DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires that the crystallinity of the lithium disilicate is 30% to 90%. It is unclear how the crystallinity of a crystal can be 30 to 90% as opposed to fully crystalline (i.e. 100%). From Applicant’s specification, it appears that the crystallized glass as a whole has 30 to 90% crystallinity [0043]. Note that if Applicant intends to claim the crystallinity of the crystallized glass, the range cited in claim 5 is not further limiting.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall et al. (US 2015/0274581) in view of Comte et al. (US 2016/0280589) and Amin et al. (US 2014/0134397). Note that the second named inventor, Comte, is used as reference to US 2016/0280589.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Beall discloses glass ceramic compositions with a surface compressive stress obtained through ion exchange, see abstract and [0057]. Additionally, the reference discloses an example with a composition that falls within the claimed ranges, see Table 3 Composition 11. Note that the values disclosed in weight percent correspond approximately to 71 mol% SiO2, 4 mol% Al2O3, 0.8 mol% P2O5, 23 mol% Li2O and 1.5 mol% Na2O. The reference further discloses the glass-ceramic as containing a crystalline phase with lithium disilicate as the main crystal, see abstract and [0137]. Note that the reference discloses an example where the composition has lithium disilicate in an amount of 47 wt%, and β-spodumene in an amount of 35%, which corresponds to β-spodumene as not the main crystal phase since it is less than the amount of lithium disilicate [0136-0140]. Additionally, note that the ranges given for lithium disilicate and β-spodumene render obvious a glass-ceramic composition with lithium disilicate present in an amount higher than β-spodumene, which corresponds to lithium disilicate as the main crystal phase and β-spodumene as not the main crystal phase [0008]. In some embodiments, the glass is ion exchanged to a depth of layer of at least about 10 microns with a compressive stress of at least about 300 MPa, which overlaps the claimed ranges [0057]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
The reference, however, fails to disclose the claimed crystal size.
Comte discloses a transparent glass-material comprising a crystalline phase that may include lithium disilicate, see abstract and [0038]. Additionally, the reference discloses a crystallite size of less than about 100 nm to provide transparency when the refractive index difference between the glass phase and the crystalline phase is greater than 0.0245 [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the crystalline phase of Beall to have the grain size of Comte in order to provide sufficient transparency when the refractive index difference between the glass and crystalline phase is greater than 0.025.
Neither reference discloses the claimed crystallinity.
Amin discloses glass articles suitable for use as electronic device housing/cover glass which comprise a glass ceramic material, see abstract. Additionally, the reference discloses the glass ceramic has from 30% to 90% crystallinity [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the glass-ceramic of Beall to have the crystallinity of Amin as a known amount of crystalline phase suitable for glass ceramics used as electronic device housings and cover glasses.
Regarding claim 3, while the references do not specifically disclose the claimed Young’s modulus, it is expected the disclosed glass-ceramic and the claimed tempered glass will have similar properties regarding Young’s modulus given the similar composition and compressive stress, see above discussion and MPEP 2112.01 II “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.”
Regarding claim 8, Beall discloses the glass-ceramic can be manufactured into sheets with a thickness of 0.8 mm to about 10 mm [0118 & 0121]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 10, the reference discloses the central tension as at least 10 MPa, which overlaps the claimed range [0127]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 11, the reference discloses the glass-ceramic as useful for hand-held, desk-top and wall-mounted consumer electronic device coverings, which is considered to render obvious a touch panel display comprising a cover glass according to claim 1.
Alternatively, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall et al. (US 2015/0274581) in view of Comte et al. (US 2016/0280589) and Amin et al. (US 2014/0134397) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2016/0102011).
Beall in view of Comte and Amin discloses the tempered glass of claim 1 comprising a lithium disilicate crystalline phase, see above discussion. While Beall discloses the glass-ceramic as useful for hand-held, desk-top and wall-mounted consumer electronic device coverings, neither reference specifically discloses the glass-ceramic as the cover glass of a touch panel display.
Hu discloses chemically strengthened glass-ceramics that may be used as a cover glass for mobile electronic devices and touch-enabled displays [0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the glass-ceramic of Beall to be used as a cover glass for touch-enabled displays as a known use for chemically strengthened glass-ceramics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Beall, Comte and Amin fails to teach that β-spodumene is not precipitated as the main crystal. Additionally, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the crystallinity of the lithium disilicate as being 30 to 90%. As such, Applicant requests the withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the main crystal that is precipitated, Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does not provide a definition of the term “main.” As such, any crystal that is present in an amount less than lithium disilicate (i.e. the claimed main crystal) will be considered as not being the main crystal precipitated. Given Beall discloses an example with lithium disilicate present in an amount greater than β-spodumene, the reference is considered to disclose a crystallized glass where β-spodumene is not the main crystal [0136-0140]. Additionally, based on the ranges given for lithium disilicate and β-spodumene, a glass-ceramic composition with lithium disilicate present in an amount higher than β-spodumene, which corresponds to lithium disilicate as the main crystal phase and β-spodumene as not the main crystal phase, is rendered obvious [0008].
Regarding the crystallinity, Beall discloses the glass ceramic comprising 30-65 wt % of a lithium disilicate first crystalline phase, which overlaps the claimed crystallinity; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Alternatively, note that Amin a glass ceramic material with from 30% to 90% crystallinity [0030]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
For the above reasons, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are respectfully maintained.
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 LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights