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 .
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0329575 A1) (“Park”), in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0217639 A1) (“Jones”).
With respect to claim 1, Park discloses a foldable apparatus (abstr.), comprising a foldable substrate – cover window (0022), comprising a substrate thickness defined between a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface, the substrate thickness being in a range of from about 50 to about 300 µm (0022, 0024, 0080, 0089, Fig. 10, Fig. 14). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 1; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). The substrate comprises a first portion comprising the substrate thickness, a second portion comprising the substrate thickness, and a central portion positioned between the first portion and the second portion, the central portion comprising a central thickness defined between a first central surface area and a second central surface area opposite the first central surface area, the central thickness being less than the substrate thickness, the first central surface area being recessed from the first major surface by a first distance and defining a first recess (0024, 0082, 0089, Figs. 10 and 14). Park discloses a transparent resin material layer disposed in the first recess, comprising a first thickness – element 130 (0085, 0087, Fig, 14). Regarding a first resin thickness being about 5 micrometers or more, since the thickness of the substrate is from about 50 to about 300 micrometers, and a thickness of the recess is 20 to 100 micrometers (0024), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of the transparent resin material overlaps the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Park discloses a first polymer-based portion – element 141 - disposed on the resin layer such that the resin layer is positioned between the first central surface area and the first polymer-based portion (0099, Fig. 14). Park does not state explicitly that the transparent resin material is an adhesive layer; Park does disclose that the resin material may be acrylic, epoxy, silicone, or a urethane compound (0088).
The foldable substrate of Park comprises a first neutral plane extending through the first portion, the second portion, and the central portion, the first adhesive layer comprises a second neutral plane, and the polymer-based portion comprises a third neutral plane – the neutral planes being interpreted as conceptual planes within the foldable substrate, the first adhesive layer and the first polymer-based portion implied in Fig. 14.
Jones discloses a foldable substrate (abstr., 0002), comprising relief features (0065), the substrate may comprise optically clear adhesives that include acrylate-based adhesives and silicone-based adhesives (0066), the adhesives disclosed in the instant specification. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a first adhesive layer such as an acrylate adhesive or silicone adhesive in the first recess, as they are known in the art of foldable electronic devices. Regarding the first adhesive layer having an elastic modulus of about 0.4 MegaPascals or less, since the references disclose the first adhesive layer as disclosed in the instant specification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the elastic modulus of the first adhesive layer according to Park and Jones is within the recited range. Furthermore, since adhesive layer of Park is included in a foldable or flexible window (0022) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus with a flexible adhesive. It is known in the art that an adhesive layer of about 0.4 MPa or less would be considered as an adhesive providing high flexibility.
Regarding claim 2, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Park discloses the first adhesive thickness defined between a first contact surface of the first adhesive layer facing the first polymer-based portion – element 141 (0099, Fig. 14) and a second contact surface of the first adhesive layer facing the first central surface area, the first contact surface and the second contact surface facing opposite directions, the first polymer-based portion comprising a first polymer thickness defined between a third contact surface and a fourth contact surface facing the first adhesive layer, the third contact surface of the first polymer-based portion and the fourth contact surface of the first polymer-based portion facing opposite directions (0099, Fig. 14).
As to claim 3, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 2. The claim defines a characteristic of the first polymer-based portion of the foldable substrate when the apparatus is in use; since the references disclose the elements of the apparatus as recited in the claim, it would be expected that the apparatus according to the references is capable to perform as intended.
As to claim 4, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 2. The claim defines a characteristic of the central portion at the first central surface area of the foldable substrate when the apparatus is in use; since the references disclose the elements of the apparatus as recited in the claim, it would be expected that the apparatus according to the references is capable to perform as intended.
With respect to claim 5, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 2. The claim defines a condition in order to achieve a parallel plate distance of about 3 mm. Since the references disclose the elements of the apparatus as recited in the claim, it would be expected that the apparatus according to the references is capable to perform as intended.
Regarding claim 6, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 2. The claim defines a characteristic of the foldable substrate when the apparatus is in use. Park discloses a width of the central portion of from 3.0 to 8.0 mm (0029), and a thickness of the central portion of 20 to 100 micrometers (0073). Since the references disclose the elements of the apparatus as recited in the claim, it would be expected that the apparatus according to the references is capable to perform as intended.
As to claim 7, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 2. Park discloses the fourth contact surface of the first polymer-based portion contacting a first surface area of the first portion, the first surface area opposite a second surface area of the first portion with the substrate thickness therebetween, the fourth contact surface of the first polymer-based portion contacts a third surface area of the second portion, the third surface area opposite a fourth surface area of the second portion, the third surface area opposite a fourth surface area of the second portion with the substrate thickness therebetween (Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 8, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Regarding the first adhesive thickness being less than the first distance, Park discloses that a user of the apparatus touches element 130 corresponding to first adhesive layer (0090), thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the first adhesive thickness that would be suitable for the intended use of the first adhesive.
Regarding claim 9, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Park teaches the apparatus wherein the first adhesive thickness is substantially equal to the first distance (Figs. 10 and 14).
As to claim 10, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Park discloses the first adhesive layer positioned between the first polymer-based portion – element 141 - and the first portion, the first adhesive layer positioned between the first polymer-based portion and the second portion (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 11, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Regarding the first adhesive thickness being greater than the first distance by about 5 micrometers or more, Park discloses that a user of the apparatus touches element 130 corresponding to the first adhesive layer (0090), thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the first adhesive thickness that would be suitable for the intended use of the first adhesive.
With respect to claim 12, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Park discloses that the first polymer-based portion – element 141 - has a specific function such as a reinforcement layer (0095), thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the elastic modulus of the first polymer-based portion in order to obtain the desired functionality. Since the elastic modulus of the first adhesive layer would be about 0.4 MPa or less, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the ratio of claim 12 would be satisfied.
Regarding claim 13, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Regarding the first polymer-based portion comprising an elastic modulus in the range as recited in claim 13, Park discloses that the first-polymer based layer acts to reinforce strength and elasticity of the substrate (0101), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the elastic modulus of the polymer-based portion in order to obtain the desired strength and elasticity of the substrate.
As to claim 14, Park and Jones teach the article of claim 1. Park discloses that the first polymer-based portion reinforces the elastic force of the cover window, so the cover window is protected from external impacts or the pressure of a touch pen (0101), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize a strain at yield of the first polymer-based portion.
With respect to claim 15, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Park discloses the second central surface area being recessed from the second major surface by a second distance and defining a second recess (Fig. 14), a second transparent resin material positioned in the second recess, the second transparent resin material comprising a second adhesive thickness (Fig. 14), and a second polymer-based portion – element 150 (0103-0106), disposed on the second adhesive layer such that the second adhesive layer is positioned between the second polymer based portion and the second central surface area (Figs. 14 and 15).
Regarding claim 16, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 15. Park discloses that the second polymer-based portion improves the physical properties of the substrate, so that the flexibility and impact resistance are improved (0105), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pencil hardness and an elastic modulus of the second polymer-based portion in order to obtain the desired physical properties of the substrate.
As to claim 17, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Park discloses the second neutral plane being positioned between the first neutral plane and the third neutral plane – the adhesive layer is positioned between the first, second, and third portions, and the polymer-based portion - Fig. 14.
Regarding claim 18, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. The references teach all the elements of the apparatus, thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an apparatus bend force is within the recited range of a total bend force, as recited in the claim.
As to claim 19, Park and Jones teach the apparatus of claim 1. Park discloses width W1 of from 3.0 to 8.0 mm (0030), but it is W2 that is being considered as the width of the central portion (Fig. 3), which is wider than W1, thus, the width of the central portion is being interpreted as overlapping the range of claim 19; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 20, Park and Jones teach the foldable apparatus of claim 1. Park discloses an apparatus for a consumer electronic product such as a display device comprising a cover substrate comprising the foldable apparatus (0003). Jones discloses electronic devices comprising a housing – it is implied that a housing includes a front surface, a back surface, and side surfaces (Jones, 0056), electrical components at least partially within the housing, the components comprising a controller, a memory (Jones, 0171-0173), a display adjacent the front surface of the housing (Jones, 0071-0072).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Aug. 5, 2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 17 and 19 have been withdrawn.
The Applicant argued that Park and Jones do not teach or suggest the limitation of the first adhesive layer having an elastic modulus of about 0.4 MPa or less, arguing that the references do not provide a reason to select such a low modulus, the Office Action not having established that the references disclose the modulus of elasticity as a result-effective variable.
The Examiner notes Jones discloses acrylate-based adhesive or silicone-based adhesive as disclosed in the instant specification. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the elastic modulus of the first adhesive layer according to Park and Jones is within the recited range. Furthermore, since adhesive layer of Park is included in a foldable or flexible window (0022) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus with a flexible adhesive. It is known in the art that an adhesive layer of about 0.4 MPa or less would be considered as an adhesive providing high flexibility.
The Applicant further argued that the references do not disclose a first, second and third neutral plane as recited in the amended claim 1. The Applicant argued that the statement that the neutral planes are implied in Fig. 14 is unsupported, as the references do not identify a neutral plane. The Examiner notes the foldable substrate of Park comprises a first neutral plane extending through the first portion, the second portion, and the central portion, the first adhesive layer comprises a second neutral plane, and the polymer-based portion comprises a third neutral plane – the neutral planes being interpreted as conceptual planes within the foldable substrate, the first adhesive layer, and the first polymer-based portion (Fig. 14). The arrangement of neutral planes follows the arrangement of actual layers of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, the Applicant argued the rejection improperly relates the ratio of elasticity of the first polymer-based portion and the first adhesive layer to such functionality as an anti-finger or anti-reflective function. The Examiner notes the Examiner inadvertently referred to par. [0100] of Park which relates to the upper functional layer. In the present Office Action the Examiner clarified the rejection and referred to par. [0095] of Park disclosing that the first polymer-based portion – element 141- has a specific function such as a reinforcement layer (0095), thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the elastic modulus of the first polymer-based portion in order to obtain the desired functionality. Since the elastic modulus of the first adhesive layer would be less than 0.4 MPa, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the ratio of claim 12 would be satisfied.
Regarding claim 17, the Applicant argued the references do not teach or suggest the specific location of the second neutral plane. The Examiner notes Park discloses the second neutral plane being positioned between the first neutral plane and the third neutral plane – the adhesive layer being positioned between the first, second, and third portions, and the polymer- based portion - Fig. 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights