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Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected articles, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of Group I, claims 1-10 was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 8, 2026.
Priority
Note that Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome any rejection herein because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected because they recite “alkali-based metal ions” but it is unclear what is meant by “alkali-based”. Does this mean the metal ions need to be mostly alkali and if so, how much (i.e. >50% alkali, 100% alkali)? The scope is just not clear.
For examination, as long as the prior art teaches alkali metal ions, regardless of how much alkali, the limitations will be considered to be met.
The claims are also rejected because the term “larger” and “smaller” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite which are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Is the claim attempting to merely label the ions with the first radius being larger than that of the ions used to reinforce (i.e. the ions used to reinforce have a “smaller radius than the first radius”).
For examination, as long as the prior art teaches alkali ions with a first radius being larger than that of the ions used to reinforce, the limitations will be met.
Claims 4-10 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1 above.
Claim 5 is rejected because it is unclear what is meant by “substantially the same thickness”. Does this mean that the thickness is the same, is it merely close and if so, how close, etc? The scope is simply not clear.
For examination, as long as the prior art teaches close thickness, the limitation will be considered to be met.
Claim 6 is also rejected because the term “low” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, how small of a slope does the prior art have to have to be considered “low”.
For examination, as long as the prior art teaches a slope that can be reasonably considered “low”, the claim will be met.
Claim 8 is rejected because it is unclear what is meant by the “inclinations of the inclined parts are in a range of about 50micron to about 5000micron in distance”. Is the claim attempting to limit the distance between the inclinations of the inclined parts or is the claim attempting to limit the distance/length of each incline, etc.? The scope is simply not clear.
Additionally note that in reviewing Applicants specification, there is absolutely no clear description of what is meant by this let alone any Figures to clearly convey what is meant by this. As such, please note that in the instance Applicants amend the claim in an attempt to clarify the scope, any further description could rise to the level of introducing new matter in a future amendment.
As there is simply no clear description of what is meant by the claim language, it will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation wherein if the inclinations of the prior art’s inclined parts are 50-5000microns in distance apart, the claim will be considered to be met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(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.
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) 1-6, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Noda (USPub20230250013).
Regarding claims 1-3: Noda teaches a bendable (flexible) cover window (abstract, 0121) as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the window has a plane part 12a (12b) comprising thick glass having a thickness t2a (t2b) of 150-300micron (0023, 0044, 0083), a folding part 11a (11b) comprising thin glass, slimmer than the thick glass, having a thickness t1a (t1b) of 25-100micron (0042, 0080) segmenting the plane part into sections, and inclined parts on both sides of the folding part, gradually thickening and connecting the folding part to the sections of the plane part.
Both the plane part and the folding part can comprise a glass containing a Na2O ion exchange component (0053, 0055) (i.e. the parts comprise larger Na metal ions which is noted implicitly have an atomic radius). Each of the plane and folding part are reinforced via ion exchange with a salt with Examples of such salts being NaNO3, KNO3 and LiNO3 (0059) (i.e. note that Li metal ions is known in the art to have a smaller atomic radius than that of Na).
It is noted for the record that while Noda may not clearly specify in the description of their Examples ion exchanging with LiNO3, as Noda clearly discloses in their description Examples of suitable salts used and LiNO3 is one out of only three choices, one skilled in the art would conclude Noda to be anticipating with sufficient ion exchanging their glass with LiNO3 (i.e. Li metal ions have a smaller atomic radius than that of Na) or at the very least, render it obvious.
Given that Noda’s window structure is the same as claimed, it will be considered to have the features of mitigating deformation, bending, and/or breakage caused by the features claimed (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 4 and 5: As shown above, the cross-section of the folding part has a straight-line shape, the folding part has uniform thickness and the straight-line shape has substantially the same thickness.
Regarding claim 6: As shown above, the inclined parts comprise a slope at both ends of the folding part and the illustrated slope is “low” as compared to that of higher slope.
Regarding claims 9 and 10: As shown above, the folding part is slimmed inward forming a trench shape from on surface.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (USPub20230250013) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8: As shown above, the inclinations of the inclined parts are spaced apart by distance defined by “W” which Noda teaches is 3mm (3000micron) or more (0024) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (USPub20230250013) as applied to claim 6 above or alternatively, in further view of any one of (USPub20200292731), (USPub20200329575) or (USPub20210107826).
Regarding claim 7: While Noda does not explicitly discuss their inclined parts having a slope of 1-20o with respect to the plane part, the following points are noted.
Initially, note again Noda’s structure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is clear from the Figure above, that the slope of the inclined parts relative to the plane part determines both size/dimensions and shape of the trapezoid cut out in the folding area and it has been held by the courts that regarding changes in size that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device and regarding shape, shape is a matter of choice and does not hold any patentable weight unless it is shown to provide anything unexpected (MPEP 2144.04). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to adjust the slope as desired in order to obtain shape and dimensions desired for the cut out.
Further, note that Noda’s cover window is for displays which will necessarily be subjected to light transmissions and one skilled in the art would readily know that altering the slope of the inclinations will directly influence the optics of such glasses. Specifically, optics depend on both a materials refractive index and on the geometry of a surface (for example lenses, prisms, etc. all transmit and/or reflect light differently) and one skilled in the art would readily know that by altering the slope (i.e. altering the geometry of the cut out) will in turn alter how light interacts with it (i.e. the direction in which light gets reflected, etc.). As such, it would be well within the skill in the art to optimize the slope as desired to obtain desired optics.
Alternatively, note that Noda does not appear to place any limits on the slope of their inclined parts and instead, only generally teaches a flexible cover window for displays wherein the foldable part, separating two plane parts, has inclined parts.
As ‘731, ‘575 and ‘826, who each similarly teach flexible cover windows for displays wherein a foldable part, separating two plane parts, has inclined parts, discloses that it is desirable for such inclined parts to have slopes of 3-20o (0055 in ‘731), 1-10o (0075 in ‘575) or even 1-20o (0085 in ‘826) with respect to the plane part, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Noda to include slopes of 3-20o, 1-10o or even 1-20o with respect to the plane part in order to obtain a desirable flexible cover window.
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