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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and species (b) in the reply filed on April 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (1) “applicant believes that simultaneous examination will not present an undue burden,” and (2) “pursuant to MPEP § 803, Applicant is entitled to have a reasonable number of species examined.”
This is not found persuasive because, as discussed in the restriction requirement mailed March 16, 2026, to examine both the product and process claims would be a serious search and examination burden.
Furthermore, Applicant’s recited species cannot coexist in the same embodiment. Therefore, the different species are separate and distinct products that are not obvious variants of each other and would require different fields of search. The prior art applicable to one of the species would not be applicable to the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1 – 3 & 5 – 7 are examined herein. Claims 4 & 8 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 3 & 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites “the second surface faces the first surface of the base substrate.” Applicant’s drawings suggest the first surface (S1) and the second surface (S2) are on opposing sides of the base substrate, which do not face each other. It is assumed Applicant’s use of the term “faces” is a translational error from the original Korean application. However, clarification is requested.
Claims 2 – 3 & 5 – 7 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Park et al. (KR 10-2150392) (2020).
With regard to claim 1, Park et al. teach a flexible display device comprising a display panel (i.e., “a substrate”) (pg. 2) and a cover window (100), wherein the cover window comprises a folding region (i.e., “bending area”) (F/110), a border (120) (i.e., “boundary area”), and a planar section (P) (i.e., “non-bending area”) (Fig. 3 shown below). A functional coating (130) may be disposed on the second surface of the base substrate (pg. 9).
The last working example of Fig. 6 had a slope of 1°. A slope of A = 1° is equal to the value of “about 0.9°,” which anticipates Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.1° to about 0. 9°.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, Park et al. teach the border area has a slope at an angle θ = 1 - 50°, more preferably 1 – 10°, or 1 – 5° (pgs. 8 – 9). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
At first glance, it would appear Fig. 3 taught by ‘392 suggests the slope is inside the non-folding (non-bending) area, not adjacent to it. However, Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0050] states “the boundary area SA may be an area where the display device 10 is bent, or may be an area where the display device 10 is not bent. As an example, the boundary area SA may be partially flexible.” Therefore, the slope inside the non-folding area taught by the cited prior art reference meets Applicant’s recitation of “a boundary area adjacent to the bending area, and an on-bending area adjacent to the boundary area.”
Claim(s) 2 & 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imoto et al. (*WO 2023/127669).
*US 2024/0345432 A1 is cited herein as the English language equivalent of WO 2023/127669
With regard to claim 2, Park et al. fail to explicitly teach a width (W) of the window in the boundary area is about 1 mm to about 20 mm.
Imoto et al. teach a flexible display device comprising a cover glass comprising a thick region (i.e., “non-bending area”) and a thin region (i.e., “bending area”), joined by a stepped region (122A) with a slope (i.e., “boundary area”). The width (Ga) (i.e., Applicant’s “width (W)”) of the boundary area is optimize, according to Formula 2 shown below, to allow for the sufficient strength of the glass is to prevent stress concentration at a specific position and prevent damage at the time of bending (paragraphs [0072] – [0074]).
PNG
media_image2.png
94
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
326
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Imoto et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the width of the boundary area through routine experimentation in order to prevent stress concentration, and thus damage, at a specific position during the time of bending the flexible display device. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 5, Park et al. fail to teach the slope of the first surface of the base varies at least once in the boundary area.
Imoto teach a flexible display device comprising a curved (varying) slope adjacent to a foldable region of the cover window (paragraph [0062] & Fig. 6). The curved surface 112B shown in Fig. 6 is the preferred embodiment for alleviating a stress generated when the glass is bent, allowing the glass to be more easily bent (paragraphs [0066] – [0061]).
PNG
media_image4.png
370
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Imoto et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a curved slope (i.e., a slope that varies) in the boundary area in order to alleviate stress generated when the glass is bent.
With regard to claim 6, Park et al. fail to teach the boundary area includes a first area adjacent to the bending area, a second area adjacent to the non-bending area, and a third area between the first area and the second area, and
a slope of the third area of the base substrate is greater than a slope of each of the first area and the second area of the base substrate.
PNG
media_image4.png
370
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Imoto et al. teach the stepped region (i.e., “boundary area”) includes a width of 122P1 to peak of 122B1 is equivalent to Applicant’s “second area”, the width of 122B2 to peak of 122P2 is equivalent to Applicant’s “first area”, the width of peak of the convex region 122B1 to the peak of concave region 122B2 is equivalent to Applicant’s “third area”.
As shown in Fig. 6, the slope of the angle between the peaks of the concave and convex regions (Applicant’s “third area”) is greater than the angle of the slope at the top and bottom of the curved slope (Applicant’s “first area” and “second area”). Imoto et al. teach the curved surface 112B shown in Fig. 6 is the preferred embodiment for alleviating a stress generated when the glass is bent, allowing the glass to be more easily bent (paragraphs [0066] – [0061]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Imoto et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the slope of the first, second, and third regions to alleviate the stress generated from the glass is bent. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 7, Park et al. fail to teach a width of the window in the third area is greater than a sum of a width of the window in the first area and a width of the window in the second area.
Imoto et al. teach the boundary (slope) includes a width of 122P1 to peak of 122B1 is equivalent to Applicant’s “second area”, the width of 122B2 to peak of 122P2 is equivalent to Applicant’s “first area”, the width of peak of the convex region 122B1 to the peak of concave region 122B2 is equivalent to Applicant’s “third area”.
As shown in Fig. 6 above, the width of the boundary region (Ga) is the total of the width of the third area (between the peaks of the convex and concave regions) as well as the width of the first area (122P2 to concave peak) and the second area (122P1 to convex peak) of the base substrate. The curvature radius of the curved surface 122 is dependent on the width of the first and second areas. The shape of the curvature radius preferably less than 500 µm may alleviate stress generated when the glass is bent (paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Imoto et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the width of the first, second, and third regions of the slope through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired curvature radius for alleviating stress generated when the glass is bent. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (KR 10-2022-0028664).
With regard to claim 3, Park et al. fail to teach an edge of at least one of the first surface and the second surface of the base substrate has a chamfered shape in the bending area and the boundary area.
Choi teaches a process of manufacturing an ultra thin glass plate or glass laminate for a foldable display device (pg. 2), wherein the glass sheet/laminate is formed with chamfered edges of first and second surfaces for improving strength of the glass (pgs. 1 – 2, Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image5.png
828
546
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form chamfered edges in the bending area and the boundary area of the glass substrates in order to improve the strength of the edges of the glass cover window taught by Park et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights