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 § 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 1-22 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 19, the limitation “a difference in a refractive index between a red color and a purple color of a color spectrum” is a subjective limitation, as the determination of color without any a corresponding numerical limitation can vary, as the perception of color varies from person to person. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. (MPEP §2173.05(b)).
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that dispersion degree is a difference in a refractive index at 686.7 nm and at 430.8 nm. Support is demonstrated in Paragraph 0125 of the PGPub US 2025/0249654 A1.
Claims 2-12, 14-18, 20-22 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claims 1, 13, and 19.
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 1-2, 9 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0107448 A1)
Regarding Claims 1-2, Kim teaches a window (Abstract) comprising a base glass having an upper surface and a lower surface (Fig. 9, Item 410, 420, 430a; Paragraph 0067), where a groove part is recessed into the lower surface. (Fig. 9, Item G). Kim teaches a filling part configured to fill the groove part (Item 500a), where the filling part comprises CaF2. (Paragraph 0125).
Kim does not specifically teach the mineral has a dispersion degree of 0.02 or less at the claimed wavelength range. However, given that Kim teaches the same mineral as the claimed invention, CaF2, then the dispersion degree would inherently be the same range. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP §2112.01).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches the window comprises a folding part with the groove part and a non-folding part which is disposed adjacent to the folding part and the upper and lower surfaces are flat surfaces (Fig. 9).
Regarding Claims 13 and 16, Kim teaches an electronic device comprising a display module including a folding display part foldable with respect to a folding axis extending in one direction and a first non-folding display part and a second non-folding display part disposed apart from each other with the folding display part disposed in between. (Fig. 1,2)
Kim teaches a window disposed above the display module, and including a folding part corresponding to the folding display part, and a first non-folding part and a second non-folding part respectively corresponding to the first non-folding display part and the second non-folding display part; (Claim 1 of Kim; Fig. 9).
Kim teaches the window (Abstract) comprising a base glass having an upper surface and a lower surface (Fig. 9, Item 410, 420, 430a; Paragraph 0067), where a groove part is recessed into the lower surface. (Fig. 9, Item G). Kim teaches a filling part configured to fill the groove part (Item 500a), where the filling part comprises CaF2. (Paragraph 0125).
Kim does not specifically teach the mineral has a dispersion degree of 0.02 or less at the claimed wavelength range. However, given that Kim teaches the same mineral as the claimed invention, CaF2, then the dispersion degree would inherently be the same range. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP §2112.01).
Claim 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Chen (NPL).
Regarding Claim 3 and 14, Kim does not specifically teach the difference in Abbe’s number between the base glass and the filling part is about 2 or less.
Chen teaches matching refractive index and Abbe’s number between glass and another component maximizes light extraction. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the filling part and base glass of Kim have almost minimized or zero Abbe number difference, which overlaps the claimed range, in order to maximize light extraction of window of Kim.
Claims 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Mettler-Toledo (NPL).
Regarding Claim 7-8, Kim teaches the refractive index of the base glass can be 1.4 to 1.6 and the difference between the base glass and filling part is less than or equal to 0.003. (Paragraph 0084). These ranges overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). While Kim does not specifically teach these refractive indices are measured at around 589 nm, Mettler-Toledo teaches refractive indices are measured at 589.3 nm, the sodium D-line, which is an widely available, reproducible and stable light source, then it would be reasonable and obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the refractive indexes of Kim be at the standard refractive index that can be accurately compared.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches the refractive index of the base glass can be 1.4 to 1.6 and the difference between the base glass and filling part is less than or equal to 0.003. (Paragraph 0084). These ranges overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). While Kim does not specifically teach these refractive indices are measured at around 589 nm, Mettler-Toledo teaches refractive indices are measured at 589.3 nm, the sodium D-line, which is an widely available, reproducible and stable light source, then it would be reasonable and obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the refractive indexes of Kim be at the standard refractive index that can be accurately compared.
Claim 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0341970 A1) in view of Lefevre et al. (US 2008/0227901 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Lee teaches window (Abstract) comprising a base glass having an upper and lower surface (Paragraph 0088) and a groove recessed into the upper surface or the bottom surface (Claim 1 of Lee; Fig 4). Lee teaches a filling part is filled into the groove part and the filling portion can comprise a silicone resin (Claim 1 of Lee; Paragraph 0115).
Lee does not specifically teach the filling portion also comprises a mineral having a dispersion degree of the claimed range.
Lefevre teaches an optical resin composition comprising silicon resin and particles of BaSO4. (Abstract; Paragraph 0071). Lefevre teaches adding in particles of BaSO4 improves the toughness and heat stability of the resin composition, while maintaining transparency. (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add BaSO4 to the silicone resin of Lee.
Lefevre does not specifically teach the mineral has a dispersion degree of 0.02 or less at the claimed wavelength range. However, given that Lefevre teaches the same mineral as the claimed invention, BaSO4, then the dispersion degree would inherently be the same range. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP §2112.01).
Regarding Claim 4 and 6, Lee and Lefevre teach the filling part comprises the mineral and the base resin, as discussed above. Lefevre teaches the amount of barium sulfate is 0.5% or greater. (Paragraph 0088). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches the window comprises a folding part with the groove part and a non-folding part which is disposed adjacent to the folding part and the upper and lower surfaces are flat surfaces (Fig. 1A, 1B).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches the glass can be tempered glass. (Paragraph 0088). Tempered glass will inherently have a compressive stress layer formed on the upper and lower parts of a base layer of glass.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches the glass is tempered glass having a thickness of 100 to 500 microns. (Paragraph 0089). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claims 13 and 16, Lee teaches an electronic device comprising a display module including a folding display part foldable with respect to a folding axis extending in one direction and a first non-folding display part and a second non-folding display part disposed apart from each other with the folding display part disposed in between. (Fig. 1,2)
Lee teaches a window disposed above the display module, and including a folding part corresponding to the folding display part, and a first non-folding part and a second non-folding part respectively corresponding to the first non-folding display part and the second non-folding display part; (Claim 1 of Lee; Fig. 9). Lee teaches window (Abstract) comprising a base glass having an upper and lower surface (Paragraph 0088) and a groove recessed into the upper surface or the bottom surface (Claim 1 of Lee; Fig 4). Lee teaches a filling part is filled into the groove part and the filling portion can comprise a silicone resin (Claim 1 of Lee; Paragraph 0115).
Lee does not specifically teach the filling portion also comprises a mineral having a dispersion degree of the claimed range.
Lefevre teaches an optical resin composition comprising silicone resin and particles of BaSO4. (Abstract; Paragraph 0071). Lefevre teaches adding in particles of BaSO4 improves the toughness and heat stability of the resin composition, while maintaining transparency. (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add BaSO4 to the silicone resin of Lee.
Lefevre does not specifically teach the mineral has a dispersion degree of 0.02 or less at the claimed wavelength range. However, given that Lefevre teaches the same mineral as the claimed invention, BaSO4, then the dispersion degree would inherently be the same range. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP §2112.01).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee and Lefevre teach the filling part comprises the mineral and the base resin, as discussed above. Lefevre teaches the amount of barium sulfate is 0.5% or greater. (Paragraph 0088). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee teaches the glass can be tempered glass. (Paragraph 0088). Tempered glass will inherently have a compressive stress layer formed on the upper and lower parts of a base layer of glass.
Claim 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Lefevre in view of Chen (NPL).
Regarding Claim 3 and 14, Lee does not specifically teach the difference in Abbe’s number between the base glass and the filling part is about 2 or less.
Chen teaches matching refractive index and Abbe’s number between glass and another component maximizes light extraction. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the filling part and base glass of Lee have almost minimized or zero Abbe number difference, which overlaps the claimed range, in order to maximize light extraction of window of Lee.
Claims 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Lefevre in view of Mettler-Toledo (NPL).
Regarding Claim 7- 8 and 17, Lee teaches the refractive index of the refractive index of the filling part can be about 1.5 and about 1.6 and the refractive index difference between the glass and filling part is less than about 0.1 (Paragraph 0005-0006). These ranges overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). While Lee does not specifically teach these refractive indices are measured at around 589 nm, Mettler-Toledo teaches refractive indices are measured at 589.3 nm, the sodium D-line, which is an widely available, reproducible and stable light source, then it would be reasonable and obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the refractive indexes of Lee be at the standard refractive index that can be accurately compared.
Claim 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lefevre and Chen.
Regarding Claim 19-20, Lee teaches an electronic device comprising a folding region deformable between a folded state an unfolded state and a non-folding region disposed adjacent to the folding region. (Abstract; Fig 1A and 5).
Lee teaches the device comprises a display panel and a window disposed on the display panel (Claim 10 of Lee), where the window comprises a base glass having a folding part corresponding to the folding region and containing a groove pattern and a non-folding part corresponding to the non-folding region (Fig. 4) and a filling portion comprising a silicone resin configured to fill the groove portion. (Claim 10 of Lee).
Lee does not specifically teach the filling portion also includes a mineral.
Lefevre teaches an optical resin composition comprising silicone resin and particles of BaSO4. (Abstract; Paragraph 0071). Lefevre teaches adding in particles of BaSO4 improves the toughness and heat stability of the resin composition, while maintaining transparency. (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add BaSO4 to the silicone resin of Lee.
Lee does not specifically teach the difference in Abbe’s number between the base glass and the filling part is about 2 or less.
Chen teaches matching refractive index and Abbe’s number between glass and another component maximizes light extraction. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the filling part and base glass of Lee have almost minimized or zero Abbe number difference, which overlaps the claimed range, in order to maximize light extraction of window of Lee.
Regarding Claim 22, Lee teaches an upper surface of the non-folding part and a lower surface of the non-folding part are flat surfaces. (Fig 1A, 5).
Claims 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Lefevre, and Chen in view of Mettler-Toledo (NPL).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee teaches the refractive index of the refractive index of the filling part can be about 1.5 and about 1.6 and the refractive index difference between the glass and filling part is less than about 0.1 (Paragraph 0005-0006). These ranges overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). While Lee does not specifically teach these refractive indices are measured at around 589 nm, Mettler-Toledo teaches refractive indices are measured at 589.3 nm, the sodium D-line, which is an widely available, reproducible and stable light source, then it would be reasonable and obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the refractive indexes of Lee be at the standard refractive index that can be accurately compared.
Claim 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0308266 A1) [referenced as Oh et al.] in view of Lefevre.
Regarding Claim 1-2, Oh teaches a window having an upper surface and a lower surface, the base glass includes groove part recessed into the lower surface. (Abstract; Fig. 3). Oh teaches a filling part filled into the groove part (Fig. 7), where the filling part can include urethane, acrylates and silicone resins. (Paragraph 0012).
Oh does not specifically teach filling part also includes a mineral having a dispersion degree of 0.02 or less.
Lefevre teaches an optical resin composition comprising silicone and/or acrylate resins and particles of BaSO4. (Abstract; Paragraph 0071). Lefevre teaches adding in particles of BaSO4 improves the toughness and heat stability of the resin composition, while maintaining transparency. (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add BaSO4 to the silicone resin and acrylate resins of Oh.
Lefevre does not specifically teach the mineral has a dispersion degree of 0.02 or less at the claimed wavelength range. However, given that Lefevre teaches the same mineral as the claimed invention, BaSO4, then the dispersion degree would inherently be the same range. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP §2112.01).
Regarding Claim 4 and 6, Oh and Lefevre teach the filling part comprises the mineral and the base resin, as discussed above. Lefevre teaches the amount of barium sulfate is 0.5% or greater. (Paragraph 0088). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5, Oh teaches the resin can include acrylate resin or urethane resins. (Paragraph 0012-0013)
Regarding Claim 9, Oh teaches the window includes a folding part includes the groove part and the non-folding part is disposed adjacent to the folding part and the upper and lower surfaces are flat surfaces. (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 12, Oh teaches the filling part should have a light transmittance of 90% or greater. (Paragraph 0096, 0111). Thus, as Oh teaches the filling part should not impede the transparency of the glass and display, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the transmittance of filling part should also cover the visible light range, to ensure proper visibility of the display.
Regarding Claim 13 and 16, Oh teaches an electronic device comprising a display module including a folding display part foldable with respect to a folding axis extending in one direction and a first non-folding display part and a second non-folding display part disposed apart from each other with the folding display part disposed in between. (Fig. 1,2)
Oh teaches a window disposed above the display module, and including a folding part corresponding to the folding display part, and a first non-folding part and a second non-folding part respectively corresponding to the first non-folding display part and the second non-folding display part; (Fig. 2; Claim 1 of Oh)
Oh teaches the window having an upper surface and a lower surface, the base glass includes groove part recessed into the lower surface. (Abstract; Fig. 3). Oh teaches a filling part filled into the groove part (Fig. 7), where the filling part can include urethane, acrylates and silicone resins. (Paragraph 0012).
Oh does not specifically teach filling part also includes a mineral having a dispersion degree of 0.02 or less.
Lefevre teaches an optical resin composition comprising silicone and/or acrylate resins and particles of BaSO4. (Abstract; Paragraph 0071). Lefevre teaches adding in particles of BaSO4 improves the toughness and heat stability of the resin composition, while maintaining transparency. (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add BaSO4 to the silicone resin and acrylate resins of Oh.
Lefevre does not specifically teach the mineral has a dispersion degree of 0.02 or less at the claimed wavelength range. However, given that Lefevre teaches the same mineral as the claimed invention, BaSO4, then the dispersion degree would inherently be the same range. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP §2112.01).
Regarding Claim 15, Oh and Lefevre teach the filling part comprises the mineral and the base resin, as discussed above. Lefevre teaches the amount of barium sulfate is 0.5% or greater. (Paragraph 0088). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claim 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh and Lefevre in view of Chen.
Regarding Claim 3 and 14, Oh does not specifically teach the difference in Abbe’s number between the base glass and the filling part is about 2 or less.
Chen teaches matching refractive index and Abbe’s number between glass and another component maximizes light extraction. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the filling part and base glass of Oh have almost minimized or zero Abbe number difference, which overlaps the claimed range, in order to maximize light extraction of window of Oh.
Claims 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh and Lefevre, in view of Mettler-Toledo.
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 17, Oh teaches the refractive index of the glass and the filling part can be 1.50. (Paragraph 0094).
While Oh does not specifically teach these refractive indices are measured at around 589 nm, Mettler-Toledo teaches refractive indices are measured at 589.3 nm, the sodium D-line, which is an widely available, reproducible and stable light source, then it would be reasonable and obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the refractive indexes of Oh be at the standard refractive index that can be accurately compared.
Claims 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Lefevre and Chen.
Regarding Claims 19-20, Oh teaches an electronic device comprising a folding region deformable between a folded state an unfolded state and a non-folding region disposed adjacent to the folding region. (Abstract; Fig 1-2).
Oh teaches the device comprises a display panel and a window disposed on the display panel (Claim 1 of Oh), where the window comprises a base glass having a folding part corresponding to the folding region and containing a groove pattern and a non-folding part corresponding to the non-folding region (Fig. 1-2; Claim 1 of Oh) and a filling portion comprising a silicone, acrylate and urethane resin configured to fill the groove portion. (Claim 1 of Oh).
Oh does not specifically teach the filling portion also includes a mineral.
Lefevre teaches an optical resin composition comprising silicone, acrylate and urethane resin and particles of BaSO4. (Abstract; Paragraph 0071). Lefevre teaches adding in particles of BaSO4 improves the toughness and heat stability of the resin composition, while maintaining transparency. (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add BaSO4 to the silicone resin of Oh.
Oh does not specifically teach the difference in Abbe’s number between the base glass and the filling part is about 2 or less.
Chen teaches matching refractive index and Abbe’s number between glass and another component maximizes light extraction. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the filling part and base glass of Oh have almost minimized or zero Abbe number difference, which overlaps the claimed range, in order to maximize light extraction of window of Oh.
Regarding Claim 22, Oh teaches an upper surface of the non-folding part and a lower surface of the non-folding part are flat surfaces. (Fig 1-2)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh, Lefevre and Chen, in view of Mettler-Toledo.
Regarding Claim 21, Oh teaches the refractive index of the glass and the filling part can be 1.50. (Paragraph 0094).
While Oh does not specifically teach these refractive indices are measured at around 589 nm, Mettler-Toledo teaches refractive indices are measured at 589.3 nm, the sodium D-line, which is an widely available, reproducible and stable light source, then it would be reasonable and obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the refractive indexes of Oh be at the standard refractive index that can be accurately compared.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights