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 .
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-9 drawn to a method in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. are pending. Claims 10-20 (drawn to a method), is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a product (s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 06/01/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 4 and 5 – the claimed ranges for respective attributes are inclusive. Example: Claim 4 – the average transmittance of the foldable apparatus from 360nm to 400nm is less than 93% includes values of 360 nm, 400nm and 93%.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4-9 is/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 term “ about” is a relative term which renders the noted claims indefinite. The term “about” 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.
Regarding Claim 1 - the parameters or thickness, temperature and pH are rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
Regarding Claim 3 - The parameter or wt% of a fluorine containing compound of a quantity of 1-10 wt% is rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
Regarding Claim 6 - The parameters a* / b* of a quantity -0.01 to 0.01/ -0.15 to 0.1, respectively are rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
Regarding Claim 7 - The parameter of color difference of a foldable apparatus to an identical foldable substrate subjected to the chemical strengthening but not further treated of a quantity of 0.3 or less is rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
Regarding Claim 8 - the parameter of thickness of a quantity of 25-200 micrometers is rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
Regarding Claim 9 - the parameter of maximum first compressive stress of quantity of 500 MegaPascals is rendered indefinite by use of the term “about”.
Note: For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner will understand “about” to mean +/- 25% of any noted unit/unitless values.
Regarding Claims 4-7 and Claim 9 – A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Absent from the noted claims are action steps, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20190011954 by
Chu et. al. (herein “Chu”) in further view of CN113200687A (English language translation of the
Description and provided herewith and referenced) by Wei et. al. (herein “Wei”)
Regarding Claim 1 Chu teaches,
chemically strengthening an existing first major surface of a foldable substrate to form a first compressive stress region;
extending to a first depth of compression from the existing first major surface of the foldable substrate;
[0010], [0110], [0112], ..” a foldable glass element…a first primary surface…a compression stress region extending from the first primary surface…”, …a thickness 52a of glass layer 50a….glass layer 50a includes a primary surface 54a…the thickness 52a of the glass layer can be…20um to about 125um…”, “…the glass layer 50a…includes a compression stress region from the first primary surface 54a of glass layer 50a down to a first depth of 62a…”, “…an ion exchange process could be employed to develop the compressive stress…”.
While Chu discloses a glass layer of 25um or less can obtain a bend radius of about 1mm when incorporation additional light etching of an etching solution that contains HF, as well as remove a certain thickness of glass to reduce flaw size [0127], Chu fails to disclose an etching process for the light etching step.
In an analogous art of etching ultra-thin glass to repair surface cracks and provide small thickness glass removal Wei discloses,
contacting the existing first major surface of the foldable substrate with an acidic solution; lines 38-39, 67, “it is necessary to provide a repair solution…on the surface of ultra-thin flexible glass…”, “…the pH value of the repair solution is controlled to be 1-5…”, where a pH value below 7 is considered acidic.
comprising,
a first temperature for a first period of time to remove an outer layer from the existing first major surface to form a new first major surface; lines 65, 69, 363, “the temperature of the repair liquid is controlled to be 25°C to 65°C…”, “the time for controlling the repair of the surface microcracks is 5s-60s…”,”…the thickness of the glass reduced by the repair of surface microcracks is controlled to 4μm...”
the first temperature ranges from about 20°C to about 55°C; line 65, “the temperature of the repair liquid is controlled to be 25°C to 65°C…”.
and the acidic solution comprises a pH ranging from about 3.3 to about 3.5 and a fluorine-containing compound; lines 67, 47-48 “…the pH value of the repair solution is controlled to be 1-5…”, “..the repair solution includes the following mass percentages of raw materials: 5%-10% hydrofluoric acid…” Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Wei’s pH range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
the outer layer comprising a thickness ranging from about 1 nanometer to about 3 micrometers; line 267, “…the thinning thickness of the ultra-thin flexible glass…is controlled to be 2um -10um”, where 2um reads on the instant claim range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the etching process of Wei for the light etching process of Chu, as one would be motivated to do so for processing ultra-thin glass under 100um in thickness, as noted by Wei (lines 26-34).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3 - Chu and Wei in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Wei further discloses wherein,
the fluorine-containing compound comprises one or more of HF, NH4F, or combinations thereof; Claim 2
a weight percent (wt%) of the fluorine-containing compound in the acidic solution ranges from about 1 wt% to about 10wt%; Claim 3.
Lines 47-48 “...the repair solution includes the following mass percentages of raw materials: 5%-10% hydrofluoric acid…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the etching parameters of Wei for the light etching process of Chu, as one would be motivated to do so for processing ultra-thin glass under 100um in thickness, as noted by Wei (lines 26-34).
Regarding Claim 5 - Chu and Wei in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Wei further teaches,
an absolute value of a difference between a first average transmittance between 360 nm to
400nm and a second average transmittance between 700 nm and 750 nm is 1% or less; line 315
- 316, “…the ultra-thin flexible glass to be repaired is aluminum silicate glass, and a visible light
transmittance of 92.3%”. A PHOSITA would know that the range of visible light is 380nm-
750nm. Since all of the visible light transmittance of Wei is the same value, then there are no
differences in transmittance between wavelengths.
Regarding Claim 8 - Chu and Wei in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Chu teaches wherein,
the foldable substrate comprises a first thickness defined between the existing first major
surface and an existing second major surface ranges from about 25 micrometers to about 200
micrometers; [0008], “a foldable glass element comprising a thickness from about 25 μm to
about 200 μm, the glass element further comprising: (a) a first primary surface, (b) a second
primary surface…”
Regarding Claim 9 - Chu and Wei in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Chu teaches wherein,
the first compressive stress region comprises a maximum first compressive stress of about 500
MegaPascals or more; [0008], “ …a compressive stress region…from the first primary surface…a
stress of at least about 100 MPa in compression…”.Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence
of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Chu’s compressive
stress range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. One would have been
motivated to do so for the purposes to minimize the tensile stress and the stress intensity factor
upon bending of the foldable glass element by control of the stress in the compressive stress
region, as noted by Chu [0094].
Claims 1, 2-3, 5, 8-9 above, where Wei and Chu in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, provide prior art for an identical or substantially identical process that comprises forming a foldable apparatus.
Claims 4, 6-7 below, where Wei and Chu in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, provide functional limitations of forming a foldable glass apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4 -
an average transmittance of the foldable apparatus from 360 nm to 400 nm is less than 93%;
Regarding Claim 6 -
the foldable apparatus comprises a CIE a* value from about -0.01 to about 0.01, a CIE b* value
from about -0.15 to about 0.1, or combinations thereof;
Regarding Claim 7 -
a color difference ∆E of the foldable apparatus to an identical foldable substrate subjected to
the chemically strengthening but not further treated is about 0.3 or less;
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Gomez (U.S. Patent 9,670,088) discloses a chemically strengthened glass followed mineral acid etch, targeting use for display devices.
Da et. al. (USPGPUB 20210070650A1) disclose an ultrathin foldable chemically toughened glass with a compressive stress on the surface (100-2000MPa) with a depth of layer followed by HF/NH4HF2 etching, targeted for flexible cell phones.
Bayne et. al. (USPGPUB 20110165393A1) disclose a thin glass sheets chemically toughened glass with a compressive stress on the surface (>200MPa) with a depth of layer followed by HF etching targeting 1-4um thickness layer removal targeted for cell phones.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights