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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
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, 4, 7-9, 11-14, 16, 23-26, and 28-47 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a thickness of the glass article of at most 2 mm”, and the claim also recites “having a thickness up to at most 0.7 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 31 recites the broad recitation “a thickness of the glass article of at most 2 mm”, and the claim also recites “having a thickness up to at most 0.7 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 34 recites the broad recitation “a thickness of the glass article of at most 2 mm”, and the claim also recites “having a thickness up to at most 0.7 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9, 11-14, 16, 23-26, and 28-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US20170341973, hereinafter referred to as Gross) as evidenced by Ghaffari et al. (Ghaffari, Omid Banapour, Bijan Eftekhari Yekta, and Morteza Zakeri-Nasrabadi. "Estimating “depth of layer”(DOL) in ion-exchanged glasses using explainable machine learning." Materialia 33 (2024): 102027, hereinafter referred to as Ghaffari).
Regarding claim 1, Gross discloses a glass article that is chemically prestressed (see Gross at [0018], disclosing a glass article [which] includes a stress profile extending along the entire thickness. Examiner notes that a stressed glass article must have existed in some point in time as a prestressed article), comprising: a glass having a thickness up to at most 0.7 mm (while Table 3 does not explicitly provide the thickness of Example 26, Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05) with a composition comprising SiO2, Al2O3, and Li2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising SiO2, Al2O3, and Li2O); and a set-drop strength of at least 50 and up to 150, given as drop height in cm, wherein the drop height is given as the mean value of 15 samples, using a sandpaper grit of 60 (see Gross at [0153], disclosing samples … survive the IBoS drop test without fracture when dropped from the prescribed height (here 100cm) … at least about 90% (90% or more), which is within the claimed range. Alternatively, while the drop test of Gross is not absolutely identical to the instantly claimed drop test because Gross does not disclose a sandpaper grit of 60, the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed property because the drop tests are substantially identical, and therefore the glass of Gross with over a 90% survival rate at a drop of 100cm would also inherently have a set-drop strength of at least 50 and up to 150, given as drop height in cm, wherein the drop height is given as the mean value of 15 samples, with the use of a sandpaper grit of 60. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph),
a DoL of at least 90 µm for a thicknesses of the glass article of at least 0.4 mm up to at most 0.55 mm (see Gross at [0118], disclosing a DoC in the range from about 0.11 t to about 0.2 t. Examiner notes DoC and DoL are used interchangeably in the glass arts are evidenced by Ghaffari (see Ghaffari at the second paragraph of the introduction, disclosing the depth of the layer (DOL) or depth of compression (DOC) refers to the distance from the surface of the glass to the internal location where residual stress transitions from a compressive state to a tensile state, resulting in a zero-stress value.) Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, at a thickness of at least 0.4mm up to at most 0.55mm, Gross discloses a DoL of from a minimum of (0.4*0.11)*1000= 44 µm to a maximum of (0.55*0.2)*1000= 110µm, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05).),
a DoL of at least 115 µm for a thicknesses of the glass article of more than 0.55 mm up to at most 0.7 mm (see Gross at [0118], disclosing a DoC in the range from about 0.11 t to about 0.2 t. Examiner notes DoC and DoL are used interchangeably in the glass arts are evidenced by Ghaffari (see Ghaffari at the second paragraph of the introduction, disclosing the depth of the layer (DOL) or depth of compression (DOC) refers to the distance from the surface of the glass to the internal location where residual stress transitions from a compressive state to a tensile state, resulting in a zero-stress value.) Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, at a thickness of more than 0.55 mm up to at most 0.7 mm, Gross discloses a DoL of from a minimum of (0.55*0.11)*1000= 60.5 µm to a maximum of (0.7*0.2)*1000= 140µm, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05).),
a content of network formers of at least 82 wt.% (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 64.10 mol% SiO2, 14.97 mol% Al2O3 and 5.58 mol% B2O3 which correspond to approximately 58.32 wt.% SiO2, 23.11 wt.% Al2O3, and 5.88 wt.% B2O3, which provides a content of network formers of at least (58.32+23.11+5.88)= 87.31 wt.%, which is within the claimed range.),
a content of alkali oxides of at most 14 wt.% (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of alkali metals which are 9.73 mol% Li2O, and 3.14 mol% Na2O which correspond to approximately 4.40 wt.% Li2O and 2.95 wt.% Na2O, providing a sum total alkali oxide content of 4.4+2.95= 7.35 wt.% alkali oxides, which is within the claimed range.), a thickness of the glass article of at most 2mm (while Table 3 does not explicitly provide the thickness of Example 26, Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 4, Gross discloses the composition comprises at most 1.7 wt.% P2O5 (While Example 26 from Table 3 comprises approximately 5.22 wt.% P2O5, Gross at [0071] discloses the glass composition may include P2O5 in a range from about 0 mol% to about 10 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range. Gross at [0071] further teaches the inclusion of some P2O5 in the composition manages the liquidus behavior of the glass and reduces high temperature CTE, which enables formation of thin glass articles. Without being bound by theory, the inclusion of some P2O5 also facilitates zircon breakdown of the glass. Gross at [0053] further discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the P2O5 and SiO2 content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with reduced high temperature CTE and being able to form thin glass articles as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and P2O5 content of Example 26 to comprise 66.03 mol% SiO2 and 0.5 mol% P2O5 is within the range disclosed by Gross and corresponds to approximately 61.55 wt.% SiO2 and 1.1 wt.% P2O5, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Gross discloses the composition comprises at least 57 wt.% SiO2 and at most 69 wt.% SiO2 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 64.10 mol% SiO2, which correspond to approximately 58.32 wt.% SiO2, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 9, Gross discloses the composition comprises at least 17 wt.% Al2O3 and at most 25 wt.% Al2O3 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 14.97 mol% Al2O3, which correspond to approximately 23.11 wt.% Al2O3, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 11, Gross discloses the composition comprises an entire content of network formers of no more than 92 wt.% (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 64.10 mol% SiO2, 14.97 mol% Al2O3 and 5.58 mol% B2O3 which correspond to approximately 58.32 wt.% SiO2, 23.11 wt.% Al2O3, and 5.88 wt.% B2O3, which provides a content of network formers of at least (58.32+23.11+5.88)= 87.31 wt.%, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 12, Gross discloses the composition comprises at least 3 wt.% Li2O and at most 5 wt.% Li2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 9.73 mol% Li2O which corresponds to approximately 4.51 wt.% Li2O, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 13, Gross discloses the composition comprises at most 8 wt.% Na2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.14 mol% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 3.02 wt.% Na2O).
Regarding claim 14, Gross discloses further comprising a thickness of at least 0.4 mm (while Table 3 does not explicitly provide the thickness of Example 26, Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 16, Gross discloses the glass article is configured for a use selected from a group consisting of a cover panel, a cover panel for a consumer electronic device, a cover panel for a display device, a cover panel for a computer monitor, a cover panel for a measurement device, a cover panel for a television, a cover panel for a mobile device, a cover panel for a mobile terminal, a cover panel for a mobile data processing device, a cover panel for a mobile phone, a cover panel for a mobile computer, a cover panel for a palm top, a cover panel for a laptop, a cover panel for a tablet computer, a cover panel for a wearable device, a cover panel for a portable watch, a cover panel for a time measuring device, a protective glass for a machine, a glazing for a high-speed train, safety glass, an automobile glazing, a diving watch, a submarine, and a cover panel for an explosion-protected device (see Gross at [0022], disclosing a cover article disposed over the display, which Examiner notes corresponds to a cover panel).
Regarding claim 23, Gross discloses the composition comprises, in wt.%: SiO2 57 to 69 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 64.10 mol% SiO2, which correspond to approximately 58.32 wt.% SiO2, which is within the claimed range.); Al2O3 17 to 21 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 14.97 mol% Al2O3, which correspond to approximately 23.11 wt.% Al2O3, which is outside of the claimed range. However, Gross at [0053] further discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Gross at [0054] discloses Al2O3 may be present in the compositions described herein in a range from about 10 mol % to about 20 mol %. Gross at [0056] teaches SiO2 and Al2O3 is maximized to improve scratch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the SiO2 and Al2O3 content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the glass ability to withstand scratch as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and Al2O3 content of Example 26 to comprise 68 mol% SiO2 and 13 mol% Al2O3 is within the range disclosed by Gross and corresponds to approximately 64.20 wt.% SiO2 and 20.83 wt.% Al2O3 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, it would be obvious when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the SiO2 and Al2O3 content to within the claimed range.
Further regarding claim 23, Gross discloses Li2O 3 to 5.5 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 9.73 mol% Li2O which corresponds to approximately 4.51 wt.% Li2O, which is within the claimed range.), Na2O 0.8 to 8 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.14 mol% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 3.02 wt.% Na2O), and a sum of a content of Al2O3 and SiO2 lies between at least 75 and at most 92 (see the rejection of claim 23 above discussing that Gross makes obvious an SiO2 content of 64.20 wt.% SiO2 and 20.83 wt.% Al2O3 which corresponds to a sum total of approximately 85.03 wt.%, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 24, Gross discloses the composition comprises, in wt.%: SiO2 61 to 69 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 64.10 mol% SiO2, which correspond to approximately 58.32 wt.% SiO2, which is within the claimed range.);
Al2O3 17 to 21 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 14.97 mol% Al2O3, which correspond to approximately 23.11 wt.% Al2O3, which is outside of the claimed range. However, Gross at [0053] further discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Gross at [0054] discloses Al2O3 may be present in the compositions described herein in a range from about 10 mol % to about 20 mol %. Gross at [0056] teaches SiO2 and Al2O3 is maximized to improve scratch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the SiO2 and Al2O3 content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the glass ability to withstand scratch as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and Al2O3 content of Example 26 to comprise 68 mol% SiO2 and 13 mol% Al2O3 is within the range disclosed by Gross and corresponds to approximately 64.20 wt.% SiO2 and 20.83 wt.% Al2O3 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, it would be obvious when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the SiO2 and Al2O3 content to within the claimed range.
Further regarding claim 24, Gross discloses Li2O 3 to 5.5 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 9.73 mol% Li2O which corresponds to approximately 4.51 wt.% Li2O, which is within the claimed range.) Na2O 0.8 to 7.5 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.14 mol% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 3.02 wt.% Na2O).
Regarding claim 25, Gross discloses the glass is plate-shaped (See Gross at [0086], disclosing the glass article may be substantially planar sheet, which Examiner notes corresponds with being plate-shaped).
Regarding claim 26, Gross discloses the glass is disc-shaped (See Gross at [0100], disclosing a glass disc. See further Gross at [0086], disclosing the glass may be otherwise shaped or sculpted article. Examiner additionally notes it is obvious to change the shape of an article per MPEP 2144.04. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 28, Gross discloses the composition comprises the content of alkali oxides of at most 12 wt.% (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of alkali metals which are 9.73 mol% Li2O, and 3.14 mol% Na2O which correspond to approximately 4.40 wt.% Li2O and 2.95 wt.% Na2O, providing a sum total alkali oxide content of 4.4+2.95= 7.35 wt.% alkali oxides, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 29, Gross discloses the glass comprises 0-1 wt.% MgO (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 30, while Gross does not explicitly disclose the CIL of the glass, this is a function of the composition of the glass, the thickness of the glass, as well as the depth of the compressive stress layer (which is analogous to DoL). The composition of the glass of Gross is substantially identical to the instantly claimed glass as disclosed above. The depth of the compressive stress layer is substantially identical to the instantly claimed DoL as disclosed above. The thickness of the glass is substantially identical to the instantly claimed thickness as disclosed above. Therefore, the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed CIL. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 31, Gross discloses a glass article that is chemically prestressed (see Gross at [0018], disclosing a glass article [which] includes a stress profile extending along the entire thickness. Examiner notes that a stressed glass article must have existed in some point in time as a prestressed article) comprising: a glass having a thickness up to at most 0.7 mm (while Table 3 does not explicitly provide the thickness of Example 26, Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05) with a composition comprising (i) at least 61 wt.% SiO2 or at most 21 wt.% of Al2O3 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 14.97 mol% Al2O3, which correspond to approximately 23.11 wt.% Al2O3, which is outside of the claimed range. However, Gross at [0053] further discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Gross at [0054] discloses Al2O3 may be present in the compositions described herein in a range from about 10 mol % to about 20 mol %. Gross at [0056] teaches SiO2 and Al2O3 is maximized to improve scratch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the SiO2 and Al2O3 content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the glass ability to withstand scratch as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and Al2O3 content of Example 26 to comprise 70 mol% SiO2 and 13 mol% Al2O3 is within the range disclosed by Gross and corresponds to approximately 66.29 wt.% SiO2 and 20.83 wt.% Al2O3 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, it would be obvious when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the SiO2 and Al2O3 content to within the claimed range, including the overlapping range.
Further regarding claim 31, Gross discloses (ii) Li2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 9.73 mol% Li2O which corresponds to approximately 4.51 wt.% Li2O, which is within the claimed range.), 0-3 wt.% of P2O5 (While Example 26 from Table 3 comprises approximately 5.22 wt.% P2O5, Gross at [0071] discloses the glass composition may include P2O5 in a range from about 0 mol% to about 10 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range. Gross at [0071] further teaches the inclusion of some P2O5 in the composition manages the liquidus behavior of the glass and reduces high temperature CTE, which enables formation of thin glass articles. Without being bound by theory, the inclusion of some P2O5 also facilitates zircon breakdown of the glass. Gross at [0053] further discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the P2O5 and SiO2 content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with reduced high temperature CTE and being able to form thin glass articles as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and P2O5 content of Example 26 to comprise 70 mol% SiO2 and 0.5 mol% P2O5 is within the range disclosed by Gross and corresponds to approximately 66.29 wt.% SiO2 and 1.1 wt.% P2O5, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the ranges disclosed by Gross overlap with the claimed range.),
0-5 wt.% of B2O3 (While Example 26 from Table 3 comprises approximately 5.58 mol% B2O3 which is outside of the claimed range, Gross at [0053] discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Gross at [0010] discloses B2O3 is in an amount in the range from about 0.9 mol % to about 6.5 mol %. Gross at [0056] teaches the presence of B2O3 enhances scratch resistance of a glass article and a strengthened glass article. Therefore, it would have been obvious it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the B2O3 and SiO2 throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with scratch resistance and which is strengthened as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and B2O3 to 70 mol% SiO2 and 3.58 mol% B2O3 corresponds to approximately 66.29 wt.% SiO2 and 3.93 wt.% B2O3, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the ranges disclosed by Gross overlap with the claimed range.),
0-1 wt.% of K2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% K2O), and 0-1.5 wt.% of MgO (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO), a set-drop strength of at least 50 and up to 150, given as drop height in cm, wherein the drop height is given as a mean value of 15 samples, with the use of a sandpaper grit of 60 (see Gross at [0153], disclosing samples … survive the IBoS drop test without fracture when dropped from the prescribed height (here 100cm) … at least about 90% (90% or more), which is within the claimed range. Alternatively, while the drop test of Gross is not absolutely identical to the instantly claimed drop test because Gross does not disclose a sandpaper grit of 60, the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed property because the drop tests are substantially identical, and therefore the glass of Gross with over a 90% survival rate at a drop of 100cm would also inherently have a set-drop strength of at least 50 and up to 150, given as drop height in cm, wherein the drop height is given as the mean value of 15 samples, using a sandpaper grit of 60. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).;
a DoL of at least 90 µm for a thicknesses of the glass article of at least 0.4 mm up to at most 0.55 mm (see Gross at [0118], disclosing a DoC in the range from about 0.11 t to about 0.2 t. Examiner notes DoC and DoL are used interchangeably in the glass arts are evidenced by Ghaffari (see Ghaffari at the second paragraph of the introduction, disclosing the depth of the layer (DOL) or depth of compression (DOC) refers to the distance from the surface of the glass to the internal location where residual stress transitions from a compressive state to a tensile state, resulting in a zero-stress value.) Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, at a thickness of at least 0.4mm up to at most 0.55mm, Gross discloses a DoL of from a minimum of (0.4*0.11)*1000= 44 µm to a maximum of (0.55*0.2)*1000= 110µm, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05).),
a DoL of at least 115 µm for a thicknesses of the glass article of more than 0.55 mm up to at most 0.7 mm (see Gross at [0118], disclosing a DoC in the range from about 0.11 t to about 0.2 t. Examiner notes DoC and DoL are used interchangeably in the glass arts are evidenced by Ghaffari (see Ghaffari at the second paragraph of the introduction, disclosing the depth of the layer (DOL) or depth of compression (DOC) refers to the distance from the surface of the glass to the internal location where residual stress transitions from a compressive state to a tensile state, resulting in a zero-stress value.) Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, at a thickness of more than 0.55 mm up to at most 0.7 mm, Gross discloses a DoL of from a minimum of (0.55*0.11)*1000= 60.5 µm to a maximum of (0.7*0.2)*1000= 140µm, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05).),
a content of network formers of at least 82 wt.% (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 64.10 mol% SiO2, 14.97 mol% Al2O3 and 5.58 mol% B2O3 which correspond to approximately 58.32 wt.% SiO2, 23.11 wt.% Al2O3, and 5.88 wt.% B2O3, which provides a content of network formers of at least (58.32+23.11+5.88)= 87.31 wt.%, which is within the claimed range.), a content of alkali oxides of at most 14 wt.% (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of alkali metals which are 9.73 mol% Li2O, and 3.14 mol% Na2O which correspond to approximately 4.40 wt.% Li2O and 2.95 wt.% Na2O, providing a sum total alkali oxide content of 4.4+2.95= 7.35 wt.% alkali oxides, which is within the claimed range.), a thickness of the glass article of at most 2mm (while Table 3 does not explicitly provide the thickness of Example 26, Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 32, Gross discloses the glass comprises 0-1 wt.% of MgO (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO).
Regarding claim 33, while Gross does not explicitly disclose the CIL of the glass, this is a function of the composition of the glass, the thickness of the glass, as well as the depth of the compressive stress layer (which is analogous to DoL). The composition of the glass of Gross is substantially identical to the instantly claimed glass as disclosed above. The depth of the compressive stress layer is substantially identical to the instantly claimed DoL as disclosed above. The thickness of the glass is substantially identical to the instantly claimed thickness as disclosed above. Therefore, the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed CIL. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 34, Gross discloses a glass article that is chemically prestressed (see Gross at [0018], disclosing a glass article [which] includes a stress profile extending along the entire thickness. Examiner notes that a stressed glass article must have existed in some point in time as a prestressed article), comprising: a glass having a thickness up to at most 0.7 mm (while Table 3 does not explicitly provide the thickness of Example 26, Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05) with a composition comprising (i) at least 61 wt.% SiO2 or at most 21 wt.% of Al2O3 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 14.97 mol% Al2O3, which correspond to approximately 23.11 wt.% Al2O3, which is outside of the claimed range. However, Gross at [0053] further discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Gross at [0054] discloses Al2O3 may be present in the compositions described herein in a range from about 10 mol % to about 20 mol %. Gross at [0056] teaches SiO2 and Al2O3 is maximized to improve scratch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the SiO2 and Al2O3 content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the glass ability to withstand scratch as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and Al2O3 content of Example 26 to comprise 70 mol% SiO2 and 13 mol% Al2O3 is within the range disclosed by Gross and corresponds to approximately 66.29 wt.% SiO2 and 20.83 wt.% Al2O3 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, it would be obvious when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the SiO2 and Al2O3 content to within the claimed range, including the overlapping range.
Further regarding claim 34, Gross discloses (ii) at least 3.5 wt.% of Li2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 9.73 mol% Li2O which corresponds to approximately 4.51 wt.% Li2O, which is within the claimed range.), 0-3 wt.% of P2O5 (While Example 26 from Table 3 comprises approximately 5.22 wt.% P2O5, Gross at [0071] discloses the glass composition may include P2O5 in a range from about 0 mol% to about 10 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range. Gross at [0071] further teaches the inclusion of some P2O5 in the composition manages the liquidus behavior of the glass and reduces high temperature CTE, which enables formation of thin glass articles. Without being bound by theory, the inclusion of some P2O5 also facilitates zircon breakdown of the glass. Gross at [0053] further discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the P2O5 and SiO2 content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with reduced high temperature CTE and being able to form thin glass articles as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and P2O5 content of Example 26 to comprise 70 mol% SiO2 and 0.5 mol% P2O5 is within the range disclosed by Gross and corresponds to approximately 66.29 wt.% SiO2 and 1.1 wt.% P2O5, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the ranges disclosed by Gross overlap with the claimed range.),
0-1 wt.% of K2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% K2O), and 0-1.5 wt.% of MgO (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO), a set-drop strength of at least 50 and up to 150, given as drop height in cm, wherein the drop height is given as a mean value of 15 samples, with the use of a sandpaper grit of 60 (see Gross at [0153], disclosing samples … survive the IBoS drop test without fracture when dropped from the prescribed height (here 100cm) … at least about 90% (90% or more), which is within the claimed range. Alternatively, while the drop test of Gross is not absolutely identical to the instantly claimed drop test because Gross does not disclose a sandpaper grit of 60, the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed property because the drop tests are substantially identical, and therefore the glass of Gross with over a 90% survival rate at a drop of 100cm would also inherently have a set-drop strength of at least 50 and up to 150, given as drop height in cm, wherein the drop height is given as the mean value of 15 samples, with the use of a sandpaper grit of 60. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).;
a DoL of at least 90 µm for a thicknesses of the glass article of at least 0.4 mm up to at most 0.55 mm (see Gross at [0118], disclosing a DoC in the range from about 0.11 t to about 0.2 t. Examiner notes DoC and DoL are used interchangeably in the glass arts are evidenced by Ghaffari (see Ghaffari at the second paragraph of the introduction, disclosing the depth of the layer (DOL) or depth of compression (DOC) refers to the distance from the surface of the glass to the internal location where residual stress transitions from a compressive state to a tensile state, resulting in a zero-stress value.) Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, at a thickness of at least 0.4mm up to at most 0.55mm, Gross discloses a DoL of from a minimum of (0.4*0.11)*1000= 44 µm to a maximum of (0.55*0.2)*1000= 110µm, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05).),
a DoL of at least 115 µm for a thicknesses of the glass article of more than 0.55 mm up to at most 0.7 mm (see Gross at [0118], disclosing a DoC in the range from about 0.11 t to about 0.2 t. Examiner notes DoC and DoL are used interchangeably in the glass arts are evidenced by Ghaffari (see Ghaffari at the second paragraph of the introduction, disclosing the depth of the layer (DOL) or depth of compression (DOC) refers to the distance from the surface of the glass to the internal location where residual stress transitions from a compressive state to a tensile state, resulting in a zero-stress value.) Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, at a thickness of more than 0.55 mm up to at most 0.7 mm, Gross discloses a DoL of from a minimum of (0.55*0.11)*1000= 60.5 µm to a maximum of (0.7*0.2)*1000= 140µm, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05).),
a content of network formers of at least 82 wt.% (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of 64.10 mol% SiO2, 14.97 mol% Al2O3 and 5.58 mol% B2O3 which correspond to approximately 58.32 wt.% SiO2, 23.11 wt.% Al2O3, and 5.88 wt.% B2O3, which provides a content of network formers of at least (58.32+23.11+5.88)= 87.31 wt.%, which is within the claimed range.), a content of alkali oxides of at most 14 wt.% (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising mol.% values of alkali metals which are 9.73 mol% Li2O, and 3.14 mol% Na2O which correspond to approximately 4.40 wt.% Li2O and 2.95 wt.% Na2O, providing a sum total alkali oxide content of 4.4+2.95= 7.35 wt.% alkali oxides, which is within the claimed range.), a thickness of the glass article of at most 2mm (while Table 3 does not explicitly provide the thickness of Example 26, Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about … 0.01 millimeters to about 2 millimeters, which is within the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 35, Gross discloses the glass comprises 0-5 wt.% of B2O3 (While Example 26 from Table 3 comprises approximately 5.58 mol% B2O3 which is outside of the claimed range, Gross at [0053] discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Gross at [0010] discloses B2O3 is in an amount in the range from about 0.9 mol % to about 6.5 mol %. Gross at [0056] teaches the presence of B2O3 enhances scratch resistance of a glass article and a strengthened glass article. Therefore, it would have been obvious it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the B2O3 and SiO2 throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with scratch resistance and which is strengthened as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and B2O3 to 70 mol% SiO2 and 3.58 mol% B2O3 corresponds to approximately 66.29 wt.% SiO2 and 3.93 wt.% B2O3, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the ranges disclosed by Gross overlap with the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 36, Gross discloses the glass comprises 0-4.5 wt.% of B2O3 (While Example 26 from Table 3 comprises approximately 5.58 mol% B2O3 which is outside of the claimed range, Gross at [0053] discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Gross at [0010] discloses B2O3 is in an amount in the range from about 0.9 mol % to about 6.5 mol %. Gross at [0056] teaches the presence of B2O3 enhances scratch resistance of a glass article and a strengthened glass article. Therefore, it would have been obvious it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the B2O3 and SiO2 throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with scratch resistance and which is strengthened as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and B2O3 to 70 mol% SiO2 and 3.58 mol% B2O3 corresponds to approximately 66.29 wt.% SiO2 and 3.93 wt.% B2O3, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the ranges disclosed by Gross overlap with the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 37, Gross discloses the glass comprises 0-1 wt.% of MgO (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO).
Regarding claim 38, while Gross does not explicitly disclose the CIL of the glass, this is a function of the composition of the glass, the thickness of the glass, as well as the depth of the compressive stress layer (which is analogous to DoL). The composition of the glass of Gross is substantially identical to the instantly claimed glass as disclosed above. The depth of the compressive stress layer is substantially identical to the instantly claimed DoL as disclosed above. The thickness of the glass is substantially identical to the instantly claimed thickness as disclosed above. Therefore, the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed CIL. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 39, Gross discloses the composition further comprises: 0-3 wt.% of P2O5 (While Example 26 from Table 3 comprises approximately 5.22 wt.% P2O5, Gross at [0071] discloses the glass composition may include P2O5 in a range from about 0 mol% to about 10 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range. Gross at [0071] further teaches the inclusion of some P2O5 in the composition manages the liquidus behavior of the glass and reduces high temperature CTE, which enables formation of thin glass articles. Without being bound by theory, the inclusion of some P2O5 also facilitates zircon breakdown of the glass. Gross at [0053] further discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the P2O5 and SiO2 content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with reduced high temperature CTE and being able to form thin glass articles as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and P2O5 content of Example 26 to comprise 70 mol% SiO2 and 0.5 mol% P2O5 is within the range disclosed by Gross and corresponds to approximately 66.29 wt.% SiO2 and 1.1 wt.% P2O5, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the ranges disclosed by Gross overlap with the claimed range.), 0-4.5 wt.% of B2O3 (While Example 26 from Table 3 comprises approximately 5.58 mol% B2O3 which is outside of the claimed range, Gross at [0053] discloses 60 mol% to about 80 mol% SiO2. Gross at [0010] discloses B2O3 is in an amount in the range from about 0.9 mol % to about 6.5 mol %. Gross at [0056] teaches the presence of B2O3 enhances scratch resistance of a glass article and a strengthened glass article. Therefore, it would have been obvious it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Gross to vary the B2O3 and SiO2 throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with scratch resistance and which is strengthened as taught by Gross. For example, varying the SiO2 and B2O3 to 70 mol% SiO2 and 3.58 mol% B2O3 corresponds to approximately 66.29 wt.% SiO2 and 3.93 wt.% B2O3, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the ranges disclosed by Gross overlap with the claimed range.),
0-1 wt.% of K2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% K2O), and 0-3 wt.% of ZrO2 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 40, Gross discloses the composition comprises at least 0.8 wt.% Na2O and at most 8 wt.% Na2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.14 mol% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 3.02 wt.% Na2O).
Regarding claim 41, Gross discloses the composition further comprises 0-3 wt.% of ZrO2 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 42, Gross discloses the composition further comprises at most 8 wt.% Na2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.14 mol% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 3.02 wt.% Na2O).
Regarding claim 43, Gross discloses the composition further comprises 0-3 wt.% of ZrO2 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 44, Gross discloses the composition further comprises at most 8 wt.% Na2O (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.14 mol% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 3.02 wt.% Na2O).
Regarding claim 45, Gross discloses a second DoL on an opposite side of the glass article (see Gross at Fig. 3, showing one side 302 and an opposite side 304 of a glass article 300. Gross at [0096] discloses a CS layer … that extends from one or both the first major surface 302 and the second major surface 304 to a DOC. Examiner notes this corresponds to a glass article with a second DoL on an opposite side of the first DoL).
Regarding claim 46, Gross discloses the glass comprises 0-4.5 wt.% B2O3 (see Gross at Table 3 Example 26, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.58 mol% B2O3 which corresponds to approximately 4.75 wt.% B2O3 which is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Regarding claim 47, Gross discloses the glass article is chemically prestressed using a first ion exchange bath comprising between at least 20 wt.% and up to 100 wt.% of a sodium salt, and subsequentially using a second ion exchange bath comprising between 90 wt.% and 100 wt.% of a potassium salt (see Gross at [0104], disclosing the glass articles may be immersed in a molten salt bath of 100% NaNO3, 100% KNO3, or a combination. See also Gross at [0106], disclosing multiple baths. See also Gross at [0104], disclosing first and second baths.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross as evidenced by Ghaffari, and as further evidenced by Xometry (https://www.xometry.com/resources/materials/modulus-of-elasticity/#:~:text=The%20symbol%20for%20elastic%20modulus%20is%20E%2C,(Pa)%20or%20pounds%20per%20square%20inch%20(psi). accessed 07/25/2025, hereinafter referred to as Xometry).
Regarding claim 7, while Gross at Table 3 does not explicitly disclose the Young's modulus of Example 26, Gross at [0020] discloses the chemically strengthened glass article includes a Young's modulus of less than 85 MPa, which overlaps with the claimed range. Examiner notes E-modulus and Young's modulus are synonymous terms as evidenced by Xometry at page 9, reciting the symbol for elastic modulus is E, and it represents Young’s modulus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At the second to last paragraph of page 8 from the Remarks, Applicant argues that Gross discloses a thickness of about 0.7mm to about 1.1 mm at [0117]-[0119], and a DoC value of 0.17-0.20t at [0119]. Examiner respectfully disagrees that this represents the sole thicknesses and DoC ranges of Gross, and notes per the rejections of claims 1, 31, and 34 above, that Gross at [0085] discloses the thickness t may be about 3 millimeters or less (e.g., in the range from about 0.01 millimeter to about 3 millimeters). Additionally, Gross at [0118] discloses a DoC in the range from about 0.11 t to about 0.2 t. As such, Examiner respectfully disagrees with any conclusions presented as arguments based on the thickness and DoC ranges of Gross presented at the second to last paragraph from page 8 of the Remarks. Examiner notes disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123(II)). The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain (see MPEP 2123(I)).
At page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the examples 2, 4, and 5 of Gross do not meet the limitations of instant claims 1, 31, and 34, and therefore instant claims 1, 31, and 34 are not obvious over the disclosed ranges of Gross. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion, and notes per the MPEP sections in the preceding paragraph that the prior art is not limited to specific examples and may be used for all that it teaches. Additionally, specific examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from the broader disclosures of the prior art. In the instant case, claims 1, 31, and 34 are not rejected over examples 2, 4, or 5 of Gross, and therefore arguments concerning these examples cannot be found convincing.
At page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Gross does not disclose a two-step process performed on the glass per instant claim 47. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes per the rejection of claim 47 that Gross explicitly discloses a two-step ion exchange salt bath process. As such, this argument is not convincing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights