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 .
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 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.
Application Status
This is a first action on the merits. A preliminary amendment was filed on 27 March 2025 amending claim 22, canceling claims 1-16 and 21 and 23-30, and adding claims 31-34. Claims 17-20, 22, and 31-34 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 25 July 2024, 02 June 2026, and 08 September 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the implied phrase “The present disclosure provides…”. Correction is recommended. See MPEP § 608.01(b), guideline (C).
Drawings
The drawings received on 27 March 2025 are acceptable.
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.
Claim 34 is rejected 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.
Claim 34 ends abruptly, in mid-clause. The claim recites “…so that a resin layer side of the glass”. It appears that the intended limitation is “…so that a resin layer side of the glass stacked body is on an observer side.” which is analogous to claims 32 and 33. For purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the claim thusly.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 18, and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 17, the claim contains multiple sentences and periods which is an improper format. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step should be separated by a line indentation, see 37 CFR § 1.75(i). In particular, the Method for Measuring Surface Properties includes steps 1-4, each of which has a period.
Regarding claim 18, the claim includes an extraneous comma in the phrase “…from a resin layer side is[[,]] 65% or more.”
Regarding claim 34, the claim is missing a terminal period. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 17-20, 22, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jin (U.S. Pub. 2025/0136497) or under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (U.S. Pub. 2025/0136497). Note that Jin is based on documents filed on 13 September 2021.
Regarding claim 17, Jin discloses a foldable glass substrate for use in a display device, see abstract and p. 1, [0002-0004]. Figure 7 depicts the device in folded form. See figure reproduced below and description at p. 24, [0245].
PNG
media_image1.png
832
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In FIG. 7, layer 707 is a PET sheet representing a display device, 709 is an adhesive layer, 201 is a foldable substrate such as glass (see p. 8, paragraphs [0168-0169]), 289 is a polymer-based portion, and 251 is a coating layer. Foldable substrate 201 reads on the claimed glass substrate having a first surface and second surface facing the first surface. Coating layer 251 reads on the claimed resin layer. This coating is a polymeric coating formed of materials described at p. 16, [0207]. Additionally, Jin describes a polymeric film layer 1601, 1603 formed over the foldable substrate 1105 as depicted in FIGS. 16-26, see p. 30-31, [0276]. An exemplary polymer for this layer is polyimide.
The thickness of the foldable apparatus (reading on the thickness of the glass stacked body) is at least 80 microns, see p. 1, [0005]. The foldable substrate (glass) thickness is in the range of 125-200 microns or other thickness ranges, see paragraphs [0041] and [0173].
The glass substrate is chemically strengthened as described at p. 8, [0169].
The glass-based portion has a compressive stress region with a compressive stress in the range of 100 to 1500 MPa, most preferably from 500 to 800 MPa, see p. 19, [0216-0217].
Jin does not precisely state that the glass stacked body has a variation value of a light intensity of 10.5% or less measured, from a resin layer side, by the claimed method. However, Jin does teach using a polyimide resin layer which is the same material disclosed in the present application, see paragraph [0173] of the published specification. Furthermore, Jin describes that the foldable apparatus has a fractional intensity measured using brightfield transmission and/or darkfield reflection, see p. 26, [0257], and that the maximum fractional intensity if 1.110 or less or about 1.060, see p. 27, [0263]. The value of 1.060 is 6% difference from 1.000, which appears to correspond to the claimed variation value of 10.5% or less. A contrast ratio using darkfield reflection is 0.070 or less, and preferably from 0.020 to 0.025. This is a 2.0-2.5% difference which appears to correspond to being within the claimed variation value of 10.5% or less. A contrast ratio using brightfield transmission is 0.070 or less, and preferably from 0.025 to 0.030. This is a 2.5-3.0% difference which appears to correspond to being within the claimed variation value of 10.5% or less.
Thus the foldable substrate and apparatus of Jin either anticipates the claimed invention, or it would have been obvious to have selected glass and polymer materials and thicknesses within the ranges as disclosed in Jin to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, the darkfield reflection fractional intensity is 1.000 to 1.100, see p. 27, [0263], which appears to correspond to a reflected image definition of 100-110%.
Regarding claim 19, Jin describes a glass substrate with a first surface and a second surface facing the second surface as shown in FIG. 7, reproduced above, and a polymer layer 251 or 1601, 1603 formed on the glass, see p. 16, [0207] and p. 30-31, [0276] and p. 24, [0245] describing the figures.
The glass substrate is chemically strengthened as described at p. 8, [0169].
The glass-based portion has a compressive stress region with a compressive stress in the range of 100 to 1500 MPa, most preferably from 500 to 800 MPa, see p. 19, [0216-0217].
The thickness of the foldable apparatus (reading on the thickness of the glass stacked body) is at least 80 microns, see p. 1, [0005]. The foldable substrate (glass) thickness is in the range of 125-200 microns or other thickness ranges, see paragraphs [0041] and [0173].
The darkfield reflection fractional intensity is 1.000 to 1.100, see p. 27, [0263], which appears to correspond to a reflected image definition of 100-110%.
Regarding claims 20 and 31, Jin also teaches a polymer layer 289 shown in FIG. 7 which is on the resin layer side of the glass substrate. See p. 24, [0245]. This layer provides impact resistance, puncture resistance, abrasion resistance, and/or scratch resistance of the foldable apparatus, reading on being a functional layer. See p. 17, [0211].
Regarding claims 22, 32, 33, and 34, Jin teaches display devices shown in FIGS. 8-9 which incorporate the foldable apparatus, see also p. 18, [0213-0214]. The glass stacked body is formed on an observer side of the display panel, see FIG. 7 and description at p. 24, [0245] noting that a user would view the display device in place of PET sheet 707 through coating 251.
Prior Art of Record
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2023/038982 A1 is another publication of Jin (U.S. Pub. 2025/0136497).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
