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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2025 has been entered.
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) 6, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakane et al. (JPS56104747A with reference to the EspaceNet or Google Patents machine translations as noted, hereinafter referred to as Sakane) in view of Angel et al. (US20090277224, hereinafter referred to as Angel) and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP2016121050 with reference to machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 6, Sakane discloses a crystallized glass member having a curved shape in which four sides of a rectangular plate are curved inward (see Sakane at the first paragraph of page 3 of the EspaceNet English translation, disclosing the crystallized glass of the present invention, a flat plate is place on a convex or concave shape and heated to make it easy to obtain the shape [by] bending. Examiner notes that bending a flat plate of crystallized glass on a convex or concave shape must necessarily produce a glass member having a curved shape in which all four sides of a rectangular plate are curved inward.), wherein the crystallized glass member comprises, in terms of oxide-based weight%, 40.0% to 70.0% SiO2 component (see Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, disclosing 40-60 wt.% SiO2, which is within the claimed range.), 11.0% to 25.0% Al2O3 component (see Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, disclosing 15-25 wt.% Al2O3, which is within the claimed range.), 5.0% to 19.0% Na2O component (see Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, disclosing 4-13 wt.% Na2O, 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), 0% to 9.0% K2O component (see Sakane at all examples from tables 1 and 2 from the original Japanese publication, disclosing K2O ranging from 0.2 to 4.2 wt.%, all of which are within the claimed range. See also Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, which does not disclose K2O, which corresponds to 0% K2O, which is within the claimed range.), 0% to 3.0% CaO component (see Sakane at line 39 of page 2 from the EspaceNet machine translation, disclosing CaO, BaO, etc. are not common ingredients, but even if they are added up to about 5%, there is no problem. Examiner notes up to 5 wt.% CaO overlaps with the claimed range. Examiner further notes the machine translation contains an apparent machine translation error whereby CaO is mistakenly referred to as Cab, however, the original Japanese publication at the first column of page 366 does indeed refer to CaO and BaO.), 0.5% to 12.0% TiO2 component (see Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, disclosing 1-5 wt.% TiO2, which is within the claimed range.), 0 to 15.0% Fe2O3 component (see Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, which does not disclose Fe2O3, which is within the claimed range. Additionally, examples 1-14 of tables 1 and 2 from the original Japanese publication comprise 0% Fe2O3, which is within the claimed range. Additionally, Example 15 comprises 4.8 wt.% Fe2O3, which is also within the claimed range.), and 0 to 2.00% CoO + Co3O4 component (see Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, as well as Example 1-15 from Tables 1 and 2 of the original Japanese publication, which do not disclose CoO or Co3O4, which corresponds to 0% CoO + Co3O4, which is within the claimed range.), and from 0% or more to less than 2.0% B2O3 component (see Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, disclosing 2-10 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), wherein a total amount of a MgO component and a ZnO component is 1.0% or more and 7.84% or less (see Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, disclosing 0-12 wt.% MgO and 0-12 wt.% ZnO, which provides a total amount of MgO and ZnO from 0-24 wt.%, which overlaps with the claimed range.), and the crystallized glass member contains at least one selected from the group consisting of MgAl2O4, Mg2TiO5, MgTi2O5, Mg2TiO4, MgTi2O4, Mg2SiO4, MgSiO3, MgAl2Si2O8, Mg2Al4Si5O18, NaAlSiO4, FeAl2O4, and solid solutions thereof as a crystal phase (See Sakane at the Abstract from the Google Patents machine translation, disclosing the glass is heat-treated … to form crystals, e.g. forsterite. Examiner notes forsterite corresponds to Mg2SiO4).
While Sakane discloses a flat plate is place on a convex or concave shape and heated to make it easy to obtain the shape [by] bending (see Sakane at the first paragraph of page 3 of the EspaceNet English translation), Sakane does not explicitly disclose a glass in which four sides of a rectangular plate are curved inward to form a curved surface.
Angel is directed towards glass reflectors for concentrating sunlight (see Angel at the Abstract). Angel discloses the method of manufacture includes steps of heating a sheet of float glass positioned over a concave mold until the sheet of glass sags and stretches to conform to the shape of the mold (See Angel at the Abstract). Angel discloses a glass sheet where the four sides of a rectangular plate are curved inward to form a curved surface (see Angel at Figs. 45 and 46).
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 Sakane to place a flat plate is place on a convex or concave shape and heated to make it easy to obtain the shape [by] bending as disclosed by Sakane with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass sheet where the four sides of a rectangular sheet are curved inward as taught by Angel.
While Sakane in view of Angel discloses it is possible to reheat and bend the crystallized glass material (see Sakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation), Sakane in view of Angel does not explicitly disclose the curved surface of the inward curved portion has a curvature radius R of 4 to 8 mm.
Yamamoto is directed towards a glass molded body (see Yamamoto at Page 1, line 10 from the machine translation). Yamamoto discloses it is preferable the curved surface … has a radius of curvature of 1 mm to 700 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range (see Yamamoto at Page 7, paragraph [024] from the machine translation). 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). Yamamoto teaches if the radius of curvature of the curved surface portion is less than 1 mm, the degree of difficulty in processing is high (see Yamamoto at Page 7, paragraph [024] from the machine translation.
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 Sakane in view of Angel to form a curved glass with a radius within the overlapping claimed range as disclosed by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass which is not difficult to process as taught by Yamamoto.
Furthermore, changes in shape and size are obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)). In the instant case, it is obvious to heat and bend the crystallized glass of Sakane in view of Angel and Yamamoto; a person of ordinary skill in the arts would find it obvious to bend the crystallized glass to any curvature desired to fit an application.
Regarding claim 8, while Sakane does not explicitly disclose the crystallized glass member is transparent or opaque, Sakane discloses the crystallized glass of the implementation is white (see Sakane at the second paragraph of Page 3 from the EspaceNet machine translation). Examiner notes that a white crystallized glass must necessarily be inherently opaque. 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). Additionally, matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04(I)).
Regarding claim 9, Sakane in view of Angel does not disclose the crystallized glass has a compressive stress layer on the surface thereof.
Yamamoto discloses the glass … may have a surface compressive stress layer on the surface (see Yamamoto at [0046] from the machine translation). Yamamoto teaches thereby, a glass molded body with high mechanical strength can be obtained (see Yamamoto at [0046] from the machine translation).
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 Sakane in view of Angel to include a compressive stress layer as disclosed by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with high mechanical strength as taught by Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 10, Sakane discloses the crystallized glass is colorless (see Sakane at the second paragraph of Page 3 from the EspaceNet machine translation, disclosing the crystallized glass of the implementation is white or the crystallized glass of various colors can be prepared). Additionally, matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04(I)). Therefore, it would be obvious for the crystalized glass of Sakane to be colorless.
Regarding claim 11, Sakane discloses the crystallized glass is colored in black, blue, white or a mixed color thereof (see Sakane at the second paragraph of Page 3 from the EspaceNet machine translation, disclosing the crystallized glass of the implementation is white). Additionally, matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04(I)).
Regarding claim 12, Sakane discloses the crystallized glass is colorless (see Sakane at the second paragraph of Page 3 from the EspaceNet machine translation, disclosing the crystallized glass of the implementation is white or the crystallized glass of various colors can be prepared). Additionally, matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04(I)). Therefore, it would be obvious for the crystalized glass of Sakane to be colorless.
Regarding claim 13, Sakane discloses the crystallized glass is colored in black, blue, white or a mixed color thereof (see Sakane at the second paragraph of Page 3 from the EspaceNet machine translation, disclosing the crystallized glass of the implementation is white). Additionally, matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the third paragraph of page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Yamamoto is silent as to the types of crystalline phases contained in a curved crystallized glass. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, the arguments that Yamamoto is silent as to the types of crystalline phases contained in a curved crystalline glass are not convincing because Yamamoto is not relied upon to form the basis of the crystalline phases of the rejection as noted in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Additionally, as noted in the rejection of claim 6, changes in size and shape are considered obvious per MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
In the next two paragraphs, Applicant argues that Yamamoto is silent as to the relationship between the target crystalline phase and the heating temperature. Examiner notes this is similarly unconvincing for the reasons stated above. Additionally, "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (see MPEP 2141.03(I)). In the instant case, a person of ordinary skill would have the ordinary creativity to combine the disclosures of the prior art used to form the basis of the rejection of claim 6 in a manner so as to bend the crystalline glass containing the claimed crystal phase.
At the last paragraph of page 6 to the first paragraph of page 7, Applicant argues that crystallized glass is very hard and difficult to bend, and that because Yamamoto fails to teach conditions capable of maintaining the crystalline phase during hot bending, applying Yamamoto’s method to Sakane’s crystallized glass would not maintain the crystalline phase while bending. Examiner notes the instant specification at [0150] teaches crystallization of the glass progressed along with the deformation. The temperature of the furnace was adjusted so that the temperature of the plate glass corresponds to the deformation temperature. At a temperature of 830° C. or higher, opacification was likely to progress. Examiner further notes Yamamoto at [0075] from the machine translation discloses heating the glass plate and the mold at 735°C, which Examiner notes is below 830°C. As such, Examiner notes this argument is not convincing as the heating step of Yamamoto during deformation is within the range taught by the instant specification, and would likewise yield the same crystal structure when practicing Yamamoto’s bending treatment while practicing the invention of Sakane in view of Angel.
Additionally, as noted in the rejection of claim 6, changes in size and shape are considered obvious per MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
At the second paragraph of page 7, Applicant argues that Sakane does not disclose the predetermined crystalline phases are maintained after hot bending. in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Examiner notes Sakane is not relied upon to form the basis of the bending radius, and thus this is not convincing.
At the last paragraph of page 7 to the first paragraph of page 8, Applicant argues that Sakane, Angel, and Yamamoto do not disclose or suggest excellent appearance characteristics suitable for smartphone frames. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., excellent appearance characteristics suitable for smartphone frames) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At the second paragraph of page 8, Applicant argues that Yamamoto does not disclose the crystallized glass having predetermined crystalline phases exhibit high mechanical strength such that it is resistant to breakage under external impact. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., high mechanical strength such that it is resistant to breakage under external impact) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At the third full paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Examples 4 and 5 of Yamamoto disclose shaped articles having a curvature radius of 8mm or less, however these examples are comparative examples that fall outside of Yamamoto’s requirement. Examiner notes this is not convincing because Examples 4 and 5 of Yamamoto are not used to form the basis of the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Examiner also notes [t]he 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)).
As such, the arguments are 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