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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on May 11, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, and 16 are amended; claims 4-7, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1-3, 8-12, 15, 16, and 19 pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2026 and 07/20/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US 2022/0149326, newly cited).
Regarding claims 1-3, Kang et al. teaches a display device (1) comprising a display member (DM) and a support member (SM), wherein the display member (DM) comprises a display panel (100) and an upper stack structure (200) stacked on the display panel, including a cover window (CW; window) which is disposed on the display panel and which serves to protect the display panel ([0042]-[0043], [0045], [0058], Figs. 1-2). The cover window (CW) includes a window substrate (WC; base layer), a stress control layer (SCL; first coating portion), and a hard coating layer (HCL; second coating portion), where the hard coating layer is stacked on an upper surface of the stress control layer such that the stress control layer may be in direct contact with the window substrate and the hard coating layer ([0068], [0076], Fig. 4). The hardness of the stress control layer may be less than or greater than the hardness of the hard coating layer ([0083]), such that the coating portions have different hardnesses. The window substrate (WC) may include glass, such as an ultra-thin glass (UTG) or thin glass having flexible characteristics of being bendable, foldable, and/or rollable [0073].
Kang et al. teaches that when the display device (1) is a foldable display device, at least one layer of the display panel and the plurality of layers constituting the upper stack structure may be disposed to be separated based on a set or specific area (e.g., a folding area that is to be bent when the device is folded or bent) so as to mitigate bending stress of the display device [0066]. For example, Kang et al. teaches that at least one layer constituting the cover window (CW) may include a first portion and a second portion that are spaced from each other in a plan view by a set area (i.e., by a folding area) ([0066], [0086]). Kang et al. therefore teaches that at least one layer of the cover window, for example each of the stress control layer and the hard coating layer (first and second coating portions), is thinner in the folding area (bending area) than in the flat area located on either side of the folding area.
Regarding claim 10, Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Kang et al. teaches that the hardness of the stress control layer (SCL; first coating portion) may be less than that of the hard coating layer (HCL; second coating portion) ([0083]), such that the first hardness of the stress control layer is less than a predetermined value, while the second hardness of the hard coating layer is larger than or equal to the predetermined value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0149326, newly cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2017/0064845, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Kang et al. teaches an embodiment in which the stress control layer and hard coating layer (coating layer) have first and second portions which are spaced apart from each other by a set area (bending area) in order to mitigate bending stress ([0066], [0086]), the reference does not expressly teach that the coating layer has a thickness in the bending area within the claimed range, or that a thickness of the coating layer decreases toward an edge from a side portion of the bending area not in contact with the flat area.
However, Jung et al. teaches a similar cover window (100) included in a flexible display device, wherein the cover window comprises a base substrate (120), a first hard coating layer (140), and a second hard coating layer (160) ([0059], Figs. 1A-1B). The second hard coating layer includes first areas (A1; bending area) overlapping with or corresponding to folding areas (FA) of the display, and second areas (A2; flat area) overlapping with or corresponding to peripheral areas [0065]. Jung et al. teaches that the bending stress may be concentrated in the folding areas (FA) when the cover window is folded, wherein the thickness (t3) of the first area (A1) corresponding to the folding area may be less than the thickness (t2) of the second area (A2) such that the folding stress on the folding area may be reduced ([0092], Figs. 1A, 3-7).
In particular, Jung et al. teaches that a thickness (t3) of the hard coating (160) in the first area (A1) may be about 20% to about 80% of the thickness (t2) of the hard coating in the second area (A2), where the thickness (t3) is less than the thickness (t2) so that the bending stress which is concentrated in the folding area when the cover window is folded can be reduced ([0091]-[0092], Fig. 1A). Jung et al. further teaches that a tensile modulus and hardness may be decreased when the cover window has a thin thickness [0185].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a result-effective variable such as the thickness of the coating layer in the bending area through routine experimentation, especially given the teachings in Jung et al. regarding the desire to reduce tensile stress while maintaining tensile modulus and hardness. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Furthermore, based on the teachings of Jung et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the thickness of the coating layer in areas where excessive bending stress occurs when the display device is folded, such as in an edge area extending from a side portion of the bending area not in contact with the flat area. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the coating layer in such areas in order to prevent excessive concentration of bending stress.
Claims 11, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0149326, newly cited).
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 16, Kang et al. teaches a display device (1; electronic device) comprising a display member (DM; flexible display) and a support member (SM; bendable housing), wherein the support member may include members for mounting the display member, such as a frame, a cover, and/or a housing, and may include a hinge for coupling a plurality of frames when the display device is foldable ([0042]-[0043], Fig. 1).
The display member (DM) comprises a display panel (100) and an upper stack structure (200) stacked on the display panel, including a cover window (CW; window) which is disposed on the display panel and which serves to protect the display panel ([0045], [0058], Fig. 2). The cover window (CW) includes a window substrate (WC; base layer), a stress control layer (SCL; first coating portion), and a hard coating layer (HCL; second coating portion), where the hard coating layer is stacked on an upper surface of the stress control layer such that the stress control layer may be in direct contact with the window substrate and the hard coating layer ([0068], [0076], Fig. 4). The hardness of the stress control layer may be less than or greater than the hardness of the hard coating layer ([0083]), such that the coating portions have different hardnesses. The window substrate (WC) may include glass, such as an ultra-thin glass (UTG) or thin glass having flexible characteristics of being bendable, foldable, and/or rollable [0073].
Kang et al. teaches that when the display device (1) is a foldable display device, at least one layer of the display panel and the plurality of layers constituting the upper stack structure may be disposed to be separated based on a set or specific area (e.g., a folding area that is to be bent when the device is folded or bent) so as to mitigate bending stress of the display device [0066]. For example, Kang et al. teaches that at least one layer constituting the cover window (CW) may include a first portion and a second portion that are spaced from each other in a plan view by a set area (i.e., by a folding area) ([0066], [0086]). Kang et al. therefore teaches that at least one layer of the cover window, for example each of the stress control layer and the hard coating layer (first and second coating portions), is thinner in the folding area (bending area) than in the flat area located on either side of the folding area.
Kang et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that a protective layer is disposed on the cover window (CW) formed of the window substrate (WC; base layer) and the stress control layer and hard coating layer (coating layer).
Kang et al. does, however, further teach that the surface of the hard coating layer (HCL) may be exposed to the outside such that it forms an exterior of the cover window in order to reinforce the surface hardness of the cover window ([0087]), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second layer (protective layer) of the hard coating taught by Kang et al. thereon in order to further improve the surface hardness of the window. It is well settled that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 19, Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. As noted above, Kang et al. teaches a configuration in which the stress control layer and hard coating layer (coating layer) have first and second portions which are spaced apart from each other by a set area (bending area) in order to mitigate bending stress ([0066], [0086]), such that the spaced apart area located in the set area between the first and second portions reads on the claimed grooved shape at a position corresponding to the bending area.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0149326, newly cited) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0310494, previously cited).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above but does not expressly teach that the window further includes a refractive index matching part disposed on an outer surface of the coating layer.
However, Ahn et al. teaches an electronic device (10) including a flexible, foldable, or deformable display (100) comprising a display panel (4010), a first adhesive (4020), a shatterproof coating (SPC) (4060), a first window (4030), a second adhesive (4040), and a second window (4050) ([0105], Fig. 9). Similar to Kang et al., Ahn et al. teaches that the first window (4030) may include ultra thin glass (UTG) or the like, and Ahn et al. further teaches that the shatterproof coating (4060; refractive index matching part) may include a material whose optical properties are substantially identical to or similar to the optical properties (e.g., refractive index) of the first window so that the deflection in quality of the image transmitted therethrough can be reduced ([0209], [0269]).
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 display device taught by Kang et al. by applying a coating having a refractive index which matches that of the glass base layer to a surface of the coating layer disposed on the base layer, as suggested by Ahn et al., in order to prevent the deterioration in the quality of an image transmitted through the window.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 2, 3, 10, 12, and 16 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed May 11, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10, 11, and 16 in the response filed May 11, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-20 of the remarks filed May 11, 2026, have been considered but are moot because they do not address the new combination of references being used in the rejections above. In light of the amendments to claims 1 and 11, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Kim, Ahn et al., and Seo et al. and under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. are withdrawn, and new rejections based on Kang et al. are presented above to address the new combination of limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung ‘318 (US 2019/0061318) teaches a display (400) comprising a first layer (401), e.g., a window film; a second layer (402), e.g., a touch panel; etc., wherein an adhesive layer (602) arranged between layers may be composed of a first adhesive member (6021) and a second adhesive member (6022) disposed on the first adhesive member which is thicker in a first area (A; flat area) than in a second area (B; bending area) ([0100], [0112], Figs. 4, 6A).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights