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 .
Withdrawn Allowable Subject Matter
After further review, the indicated allowability of previous dependent claim 15, now in amended independent claim 1, is withdrawn in view of the references to Park et al. (US 2020/0292731) and Sunwoo (KR102150390B1). Rejections based on these references follow.
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 1-14 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.
The limitation “a length of the folding portion being larger than a length of a bending section in which bending occurs when the electronic device is folded” is deemed indefinite. It is not clear how the length of the folding portion is larger than a length of a bending section in which bending occurs and what length direction is being referred to. It is not clear how the bending section is different from the folding portion. It seems they both are referring to the same feature. Applicant’s Specification designates 414 as both the folding portion and the bending section (Fig. 6; paragraph [00102]). Thus, it appears the folding portion and the bending area are the same feature and therefore would have the same length. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claims 2-14 are also rejected as being indefinite, since they depend from claim 1 and include the indefinite aspects thereof.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2020/0292731) [hereinafter Park].
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a flexible cover window (100) of an electronic device, the flexible cover window comprising: a glass including a flat portion and a folding portion (110) which extends from the flat portion and is thinner than the flat portion (Fig. 3); a length of the folding portion (W2) being larger than a length of a bending section (W1) in which bending occurs when the electronic device is folded (paragraphs [0054-0059]), and multiple coating layers (130, 141 and 142) located on the folding portion (Fig. 9), wherein the multiple coating layers comprise: a first coating layer (130 or 141) including a first portion which is at least partially located on a first edge area of the folding portion, and a second portion which is at least partially located on a second edge area opposite to the first edge area of the folding portion (Fig. 9), wherein each of the first portion and the second portion has a first hardness, and a second coating layer (141 or 142) which is at least partially in contact with the first portion and the second portion and has a second hardness higher than the first hardness (paragraphs[0067-0069] and [0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the first portion and the second portion of the first coating layer are formed integrally (Fig. 9, layer 141).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses a minimum length of the first coating layer is same as a length of a bending section when the electronic device is folded (Fig. 9, layer 130 or layer 141; paragraph [0071-0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses the second coating layer being located between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 9, layer 142).
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, 2, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunwoo et al. (KR102150390B1) [hereinafter Sunwoo] in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0292731) [hereinafter Park].
Regarding claim 1, Sunwoo discloses a flexible cover window (100) of an electronic device, the flexible cover window comprising: a glass (glass 110) including a flat portion and a folding portion which extends from the flat portion and is thinner than the flat portion (Fig. 6, glass 110); and multiple coating layers (layers 120 and 140) located on the folding portion (Fig. 6), wherein the multiple coating layers comprise: a first coating layer (140) including a first portion which is at least partially located on a first edge area of the folding portion, and a second portion which is at least partially located on a second edge area opposite to the first edge area of the folding portion (Fig. 6), wherein each of the first portion and the second portion has a first hardness, and a second coating layer (120) which is at least partially in contact with the first portion and the second portion and has a second hardness higher than the first hardness, since layer 140 can be softer than layer 120 (page 7).
However, Sunwoo fails to teach a length of the folding portion being larger than a length of a bending section in which bending occurs when the electronic device is folded.
Park teaches that it is well known in the flexible electronic device art to have the length of the folding portion in a cover window larger than a length of a bending section (Fig. 1) for the purpose of allowing the electronic device to be repeatedly folded without deteriorating the folding properties.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the folded portion in Sunwoo to have the length of the folding portion being larger than a length of a bending section in which bending occurs as suggested by Park in order to allow the electronic device to be repeatedly folded without deteriorating the folding properties, if so desired.
Regarding claim 2, Sunwoo discloses the first portion and the second portion of the first coating layer are formed integrally (Fig. 6, layer 140).
Regarding claim 6, Sunwoo discloses a minimum length of the first coating layer is same as a length of a bending section when the electronic device is folded (Fig. 6, layer 140).
Regarding claim 7, Sunwoo discloses the second coating layer (120) is located between the first coating layer (140) and the flat portion (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Sunwoo discloses the second coating layer being located between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 6, layer 120).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/30/2026, with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights