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 Interpretation
In claim 6, the phrase “the groove…does not penetrate the glass” is being interpreted to mean that the groove does not extend fully through the thickness of the glass. The word “penetrate” could more broadly to mean to pass into or to pass through. However since a groove must necessarily have some depth into the glass, claim 6 is understood to limit the meaning of “penetrate” to passing through the glass.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: At line 9 (as numbered by Applicant), “primarily reinforcement” should read --primary reinforcement-- because “primarily” is an adverb, whereas “primary” is an adjective which would describe the “reinforcement”. 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.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a primarily reinforced glass” at line 10 (as numbered by Applicant). It is unclear if this is referring to the glass produced by the previously recited “immersing” step, or to some other primarily reinforced glass. Examiner recommends changing the limitation to read --the primarily reinforced glass--.
Claim 1 recites “a masked glass” at line 11 (as numbered by Applicant). It is unclear if this is referring to the glass produced by the previously recited “masking” step, or to some other masked glass. Examiner recommends changing the limitation to read --the masked glass--.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber ‘526 (US 2012/0236526 A1) in view of Ostholt ‘917 (US 2023/0278917 A1) and Cao ‘281 (US 2022/0106218 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weber ‘526 teaches:
providing a glass (glass 400/600) with a groove formed in the glass (middle region 406, Fig. 4/thin region 604, Fig. 6)
immersing the glass including the groove in a potassium bath to perform a primary reinforcement on the glass (¶ [0030], [0032], [0033], [0047])
performing a secondary reinforcement on the primarily reinforced glass (¶ [0030], [0032], [0033], [0047]).
Weber ‘526 teaches of masking the groove during the primary reinforcement and masking the rest of the glass during the secondary reinforcement (mask 606, mask 610, Fig. 6; ¶ [0043]-[0044], [0047]). However, the purpose of these maskings is to make the reinforcement of the groove and the reinforcement of the rest of the glass independent of each other (¶ [0038], [0043]-[0044], [0047]). Thus, 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 method of Weber ‘526 by changing the order of the two reinforcement steps such that the groove is masked during the secondary reinforcement and the rest of the glass is masked during the primary reinforcement, as such a change in the order of steps would provide the same result. It has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Weber ’526 is silent regarding the glass with a groove formed therein being provided by radiating a laser to a glass and etching the glass to which the laser is radiated to form the groove in the glass. In analogous art of flexible glass windows, Ostholt ‘917 suggests radiating a laser to a glass and etching the glass to which the laser is radiated to form a groove in the glass for the benefit of forming a flexible section of the glass (claim 18; ¶ [0041]-[0042]; substrate 1 with recess 6, Fig. 1). 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 method of Weber ‘526 by radiating a laser to a glass and etching the glass to which the laser is radiated to form the groove in the glass as a known manner of forming a groove in a glass, and for the benefit of forming a flexible section of the glass, as suggested by Ostholt ‘917.
Weber ‘526 is silent regarding the immersing the glass including the groove in a KOH solution to perform the primary reinforcement. In analogous art of glass strengthening, Cao ‘218 suggests providing a glass with a groove formed therein (¶ [0235]-[0237]), and then performing a primary reinforcement on the glass including the groove by a two-step process of performing ion exchange with a molten salt such as potassium nitrate (¶ [0239]), followed by immersing the glass including the groove in a KOH solution for the benefit of removing surface imperfections that may be generated during the forming and ion exchange process (¶ [0242], [0248]-[0249], [0252]). 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 method of Weber ‘526 by making the primary reinforcement include immersing the glass including the groove in a KOH solution for the benefit of removing surface imperfections that may be generated during the forming and ion exchange process, as suggested by Cao ‘218.
Regarding claim 2, Weber ‘526 and Ostholt ‘917 suggest the etching as described above, but are silent regarding using HF. In analogous art of flexible glass windows, Cao ‘218 suggests etching glass to form a groove in the glass using HF as a known etchant for glass (¶ [0236]-[0237]). 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 teachings of Weber ‘526 and Ostholt ‘917 by etching the glass using HF as a known etchant for glass, as suggested by Cao ‘218.
Regarding claims 3-4, Ostholt ‘917 suggests immerging of the glass including the groove in the KOH solution as described above, and further suggests a temperature of the KOH solution is in a range of about 50°C to about 300°C, and an immersion time is in a range of about 30 minutes to about 72 hours (¶ [0253]), wherein the claimed ranges overlap the ranges suggested by Ostholt ‘917, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the ranges. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Weber ‘526 further teaches a thickness of a primarily reinforced region of the glass is about 20-150 µm (¶ [0048]), which overlaps the claimed range. Cao ‘218 suggests immersing the glass including the groove in the KOH solution as described above, and further that the immersing reduces the depth of compression by about 0.01-0.40 µm (¶ [0254]). Thus in the combination of teachings, the glass would then have a range of thickness of the primarily reinforced region of 19.6-149.99 µm, which also overlaps the claimed range, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the ranges. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Weber ‘526 further teaches the groove is positioned along a predetermined direction of the glass and does not penetrate the glass (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Weber ‘526 further teaches performing the secondary reinforcement includes using KNO3 (¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Weber ‘526 as described for claim 1 above further suggests a thickness of a region of the glass where the secondary reinforcement (side regions 404, Fig. 4) is performed is thicker than a thickness of a region of the glass where the primary reinforcement is performed (middle region 406, Fig. 4; ¶ [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0047]).
Regarding claim 9, Weber ‘526 further teaches the window includes a primary reinforcement region (region 408, Fig. 4/region 612, Fig. 6), a secondary reinforcement region (region 410, Fig. 4/region 608, Fig. 6), and a non-reinforcement region (area inside regions 408/410, Fig. 4/area inside regions 610/612, Fig. 6; ¶ [0039], [0047]).
Regarding claim 10, Weber ‘526 further teaches the window is a cover window of a display device (¶ [0010]), but is silent regarding the window being a cover window of a foldable display device, and the groove of the window corresponding to a region where the foldable display device is folded. Ostholt ‘917 suggests forming a glass with a groover therein as described above, and further suggests that he glass is a window that is a cover window of a foldable display device, and the groover of the window corresponds to a region where the foldable display device is folded (¶ [0002]-[0004], [0018], [0025]-[0029], [0041]-[0042]; Fig. 1). 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 method of Weber ‘526 by making the window be a cover window of a foldable display device, the groove of the window corresponding to a region where the foldable display device is folded, for the benefit of giving the display device folding ability, as suggested by Ostholt ‘917. It is noted that Cao ‘218 also suggests forming a cover window of a display device with a groove of the window corresponding to a region where the foldable display device is folded (¶ [0002]-[0004], [0181], [0183], [0184]; Figs. 2, 7, 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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 at (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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741