DETAILED ACTION
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Sept. 29, 2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements – Drawings & Foreign Priority
Applicant respectfully requested acknowledgement of the acceptance of the drawings and reception of the certified copy of the priority document. In the cover sheet of the non-final rejection dated Nov. 20, 2023, the Examiner acknowledged the drawings dated May 28, 2021 and Jun. 30, 2021 were accepted and acknowledged certified copies of the priority documents had been received.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected over the prior art in the final rejection dated Aug. 13, 2025 have been considered, but are moot due to new grounds necessitated by the amendment filed Sept. 29, 2025. A new reference Gomez et al. (US 2016/0251262A1 – hereinafter Gomez) has been applied to the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 21, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMartino et al. (US 2017/0022092 – hereinafter DeMartino) in view of Gomez et al. (US 2016/0251262A1 – hereinafter Gomez).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, DeMartino ([0208]) discloses a method of strengthening a glass article by a two-step ion exchange process in which the glass substrate (corresponding to a base glass) is first immersed into a first molten bath of KNO3 and NaNO3 at a temperature of 460 degrees C and then immersed in a second molten bath of 100% KNO3 at a temperature of 390 degrees C. DeMartino ([0145]) also discloses alkali aluminosilicate glass, alkali containing borosilicate glass, alkali aluminophosphosilicate, or alkali aluminoborosilicate, and ([0149]) discloses in some embodiments the base glass including one or more alkali earth metal oxides, such as CaO, and ([0153]) further discloses in one or more embodiments the glass composition may include K2O. This disclosure provides for a method comprising the step of providing a base glass including K2O and/or CaO, in a first step, exposing the glass to a first strengthening molten salt consisting of KNO3 and NaNO3, and in a second step, exposing the base glass to a second strengthening molten salt consisting of KNO3. DeMartino fails to disclose in a first step, a first strengthening molten salt and an additive as a mixed melt and the claimed additives.
However, Gomez ([0029]) teaches low-temperature ion exchange processes reduce warp and damage to glasses that may be caused by exposure to high-temperature ion exchange solutions. Gomez ([0020]) teaches the operating temperature of the ion exchange solution may be reduced by reducing the melting point of the ion exchange solution. Gomez teaches conventional ion exchanges processes with nitrate salts such as KNO3, NaNO3, and combinations thereof that the melting point may be lowered by including a monovalent or divalent cation in the ion exchange solution, such as an additional nitrate, such as Ca(NO3)2 or Mg(NO3)2. Gomez ([0021]) teaches that when calcium nitrate was added to conventional ion exchange solution the strengthening of the glass was not affected and ([0026]) teaches to achieve the low ion exchange operating temperatures an additional monovalent or divalent cation nitrate is added to an ion exchange solution in an amount from about 1 wt% to about 10 wt%, and the remainder of the ion exchange solution comprises KNO3, NaNO3, and mixtures thereof. Both DeMartino and Gomez discloses ion exchange strengthening with KNO3, NaNO3, and mixtures thereof. Accordingly, since it has been taught by Gomez that low-temperature ion exchange processes reduce warp damage to glass, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of DeMartino could be modified to a low-temperature ion exchange process in order to reduce warp and damage to the base glass by the addition of Ca(NO3)2, as claimed in claim 1, and/or Mg(NO3)-2, as claimed in claim 21, in an amount ranging from about 1 wt% to about 10 wt%. This provides for the claimed additive included in the mixed melt in an amount overlapping Applicant’s claimed range of greater than 0 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to a total weight of the KNO3 and NaNO3 and the additive.
Regarding claims 5 and 22, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, DeMartino ([0165]) further discloses a composition including 0 mol% to about 1 mol% K2O and 0 mol% to 4 mol% P-2O5. Therefore, based on the composition ranges disclosed by DeMartino, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the base glass may further comprise P2O5 in the modified method of DeMartino.
Regarding claims 7 and 24, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, DeMartino ([0165]) further discloses a composition comprising 52 mol% to 63 mol% SiO2, 11 mol% to 15 mol% Al2O3, 0 mol% to about 1 mol% K2O and 0 mol% to 4 mol% P-2O5. Therefore, based on the composition ranges disclosed by DeMartino, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the base glass comprises SiO2, Al2O3, and P2O5 in the modified method of DeMartino.
Claim(s) 6 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMartino et al. (US 2017/0022092 – hereinafter DeMartino) in view of Gomez et al. (US 2016/0251262A1 – hereinafter Gomez) as applied to claim 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Andrews et al. (US 2020/0148591 – hereinafter Andrews).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 21 above, DeMartino ([0149]) further discloses in some embodiments the base glass including one or more alkali earth metal oxides, such as CaO and ([0153]) further discloses in one or more embodiments the glass composition may include K2O. DeMartino fails to disclose the specific details of a base glass composition of SiO2, Al2O3, and Li2O combined with CaO and K2-O. However, DeMartino ([0145]) discloses alkali aluminosilicate glass, alkali containing borosilicate glass, alkali aluminophosphosilicate, or alkali aluminoborosilicate. Further, Andrews ([0083] and [0185]) discloses lithium-containing aluminosilicate glasses, with a specific composition treated in first and second ion exchange treatments with mixed salt of NaNO3 and KNO-3. Andrews discloses the following composition in the table below.
MW g/mol
mol%
wtcalc(g)
wt%
SiO2
60.08
58.4
35.09
54.66
Al2O3
101.96
17.8
18.15
28.27
P2O5
283.889
0.00
0.00
Li2O
29.88
10.7
3.20
4.98
Na2O
61.98
1.7
1.05
1.64
ZnO
81.38
0.00
0.00
MgO
40.3
4.4
1.77
2.76
SnO2
150.71
0.08
0.12
0.19
B2O3
69.62
6.1
4.25
6.62
K2O
94.2
0.2
0.19
0.29
CaO
56.08
0.6
0.34
0.52
Fe2O3
159.69
0.02
0.03
0.05
ZrO2
123.218
0.01
0.01
0.02
DeMartino and Andrews disclose strengthening of alkali aluminosilicate glasses and ion exchange treatments with NaNO3 and KNO3, and as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, DeMartino also discloses glasses comprising K2O and CaO. Both DeMartino and Andrews discloses aluminosilicate type glasses for strengthening. Therefore, based on the additional teachings by Andrews and Gomez, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a glass comprising K2O and/or CaO comprising ~54.7 wt% SiO2, ~28.3 wt% Al-2O3, and ~5 wt% Li2O could be substituted into the method of DeMartino in view of Gomez et al. (US 2016/0251262A1 – hereinafter Gomez).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMartino et al. (US 2017/0022092 – hereinafter DeMartino) in view of Gomez et al. (US 2016/0251262A1 – hereinafter Gomez) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Umada et al. (WO 2020/008901A1 – hereinafter Umada).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 25-26, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 21 above, DeMartino in view of Gomez provides for addition of calcium and/or magnesium nitrates to a mixture of potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate for chemical strengthening. The modified method of DeMartino provides for exposing the base glass to a mixed melt that has a first temperature, but fails to provide details of the first temperature, and provides for a second step of exposing the base glass to the second strengthening molten salt at a second temperature of about 390 degrees C, which is within the range claimed in claims 11 and 26. The modified method of DeMartino fails to state that in a second step, a second temperature is lower than a first temperature, as claimed in claims 10 and 25, and fails to disclose the first temperature within a range of 380 degrees C to 440 degrees C, as claimed in claims 11 and 26. However, Umada (pgs. 12-13) discloses tempering (i.e. strengthening) by immersing a glass plate in a strengthening salt of potassium nitrate that may contain a nitrate of alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal, such as sodium nitrate or magnesium nitrate. Umada discloses strengthening with a potassium-containing salt at temperatures ranging from 400-500 degrees C, and teaches temperatures of 400 degrees C or higher makes the ion exchange proceed easier, and that stress relaxation may occur at 420 degrees C or higher. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by Umada, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, that the modified method of DeMartino which provides for a potassium nitrate salt, sodium nitrate, and an alkaline earth metal at a temperature ranging from 400 degrees C to 420 degrees C for easier ion exchange without stress relaxation. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the modified method of DeMartino having a first step exposing the base glass to the mixed melt with potassium, sodium, and an alkaline earth metal, such as Ca or Mg performed at a first temperature ranging from 400-420 degrees C, and in the second step exposing the base glass to the second strengthening molten salt of potassium nitrate at 390 degrees C, which provides for a second temperature that is lower than the first temperature, as claimed in claims 10 and 25, and provides a first temperature of ranging from 400-420 degrees C, which is within the range of 380 to 440 degrees C, as claimed in claims 11 and 26 and a second temperature of 390 degrees C, which is withing the range of 380 degrees C and 410 degrees C, as claimed in claims 11 and 26.
Claim(s) 13 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMartino et al. (US 2017/0022092 – hereinafter DeMartino) in view of Gomez et al. (US 2016/0251262A1 – hereinafter Gomez) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Takeda et al. (US 2020/0369560A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 27, as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 21 above, DeMartino discloses alkali aluminosilicate glass. In addition to the rejection of claims 1 and 21 above, DeMartino ([0008]) further discloses the strengthened glass article as a cover glass.
DeMartino in view of Gomez fails to disclose the method further comprising a step of forming a printing layer on an upper surface of the base glass and/or lower surface of the base glass after having exposed the base glass to the second strengthening molten salt. However, Takeda (Fig. 4B, [0156]-[0158] and [0194]-[0198]) discloses a cover glass may include an anti-fingerprint treated layer (corresponding to either an upper surface or a lower surface) and a light shielding layer on the second main surface 22 (corresponding to either an upper surface or a lower surface). Takeda discloses organic printing material for the light shielding layer and the organic material is applied to a chemically strengthened glass. DeMartino and Takeda disclose chemically strengthened glass for a cover glass. Therefore, based on the additional teachings by Takeda that a cover glass may include a light shielding layer on a main surface, it would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art, the strengthened glass disclosed by DeMartino in view of Gomez as a cover glass comprising a light shielding layer on a main surface formed by organic printing material, and it would be obvious the light shielding layer formed by organic printing material as a step of forming a printing layer on an upper or lower surface of the base glass after having exposed the base glass to the second strengthening molten salt.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMartino et al. (US 2017/0022092 – hereinafter DeMartino) in view of Gomez et al. (US 2016/0251262A1 – hereinafter Gomez) and Andrews et al. (US 2020/0148591 – hereinafter Andrews).
Regarding claims 14, DeMartino ([0208]) discloses a method of strengthening a glass article by a two-step ion exchange process in which the glass substrate (corresponding to a base glass) is first immersed into a first molten bath of KNO3 and NaNO3 at a temperature of 460 degrees C and then immersed in a second molten bath of 100% KNO3 at a temperature of 390 degrees C. DeMartino ([0149]) further discloses in some embodiments the base glass including one or more alkali earth metal oxides, such as CaO and ([0153]) further discloses in one or more embodiments the glass composition may include K2O. This disclosure provides for a method comprising the step of providing a base glass including K2O and/or CaO, in a first step, exposing the glass to a first strengthening molten salt consisting of KNO3 and NaNO3, and in a second step, exposing the base glass to a second strengthening molten salt consisting of KNO3.
DeMartino fails to disclose the specific details of a base glass composition of SiO2, Al2O3, and Li2O ([0154]) combined with CaO and K2-O. However, DeMartino ([0145]) discloses alkali aluminosilicate glass, alkali containing borosilicate glass, alkali aluminophosphosilicate, or alkali aluminoborosilicate. Further, Andrews ([0083] and [0185]) discloses lithium-containing aluminosilicate glasses, with a specific composition treated in first and second ion exchange treatments with mixed salt of NaNO3 and KNO-3. Andrews discloses the following composition in the table below.
MW g/mol
mol%
wtcalc(g)
wt%
SiO2
60.08
58.4
35.09
54.66
Al2O3
101.96
17.8
18.15
28.27
P2O5
283.889
0.00
0.00
Li2O
29.88
10.7
3.20
4.98
Na2O
61.98
1.7
1.05
1.64
ZnO
81.38
0.00
0.00
MgO
40.3
4.4
1.77
2.76
SnO2
150.71
0.08
0.12
0.19
B2O3
69.62
6.1
4.25
6.62
K2O
94.2
0.2
0.19
0.29
CaO
56.08
0.6
0.34
0.52
Fe2O3
159.69
0.02
0.03
0.05
ZrO2
123.218
0.01
0.01
0.02
DeMartino and Andrews disclose strengthening of glass compositions comprising CaO and/or K2O and ion exchange treatments with NaNO3 and KNO3. Both DeMartino and Andrews discloses alkali aluminosilicate type glasses for strengthening. Therefore, based on the additional teachings by Andrews, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a glass comprising K2O and/or CaO comprising ~54.7 wt% SiO2, ~28.3 wt% Al-2O3, and ~5 wt% Li2O could be substituted into the method of DeMartino to provide for a strengthened glass.
DeMartino in view of Andrews fails to disclose in a first step, a first strengthening molten salt and an additive as a mixed melt and the claimed additives. However, Gomez ([0029]) teaches low-temperature ion exchange processes reduce warp and damage to glasses that may be caused by exposure to high-temperature ion exchange solutions. Gomez ([0020]) teaches the operating temperature of the ion exchange solution may be reduced by reducing the melting point of the ion exchange solution. Gomez teaches conventional ion exchanges processes with nitrate salts such as KNO3, NaNO3, and combinations thereof that the melting point may be lowered by including a monovalent or divalent cation in the ion exchange solution, such as an additional nitrate, such as Ca(NO3)2 or Mg(NO3)2. Gomez ([0021]) teaches that when calcium nitrate was added to conventional ion exchange solution the strengthening of the glass was not affected and ([0026]) teaches to achieve the low ion exchange operating temperatures an additional monovalent or divalent cation nitrate is added to an ion exchange solution in an amount from about 1 wt% to about 10 wt%, and the remainder of the ion exchange solution comprises KNO3, NaNO3, and mixtures thereof. DeMartino, Andrews, and Gomez discloses ion exchange strengthening with KNO3, NaNO3, and mixtures thereof. Accordingly, since it has been taught by Gomez that low-temperature ion exchange processes reduce warp damage to glass, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of DeMartino in view of Andrews could be modified to a low-temperature ion exchange process in order to reduce warp and damage to the base glass by the addition of Ca(NO3)2, and/or Mg(NO3)-2, as claimed, in an amount ranging from about 1 wt% to about 10 wt%. This provides for the claimed additive included in the mixed melt in an amount overlapping Applicant’s claimed range of greater than 0 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to a total weight of the KNO3 and NaNO3 and the additive.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMartino et al. (US 2017/0022092 – hereinafter DeMartino) in view of Gomez et al. (US 2016/0251262A1 – hereinafter Gomez) and Andrews et al. (US 2020/0148591 – hereinafter Andrews) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Takeda et al. (US 2020/0369560A1).
Regarding claim 20, as discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above, both DeMartino discloses alkali aluminosilicate glass. In addition to the rejection of claim 14 above, DeMartino ([0008]) further discloses the strengthened glass article as a cover glass. Andrews ([0083] and [0185]) discloses lithium-containing aluminosilicate glasses. DeMartino in view of Andrews and Gomez fails to disclose the method further comprising a step of forming a printing layer on an upper surface of the base glass and/or lower surface of the base glass after having exposed the base glass to the second strengthening molten salt. However, Takeda (Fig. 4B, [0156]-[0158] and [0194]-[0198]) discloses a cover glass may include an anti-fingerprint treated layer (corresponding to either an upper surface or a lower surface) and a light shielding layer on the second main surface 22 (corresponding to either an upper surface or a lower surface). Takeda discloses organic printing material for the light shielding layer and the organic material is applied to a chemically strengthened glass. DeMartino and Andrews disclose chemically strengthened glass for a cover glass. Therefore, based on the additional teachings by Takeda that a cover glass may include a light shielding layer on a main surface, it would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art, the strengthened glass disclosed by DeMartino in view of Andrews and Gomez as a cover glass comprising a light shielding layer on a main surface formed by organic printing material, and it would be obvious the light shielding layer formed by organic printing material as a step of forming a printing layer on an upper or lower surface of the base glass after having exposed the base glass to the second strengthening molten salt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741