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Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 27, 2025 has been entered.
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]. 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 with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 8 10 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of newly cited art.
Note to the extent that Applicant argues that the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to limit the crystallinity of Beall to 36% or less, Examiner notes that disclosed embodiments and preferred examples do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments; see MPEP 2123 II.
Conclusion
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 on (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