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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0292731 Park et al.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a foldable substrate (paragraph 0002) comprising:
a substrate thickness t2 in a range from 50 microns to 300 microns (paragraph 0019, where 50 microns is “about 60 microns”) defined between a first major surface (bottom) and a second major surface (top) opposite the first major surface (figure 1);
a first portion P comprising the substrate thickness between a first surface area of the first major surface and a second surface area of the second major surface (figure 1);
a second portion P comprising the substrate thickness between a third surface area of the first major surface and a fourth surface area of the second major surface (figure 1); and
a central portion F comprising:
a central thickness t1 less than the substrate thickness and in a range from 20-100 microns (paragraph 0019, where 20 microns is “about 25 microns” and 100 microns is “about 80 microns”) defined between a first central surface area and a second central surface area opposite the first central surface area (figure 1), and the first central surface area recessed from the first major surface by a first distance t2-t1 (figure 1);
a first transition region α comprising a first transition surface area extending between the first surface area and the first central surface area with a first average angle (180°-θ) relative to the first central surface area (figure 1), and a thickness of the first transition region smoothly and monotonically decreases between the substrate thickness of the first portion and the central thickness of the central portion (figure 1 and paragraph 0056 teaching a trapezoid, which has linear sides); and
a second transition region α comprising a third transition surface area extending between the third surface area and the first central surface area with a third average angle (180°-θ) relative to the first central surface area (figure 1), and a thickness of the second transition region smoothly and monotonically decreases between the substrate thickness of the second portion and the central thickness of the central portion (figure 1 and paragraph 0056 teaching a trapezoid, which has linear sides),
wherein the first average angle is in a range from 130° to 179° (paragraph 0055, teaching the complementary angle to be 1°-50°).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 130° to 179° reads on the claimed range of about 167° to about 179°.
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches that the first average angle is in a range from 130° to 179° (paragraph 0055, teaching the complementary angle to be 1°-50°).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 130° to 179° reads on the claimed range of about 170° to about 176°.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches that a first transition width of the first transition region is in a range from greater than 0 to 16 mm (paragraph 0019 teaching t1 and t2, and paragraph 0055 teaching θ).
The transition width is the adjacent side, where adjacent=opposite/tanθ.
The opposite side is t2-t1, which is (50 to 300 microns)-(20 to 100 microns), which means that the opposite side is greater than 0 to 280 microns.
Theta is 1-50°, which is 0.017 to 1.19.
Therefore, the full range of opposite-tanθ is greater than 0 to 16,041 microns (16 mm).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of greater than 0 to 16 mm reads on the claimed range of about 150 microns to about 700 microns.
Regarding claims 4-7, Park does not explicitly teach the maximum fractional intensity or contrast ratio as measured by either brightfield transmission or darkfield reflection. However, as Park satisfies all of the previous limitations, Park’s product is indistinguishable from the claimed product. “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” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Park’s fractional intensity and contrast ratio would be the same as that for the invention.
Furthermore, when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §2112, Section V. In this case, Park appears to form the same product with the same structure as that of the instant invention. Applicant may provide evidence proving a difference between the products.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches that the foldable substrate comprises a glass-based substrate (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches that the foldable substrate achieves a parallel plate distance of 1-5 mm or more (paragraph 0024, teaching that the minimum folding radius is 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm, such that the folding diameter, equivalent to the parallel plate distance, is 1 to 5 mm or more).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches that the foldable substrate achieves a parallel plate distance of 1-5 mm or more (paragraph 0024, teaching that the minimum folding radius is 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm, such that the folding diameter, equivalent to the parallel plate distance, is 1 to 5 mm or more. Please note that 1 mm is “about 2 mm”). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 1-5 mm or more reads on the claimed range of about 2 to about 10 mm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 8, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Applicant has shown criticality of the claimed range. However, the data provided is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The angle values may match, however, the remainder of the features do not.
Applicant’s data is for a glass substrate with a specific composition. The claim 1 does not require this composition. In fact, claim 1 does not even require a glass substrate.
The data includes a substrate thickness of exactly 100 microns. The claim requires a thickness of anywhere from 60 microns to 2 mm. Please note that Applicant has not defined “about” such that it is limited to a specific ratio of the claimed value.
The data also includes the etch mask peripheral distance (central portion size). The claim only discusses a central portion thickness, not width or length.
Therefore, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Applicant argues that Park does not teach the effect of the inclination. However, the prior art need not have the same reason, or even recognize the same advantages as Applicant in order to read on the claim.
Applicant argues that claim 2 narrows the range within the criticality. However, as discussed above, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Applicant argues that the range inferred from Park is too large and Applicant’s range is critical. However, as discussed above, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Regarding claims 4-7, Applicant argues that the features must be explicitly taught. However, Applicant has not explained why Examiner’s inherency discussion is incorrect in this situation, nor has Applicant provided evidence showing a difference between the products. Applicant’s discussion of CC falling outside the range of the claim is not persuasive because the data is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 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, 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781