glass layers for increased mechanical strength (see 0005, 0049, 0061, and 0074 in ‘185; abstract, 0003, 0030-0031 in ‘588; abstract, 0004, 0029-0030 in ‘308), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘523 to include the second core glass layer to have a higher CTE than that of the outer first and third glass layers for increased mechanical strength.
Regarding claim 3: As shown above, ‘523’s 14CG has a thinned portion (notch) in the third glass and ‘523 teaches such thinned portions being strip-shaped and extending along the bend axis (see ‘523 0039-0040, 0048, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 4: As shown above, the strip-shaped thinned portion (notch) in the third glass passes through the third glass and exposes portions of the second glass.
Regarding claim 5: ‘523 does not disclose the exposed portion of their second glass layer in the notch being chemically strengthened.
However, given that 185, ‘588 and ‘308, from the same field of endeavor as previously discussed, teach it being desirable in the art for such laminates to undergo a final chemical strengthening step for increasing the compressive stress of the surfaces and thereby, increase strength (see 0071-0073 in ‘185; 0020, 0029, 0032-0034 in ‘588; 0022, 0031, 0035 0037-0038 in ‘308) and ‘185 even suggests it being desirable to do such strengthening to exposed interior surfaces of the second core glass layer in order to increase compressive stress of the exposed surfaces and reduce tensile stress in the core region (see 0071-0073), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘523 to include a final chemical strengthening step for increasing the compressive stress of the surfaces and thereby, increase strength and specifically, to chemically strengthen the exposed interior surfaces (in the notch area) of the second core glass layer in order to increase compressive stress of these exposed surfaces and reduce tensile stress in the core region.
Regarding claim 6: ‘523’s total thickness of 14CG can be 100-600micron, at least 100micron, at least 200micron, less than 600micron, etc. away from the strip-shaped notch (0036).
Regarding claim 7: As discussed above, ‘523’s total thickness of 14CG (first, second and third layers) can be 100-600micron, at least 100micron, at least 200micron, less than 600micron, which allows for combined first and second glass totals overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Alternatively, as 185, 588’ and 308’, who each similarly teaches a fused glass laminate with similar total thickness (see 0059 in 185’; 0027 in ‘588 and 0028 in ‘308) discloses that it is desirable for a ratio of a thickness of the second core glass to that of the total be 0.7-0.95 and for the first and third glasses to each have a thickness of 0.01-0.3mm (i.e. 10-300micron) (0059 in 185’; 0027 in ‘588 and 0028 in ‘308), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘523 to include a thickness of the second core glass to that of the total be 0.7-0.95 and for the first and third glass to have a thickness of 0.01-0.3mm (i.e. 10-300micron) to obtain a desirable laminate. Note that this teaching in combination with ‘523’s total thickness teaching allows for individual second and first glass thicknesses that provide for totals overlapping that claimed.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (USPub20220225523) and any one of (USPub20200299185), (USPub20180304588) or (USPub20170297308) as applied to claim 7, in further view of (USPub20220225492)
Regarding claim 8: While ‘523 may not explicitly teach the width of their notch, they do not appear to place limits on it and instead, is only generally teaching a glass layer to be used as a foldable display cover glass wherein the glass has a notch to aid in bending. As such, it would be well within the skill of the art to look to the prior art to determine suitable and desirable widths for such an application.
As ‘492, who similarly teaches a glass layer to be used as a foldable display cover glass wherein the glass has a notch to aid in bending, teaches widths overlapping Applicants’ (MPEP 2144.05) being desirable for such an application (see 0040, Figure 5), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘523 to include their notch having widths according to ‘492 overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05) to obtain a desirable glass for their foldable application.
Regarding claim 9: As discussed above ‘523 was modified to include the second CTE being greater than the first and second glass CTE according to the teachings of ‘185, ‘588 or ‘308 and the second and first CTEs in ‘185, ‘588 and ‘308 allow for relationships overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05) (see 0062 in ‘185; 0031 in ‘588 and 0030 in ‘308).
Regarding claim 10: As discussed above, 523’s first, second and third glasses are fused to form a glass layer 14CG having a total thickness and opposing first and second surfaces.
As also discussed above, 523’ was modified according to the teachings of ‘185, ‘588 or ‘308 to include the include the second core glass layer having a higher CTE than that of both the outer first and third glass layers.
‘185 teaches that this results in the second core glass having tensile stress with first and second compressively stress surface portions being that of the first and third glass layers at the first and second surfaces (see entire document). Note that given that the first and third layers are compressive portions, the thickness of each will correspond to first and second compression depths. Given that 523’s total thickness is 100-600micron, at least 100micron, at least 200micron, less than 600micron, etc. and for reasons already presented previously (see rejection of claim 7), ‘185 rendered it obvious for the first and third layers to have a thickness of 0.01-3mm (10-300micron), this allows for overlapping relationships as claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Similarly, both ‘588 and ‘308 teach that this results in the second core glass having tensile stress with first and second compressively stress surface portions being that of the first and third glass layers at the first and second surfaces (see entire documents and note 0036 and Fig 3 in ‘588 showing compressive stress from surface through the first and third layers to the core where it becomes tension +; 0035 and Figures in ‘308 indicating the first and third layers being the compression regions wherein the compression is through the layers to the core). Note that given that the first and third layers are compressive portions, the thickness of each will correspond to first and second compression depths. Given that 523’s total thickness is 100-600micron, at least 100micron, at least 200micron, less than 600micron, etc. and for reasons already presented previously (see rejection of claim 7), ‘185 rendered it obvious for the first and third layers to have a thickness of 0.01-3mm (10-300micron), this allows for overlapping relationships as claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights