DETAILED ACTION
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on May 28, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Pat. No. 12,363,845 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded and the corresponding double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed June 1, 2026.
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 27-32, 34-41, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0287195) in view of Wegener (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0220021).
Regarding claims 27-30, 36-41, 44, and 45, Chen teaches a hinged glass article (101, 301) comprising wings (221, 223) comprising glass, which may be aluminoborosilicate glass comprising 0 to 20 mol. % an alkali metal (“R”) oxide with the formula R2O, and a hinge (225) comprising a glass portion (227, 229, 235) positioned between and integrally joined to the wings (Fig. 2; par. 8, par. 107). The glass portion comprises a first surface (245) facing away from a second surface (233) thereof, wherein the wings fold about the hinge such that tensile stress is generated in/along the first surface (233) and compressive stress is generated in/along the second surface (245) (i.e., wherein the first surface is "experiencing a greater tensile stress than the second surface" when the wings are folded) (par. 183). The instantly claimed R2O content range is overlapped and rendered obvious by Chen. See MPEP 2144.05.
The teachings of Chen differ from the current invention in that he does not teach to include small inclusions, such as gaseous bubbles and metal particles, in his glass article or to make the first surface of the hinge glass portion to be free of impinging small inclusions. However, Chen's foldable glass article is made from thin glass and is intended to be used in a consumer electronic product (par. 9, 36). Chen also discloses to configure the hinge region, which is located between his "wings", in his product to have a sufficiently small thickness, e.g., 10 to 50 µm, which is smaller than the thickness of the "wings", to provide a low effective minimum bend radius (par. 9, 114, 115).
Wegener further teaches that platinum components are advantageously used to produce thin glass articles, such as those used in consumer electronic devices, because platinum is resistant to high temperatures, is mechanically stable, and is capable of being directly heated (par. 66), but discloses that platinum particles can be detached from the components and found in the produced glass articles (par. 5). While not as critical in thicker articles, Wegner teaches that the presence of these platinum particles can cause significant defects in thin glass articles, such as articles having a thickness of 50 µm (par. 5). Wegener also teaches that gaseous bubbles, which ideally are later removed/reduced from the glass melt, are formed on the inside of platinum parts used in glass manufacture (par. 9).
Wegener teaches to take steps to assure that glass articles include no more than five platinum particles with diameters of more than 5 µm per kilogram of glass (par. 33). Wegener also teaches to configure such glass articles to have low bubble concentrations, teaching that there should be fewer than 50 bubbles having a length of more than 20 µm per kilogram of glass (par. 36). Glasses made with these low quantities of small inclusions can advantageously have a particularly uniform thickness, with a total thickness variation of less than 5 µm (par. 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize platinum equipment, thereby allowing at least some platinum particles and gaseous bubbles to be present in the product, in the production of Chen's thin glass article due to the mechanical and thermal advantages of platinum equipment as taught by Wegener.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure glass article of Chen and Wegener to include no more than 5 platinum particles with diameters (i.e. a "linear cross-sectional dimension extending fully thereacross and through a center thereof") of more than 5 µm and fewer than 50 bubbles with a length (i.e. a "linear cross-sectional dimension extending fully thereacross and through a center thereof") of more than 20 µm per one kilogram of glass in order to achieve a low total thickness variation. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the quantity of platinum and bubble inclusions as much as possible in the hinge, including completely eliminating such inclusions from the hinge and/or the hinge's surfaces, of the prior art product because Wegener teaches that such inclusions cause significant defects (par. 5), including surface defects (e.g. par. 5, in thin glasses and have a worse impact on thinner glass articles (par. 5), such as articles with a thickness in the range of hinge thicknesses taught by Chen, than thicker articles (par. 5), thereby demonstrating that the defects would have a significantly larger impact on the thin hinge portion in Chen and Wegener's product than on the other, thicker portions of the article, and in order to allow the hinge to be manufactured with as small of a hinge thickness as possible/appropriate in order to achieve as small of a bend radius as possible, as desired by Chen.
As it would have been obvious to eliminate the inclusions from the hinge of the prior art product, a first surface of such a product would be free of small inclusions "impinging thereupon" and the inclusions that are present would be located in the "wings". The instantly claimed inclusion a "linear cross-sectional dimension extending fully thereacross and through a center thereof" ranges are overlapped and rendered obvious by Wegener's inclusion diameter/length ranges. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 31, 32, 34, and 35, the limitations of claims 31, 32, 34, and 35 are taught or rendered obvious by Chen and Wegener for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Action.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Wegener, as applied to claim 27 above, and as evidenced by and/or further in view of Moon (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0061694) for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Action.
Claims 43 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Wegener, as applied above, and further in view of Jeong (KR 20160067701 A), the text of which is cited herein according to an English language translation, and, optionally, Kim (KR 20110139007 A), the text of which is cited herein according to an English language translation.
Regarding claims 43 and 46, the teachings of Chen and Wegener differ from the current invention in that neither teaches a glass article with gaseous bubble inclusions arranged in a train with the recited alignment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to handle Chen and Wegener’s product in a manner that creates inclusions, including handling it such that at least three inclusions are “generally aligned” with the recited geometry and in a “train” as claimed, in order to achieve the benefits discussed above. As also discussed above, the prior art product is made up of optically transparent glass and a polymer, and is intended to be used as a display device (par. 35, 105, 137, 138). Chen also teaches that the glass is chemically strengthened (par. 201, 202).
Jeong further teaches that conventional methods of cutting glass substrates for mobile display screens, such as touch screens in smartphones, have been problematic due to high production costs, low process efficiency, and low productivity due to a high breakage rate, and that previous methods involving cutting pre-strengthened glass offer higher process efficiency and productivity, but still have the drawback of having to cut strengthened glass due to problems associated with the prior art cutting methods (par. 2, 6-11). As an alternative to the previous methods, Jeong teaches a cutting method involving forming a line of gaseous bubbles, preferably using a laser, inside a strengthened glass that efficiently cuts the glass without breaking it, thereby creating a smooth surface (par. 13-15, 28). Jeong teaches that that bubbles can be of various forms (par. 26) and that multiple bubbles can be interconnected or disconnected, but close to one another, to accomplish such cutting without breaking the material being cut (par. 33). Jeong further teaches that his cutting method can be used on various other types of substrates, including non-strengthened glass, annealed glass, crystal, and plastic materials (par. 34, 36). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a line of bubbles, as disclosed by Jeong, in Chen’s glass product in any location where a cut was intended to be made, including in one or more of the wings of the glass product, because Chen teaches that his glass article is intended for use in a display device and Jeong establishes that the production of such displays requires cutting operations, and in order to efficiently cut the product without breakage, thereby creating a smooth surface, so that the size and/or shape of the Chen’s product can be adjusted and so that Chen’s product can be made suitable for use in a mobile device such as a smart phone in an efficient manner (citations for Chen and Jeong’s statements referred to herein are provided above).
The teachings of Jeong differ from the current invention in that the number of bubbles in a line and the angles formed between pairs of bubbles is not disclosed. However, Jeong does teach forming “cutting lines” from bubbles and refers to “multiple” bubbles in his discussions of cutting lines (par. 33). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “multiple” bubbles to encompass and render obvious three bubbles. See MPEP 2144.05. In discussing Figure 5 and 6, Jeong teaches that bubbles can sequentially be formed in a glass component so that a bubble is expanded toward or into a region near the exterior of the glass (par. 31, 33). As shown in Figures 5 and 6, more than two bubbles would be necessary to form a line having the height/depth of that of Figure 6. Figures 6 and 7 demonstrate that the cutting line formed from bubbles are straight lines (i.e. they do not have 30 ° or larger bends) (Figs. 6, 7). As noted above, Jeong teaches that the bubbles forming a line do not have to be connected (par. 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a straight line (i.e. a line that is free of large bends, including being free of 30 ° bends) of multiple gaseous bubbles, including forming a line of three or more bubbles, in Chen’s product in order to form a cutting lines as taught by Jeong and discussed above and because Jeong’s teaching of “multiple” bubbles clearly encompasses and renders obvious three bubbles. See MPEP 2144.05. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select to form as few or as many bubbles as necessary, including selecting to form three or more bubbles, according to the length of the cut being made, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, who is also of ordinary creativity and guided by common sense such that they understand that the length of a cut directly depends on the length of a cutting line, which, in the case of Jeong, is formed from a line of bubbles. See MPEP 2141 and 2141.03. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a line of three or more bubbles in one or both of the wings of Chen’s product such that the bubbles are arranged in a linear relationship that meets the relationship described by claims 43 and 46.
The teachings of Jeong differ from the current invention in that he does not teach a specific length of bubbles. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited bubble (or “inclusion”) size is a prima facie obvious selection of dimension that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Kim further teaches cutting transparent materials, such as glass, by using a laser to form a line of voids within the material (Abstract, par. 39, 43). As shown in Figures 1 and 4, Kim’s cuts are formed from more than three voids (210) arranged in a line (Figs. 1 and 4). Kim teaches that the voids may range in size from tens to hundreds of nanometers (par. 34), and that the size, number, and shape of the voids may be controlled by adjusting the lasing conditions (par. 39). Kim further teaches that the method of forming cuts by using a nano-void array has the advantage of enabling efficient cutting and processing of thin, transparent materials (par. 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the lines of bubbles in Chen and Jeong’s product to include bubbles having a size in the range of tens to hundreds of nanometers that are arranged in linear lines (i.e. which meet the claimed geometric requirements) because Kim teaches that such sizes and arrangement of voids enables efficient cutting and processing of thin, transparent materials (i.e. which is taught by Chen) (citations for Chen and Kim’s statements referred to herein are provided above). The instantly claimed bubble size range is overlapped and rendered obvious by Kim. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that it would not have been obvious to include bubble or platinum particle inclusions in Chen’s product because Wegener teaches to minimize such inclusions because they cause defects. However, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it does not consider the full context of the rejection. The rejection is not based on Wegner promoting making glass products with inclusions, but rather on Wegener’s teachings of using production equipment that generates inclusions. Specifically, Wegener motivates using platinum components in the production of glass products (i.e. such as that of Chen) by teaching that platinum components are advantageously used to produce thin glass articles, such as those used in consumer electronic devices, because platinum is resistant to high temperatures, is mechanically stable, and is capable of being directly heated (par. 66). Wegener does, however, teach that use of such components generates inclusions, such as those of the claims, in glass and places limits on the size and quantity of such inclusions (par. 5, 9, 33, 36, 40). Therefore, as discussed in the rejections above, it would have been obvious to utilize platinum components in the production of Chen’s product in view of Wegener’s teachings (as just cited and cited in the rejections above), but to limit the size and quantity of inclusions that arise from using such components in the production process (as just cited and cited in the rejections above), particularly where the glass is thinner (par. 5), in order to avoid the effects of such inclusions as much as possible.
Applicant has further argued that the obviousness statement regarding minimizing inclusions in the thinner portion of Chen’s product was not properly supported because citations were not made. Specifically, Applicant has asked where Wegener teaches surface defects, how evidence in Chen and Wegener support the idea that defects would have a significantly larger impact on the thinner part of Chen’s product, and what is meant by a “significantly larger impact”. Although it was previously presumed that this obviousness statement would be read in view of the citations made earlier in the rejection, for Applicant’s convenience, citations are now included in the statement in the rejection above. Regarding Applicant’s specific questions, Wegener’s paragraph 5 teaches that a “single platinum particle with a size of only 5 μm diameter in the case of a glass of 50 μm thickness can thus represent a very significant defect since the surfaces can bulge around the enclosed defect”. Previously in paragraph 5, Wegener also states that in “glass articles with a greater thickness, these platinum particles are, as a result of their small size, less critical than in particularly thin glass articles”. Therefore, Wegener specifically addresses surface defects and the relative effects of inclusions in thick versus thin glass articles. Although Wegener may not explicitly define what he means by defects being “significant”, it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the just-cited teachings that Wegener considers “significant” defects to be undesirable.
Applicant has also asserted in making the arguments regarding the discussion of the increased importance of reducing inclusions in thinner glass relative to thicker glass that Wegener teaches glass thicknesses overlapping the thickness ranges of both the thicker and thinner parts of Chen’s glass product. However, while Applicant is correct that Wegener teaches both thickness ranges, this teaching does not negate the fact that Wegener teaches that the inclusions have a more significant impact on thinner glass than thicker glass, which would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to prioritize eliminating/omitting inclusions from thinner regions of glass over thicker regions of glass.
Applicant has also argued that the conclusions of obvious made above and in the previous Office Action are the result of hindsight reasoning. In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The product of the instant claims would have been obvious in view of Chen and Wegener’s teachings for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights