DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 68-85 in the reply filed on August 31, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 86 and 87 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites a “maximum thickness tmaX”, which appears to have been intended to be “maximum thickness tmax”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 76, 82, and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 76 is indefinite because it appears to recite both a ratio, “LTVmax/TTV”, and a percentage, 0.1 to 50.0 %. As such it is not clear what mathematical operation is actually required to determine if a product meets the claim requirements. The claim is also indefinite because it does not recite a length over which the LTVmax is measured. For the sake of compact prosecution and because independent claim 68 recites an LTVmax measured over 4 mm, the limitation is interpreted herein as meaning that LTVmax is measured over 4 mm and is 0.1 to 50.0 % of TTV. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 82 is indefinite because it recites an “impact resistance corresponding to a normalized pen drop height of at least 2.0 per µm”. As no parameters of a “pen drop” are actually recited, (e.g. pen shape or weight, type of surface the sample rests upon, etc.), it is not clear what specifically is required of the recited “normalized pen drop”, what specific “impact resistance” is required, or what is meant by an impact strength that “corresponds”) to the recited parameter (e.g. it is not clear how similar or different or otherwise a value must be to another value, or if some other relationship is implied). The claim also does not specify that the “pen drop” is performed on/with the claimed product and, as such, does not make clear if a “pen drop” is a test performed on the product, an inherent property of the product, or something else.
Although the instant disclosure teaches that a “normalized pen drop height” is calculated by dividing a drop height by the square of a thickness (Applicant’s published application, par. 52), there is no evidence on the record that such a calculation is known and would be readily understood in by those in the relevant art without having the calculation described in the claim. Additionally, while the disclosed calculation can achieve units of “µm-1”, expressing the mathematical expression in words (i.e. “per µm”) creates confusion because it implies a number of features or properties (of which a “pen drop height” is not) that are present or observed within a or each micron. For the sake of compact prosecution, a glass element that is capable of surviving a pen of any size or shape being dropped from a height that achieves a value of greater than 2 µm-1 when the drop height is divided by the square of the element’s thickness is considered herein to meet the claim requirement. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 83 is also indefinite because it depends from and requires all of the limitations of claim 82, and because it recites an “impact resistance corresponding to a pen drop height of at least 5 mm” without specifying what is meant by “corresponding to” or reciting any parameters about the pen (e.g. pen shape or weight, type of surface the sample rests upon, etc.) or the dropping. Similar to claim 82, is not clear what is meant or required by an impact resistance that is “corresponding” to a pen drop, what is required of the “pen drop”, or what specific impact resistance is required by the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, a glass element that is capable of surviving a pen of any size or shape being dropped from a height of 5 mm is considered herein to meet the claim requirement. Appropriate correction is required.
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 68-80, 82, and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US GP Pub. No. 2021/0107826).
Regarding claims 68-75, Hwang teaches a glass element comprising a first surface and a second surface, and having a thickness profile that includes a maximum thickness, tmax, of 50 to 200 µm and a minimum thickness, tmin, of 10 to 45 µm (par. 56, 59), which achieves a total thickness variation, TTV, of 5 to 190 µm and corresponds to a tmax/tmin range of 50/45 to 20/1. The recited tmax, tmin, TTV, and tmax/tmin ranges and values are anticipated or overlapped and rendered obvious by Hwang. See MPEP 2144.05.
As the thickness of Hwang’s product varies over an inclined region with a length of 50 to 5000 µm (i.e. 0.05 to 5 mm) (par. 85), the local thickness variation LTV, which encompass the “maximum local thickness variation, LTVmax,” in this region is 5 to 190 µm over a measuring path of 50 to 5000 µm. Therefore, the LTVmax and measuring path ranges and values are encompassed and rendered obvious by Hwang. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 76, the teachings of Hwang might be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly teach a maximum local thickness variation, LTVmax, over 4 mm that is 0.1 to 50 % of the total thickness variation, TTV, of the element. However, as the claims do not recite that the LTVmax occurs over a particular area of the glass element, the LTVmax may be measured over any 4 mm-long region of the glass element, including a region that only encompasses a small portion of an inclined part of the glass. Therefore, a 4-mm section that only encompasses half of the inclined portion and, therefore, half of the height (and thickness variation) of the inclined portion, has a LTVmax that is half of the TTV, i.e. LTVmax/TTV is 50 %. The requirement that the article have a sufficient length such that a 4-mm long section of glass can include half or a smaller, non-zero percentage of the inclined portion of glass is effectively selection of dimension, which is prima facie obvious and does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Alternatively and if only Hwang’s inclined portion is considered for the purposes of TTV and LTV, the requirement that the LTV, which occurs over 4 mm, is particular percentage of the TTV is effectively a requirement that the inclined portion extend a distance such that 0.1 to 50 % of the total sloping region has a length of 4 mm, which is also a prima facie obvious selection of dimension that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05. For example, the decision to configure Hwang’s inclined portion to have a length of 8 mm rather than 5 mm as is disclosed (par. 34), wherein LTVmax is 50 % of TTV, is a prima facie obvious selection of dimension that does not distinguish the claimed invention over Hwang.
Regarding claims 77 and 78, as the thickness of Hwang’s product varies over an inclined region with a length of 50 to 5000 µm (i.e. 0.05 to 5 mm) (par. 85), the local thickness variation, LTV, in this region is 5 to 190 µm over a measuring path of 50 to 5000 µm. As Hwang does not teach varying the slope of this region, its LTV corresponds both to its maximum LTV, LTVmax, and minimum LTV, LTVmin. Therefore, LTVmin range is overlapped and rendered obvious by Hwang (see MPEP 2144.05), the LTVmax/LTVmin ratio in this region is 1:1. As noted above, the LTV measuring distance is overlapped and rendered obvious by Hwang. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 79, the teachings of Hwang differ from the current invention in that he does not disclose a length, width, or length-to-width ratio of his glass element. However, he does teach that the element is intended for use as cover window, like in a display device (par. 2, 41, 43, 54). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the need to select an appropriate size for a cover window and display device according to the intended use and size of an image that it is intended to display. Figure 1 also depicts an element according to Hwang’s teachings that is approximately square and has a length-to-width ratio of approximately 1:1. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate size and shape for Hwang’s glass element, including selecting for the element to have a length and/or width in the ranges of 10 to 500 mm or 5 to 400 mm and including selecting a length-to-width ratio of at least 1:1, according to the size desired/required of the display device appropriate for its intended application, as would be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be necessary. It also would have been obvious to configure the glass element such that it has a length-to-width ratio of approximately 1:1, including exactly 1:1, because Hwang depicts such proportions, thereby implying that such proportions are appropriate for his product. Furthermore, the requirements that that the claimed glass has a particular length, width, and length-to-width ratio are prima facie obvious selections of dimension and shape that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 80, as the claim does not require that the recited glass element have a wedge-shaped thickness profile over its entire length, an element that has a wedge-shaped thickness profile in any location meets the claim requirement. As shown in Figure 5, Hwang’s glass element includes two inclined regions, which are each wedge-shaped (Fig. 5). Therefore, Hwang’s element has a wedge-shaped profile over at least a portion of its length.
Regarding claims 82 and 83, Hwang discloses that his glass element may have a strength-reinforced coating, that the element has excellent impact resistance, that such elements are required to have sufficient strength under pressure or repeated contact with a pen, and that the element may be used as a cover window with excellent strength (par. 10, 42, 43, 119). Hwang’s glass element may also include a bonding film that improves impact resistance (par. 130). Therefore, Hwang’s is or includes an impact resistant region.
The teachings of Hwang might be considered to differ from the current invention in that the he does not discuss the performance of the glass element when a pen is dropped on it. However, as no weight, geometry, or other parameters of the pen or the manner with which it is dropped are claimed, the recitation that a particular response is achieved when a pen is dropped convey very little about the recited invention. As Hwang teaches that his glass element is impact-resistant, it can survive having a pen of at least some sufficiently small weight and sufficiently soft material dropped upon it from a distance corresponding to a normalized pen drop height of 2 µm-1 and a height of at least 5 mm. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Hwang’s glass element to be as impact-resistant as possible, including across as many of its regions as possible or all of its regions and including having an impact resistance that allows it to achieve the claimed pen drop height or normalized pen drop height values, because Hwang teaches that the screen is intended to have excellent impact resistance, so that it will demonstrate sufficient strength under pressure and repeated contact with a pen, and in order to allow it to function as intended (and unbroken) even after having a pen dropped on it from various heights.
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Fujii (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0003619).
Regarding claim 81, the teachings of Hwang differ from the current invention in that the roughness, Ra, of the first or second surfaces of the glass element are not disclosed. However, Hwang’s glass element is intended to be used as a cover window with excellent strength (Abstract; par. 42). Fujii also teaches a cover glass and discloses that is preferable for the glass’s main surface to have a roughness, Ra, of 0.5 nm or less to become further excellent in mechanical strength (par. 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the main surfaces( i.e. the first and/or second surface) of Hwang’s glass element to have a roughness of 0.5 nm or less to further improve and/or achieve an excellent mechanical strength.
Claim 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Alderman (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0331961).
Regarding claim 84, Hwang’s glass element comprises at least one flexible region (Abstract).
The teachings of Hwang differ from the current invention in that the two-point bending strength of his glass element, in the “flexible region” or otherwise, is not disclosed. However, Hwang does teach using the element as a bendable cover window with excellent strength and taking steps to improve bending properties (par. 42, 129, 131). Alderman further teaches that conventional glass substrates often lack mechanical reliability upon bending but discloses that his own glass elements have improved bending strength, making them useful as foldable glass articles (par. 2, 5). Alderman’s glass elements demonstrate a two-point bending strength of about 1000 to 1800 MPa (par. 24, 105). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Hwang’s glass element, including in a “flexible region”, to have as good of bending properties as possible, including having as high of a two-point bending strength as possible because Hwang’s glass element is intended to be a high-strength bendable cover and Hwang teaches to improve bending properties. In view of these teachings, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Hwang’s glass element to demonstrate a two-point bending strength in the range of 1000 to 1800 MPa because Alderman teaches that there is a need for improved mechanical reliability in glass products that are subjected to bending and discloses that glass elements having a two-point bending strength in this range have “improved” bending strength and are useful in/as foldable glass articles. The instantly claimed two-point bending strength is overlapped and rendered obvious by Alderman. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 80 and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Da (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0078899).
Regarding claims 80 and 85, the teachings of Hwang differ from the current invention in that his glass element is not disclosed to have the recited edge shapes. Hwang also does not explicitly use the word “wedge”. However, Hwang does teach using the element as a bendable cover window with excellent strength and taking steps to improve bending properties (par. 42, 129, 131). Da further teaches a bendable glass element that is useful as a cover glass and that includes at least one chamfered edge (par. 2, 12).
As shown in Fig. 1 and discussed by Da, Da’s chamfer structure connects first and second major surfaces (2, 3) of the glass element and comprises two chamfers (5, 5’; i.e. “primary connecting surface” and “secondary connecting surface”) that respectively connect the first surface (2) to the third surface (4) and the second surface (3) to the third surface (4) (Fig. 1; par. 58). Having substantially the same shape and profile as the chamfered edge shown in Figure 10 of the instant disclosure (Applicant’s published application, Fig. 10), tangent lines can be drawn along the surfaces of Da’s chamfered edge and glass element in the same manner that is shown in instant Figure 10 and recited in claim 84. Therefore, Da’s structure includes or can be assigned tangent lines A, B, C, D, and E, that intercross at distances d1 and d2, as claimed and shown instant Figure 10 (Fig. 10). In other words, Da teaches chamfered edges with a chamfer structure that have “a profile such that a tangent line A to the primary connecting surface crosses a tangent line B to the first surface at a distance d1 from a tangent line C to the third surface and a tangent line D to the secondary connecting surface crosses a tangent line E to the second surface at a distance d2 from the tangent line C to the third surface, wherein both d1 and d2 are measured perpendicular to the tangent line C to the third surface, wherein the tangent lines A, B, C, D, and E are obtained by fitting a respective tangent line to the corresponding surface in the profile of the chamfer structure”. Notably, claim 84 does not require that the distances, d1 and d2, are of a particular magnitude.
Da teaches that glass elements that include the disclosed chamfered edges, as discussed above, have improved bending strength and that the benefit is achieved regardless of the type of glass (par. 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure one or more edges of Hwang’s glass elements to have the chamfered structure disclosed by Da, which has the instantly claimed geometry, in order to improve bending strength. Therefore, in addition to the wedge-shaped inclined regions discussed above, the product of Da and Hwang includes one or more edges with a wedge-shaped thickness profile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
