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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 28, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-16, 18, 21-22, 42-43 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (USPub20170341973).
Regarding claims 1-2, 8-15, 21-22, 42 and 43: Gross teaches a chemically toughened or chemically toughenable sheet glass articles which comprise a composition comprising Al2O3, SiO2, Li2O and B2O3 (see abstract).
While Gross’ Examples may not have a composition meeting the content requirements of claim 1, Gross does teach that their glass composition can include a composition that allows for, when converted to wt%, compositions overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05) (see 0008, 0051-0078).
For example, and solely for clarity of record, see below along with the relevant paragraphs relied upon and cited by the Examiner supporting their assertion of overlap.
mol% teaching
Additional teaching of the mol% ranges
Allows for compositions in Mol%
Converts to
wt% (Approx)
SiO2
About 60 - about 80 (0052)
Such as 60-66 (0053)
65.75
62.27
Al2O3
≥ 10 (0052)
Such as 10-15 (0054)
12
19.32
B2O3
> 0.9 (0052)
Such as 0.9-4 (0055)
4
4.42
Li2O
About 5 - about 10 (0052)
Such as 9-10 (0059)
10
4.72
P2O5
About 1 – about 5 (0052)
Note that not only does the “about” in “about 1” allow for values slightly below 1 (see MPEP 2144.05) but it is noted that Gross does teach that the P2O5 can instead be 0.5-3 (see 0071)
0.75
1.68
Na2O
About 0.5–about 12 (0052)
Such as 3-7.5 (0061)
7
6.85
K2O
< about 2 (0063)
Such as 0-0.5 (0063)
0.5
0.74
Regarding claim 5: Gross’ glass can have a young’s modulus of 72-85GPa (0083).
Regarding claim 6: Given that Gross’ glasses meet that claimed and is ion exchanged with a substantially similar process to Applicants (note Gross’ abstract, 0103-0105, 0156-0159 and Examples discussing their ion exchange process including overlapping temperature, overlapping duration and the same salts as discussed in par 0105 of Applicants’ published specification), one skilled in the art would conclude the same features to result (i.e. comprise an ion exchange prestress that increases an elastic component of deformation as claimed) (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 16: The glass thickness is 0.4-3mm (0085).
Regarding claim 18: The glass article can be configured for use as a cover sheet for display devices, mobile phones, etc. (0134).
Regarding claim 44: The B2O3 is a 3-fold coordination (trigonal) (0056).
Claim(s) 44 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (USPub20170341973) as applied to claim 43 above in view of 9145333.
Regarding claims 44 and 45: As discussed above, Gross teaches a chemically strengthened borosilicate glass.
As ‘333, who similarly teaches chemically strengthened borosilicate glass, discloses that the coordination of B2O3 in the glass can be that of trigonal and that of tetragonal wherein the coordinates are result effective as they affect chemical strengthening properties such as mutual diffusion, compressive stress and indentation threshold and suggest that balancing the contents of the coordinations in the glass alters the properties (see abstract, Fig 17-18 and Col. 5, lines 19-42 and 62-67), it would have been well within the skill in the art at the time of invention to find it obvious to modify Gross to include B2O3 being that of trigonal and tetragonal as desired depending on chemical strengthening properties desired and to adjust the content of the coordinations therein depending on desired final chemical strengthening results.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-16, 18, 21-22, 42 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall (USPub20170197869).
Regarding claim 1-2, 7-15, 21-22, 42 and 43: Beall teaches a chemically toughened or chemically toughenable sheet glass articles which comprise a composition comprising Al2O3, SiO2, Li2O and B2O3 (see abstract). Beall provides Examples, in mol%, of suitable compositions, which are converted to Wt% below (see below Examples from Beall’s Table 2).
107YU
107WR
196HQK
196HVY
Mol%
Wt%
Mol%
Wt%
Mol%
Wt%
Mol%
Wt%
SiO2
62.85
61.02
65.18
64.73
60.099
54.39
64.860
61.88
Al2O3
10.33
17.05
7.83
13.22
17.064
26.25
13.287
21.55
B2O3
3.70
4.19
3.92
4.54
4.087
4.32
5.151
5.73
Li2O
7.56
3.66
8.54
4.22
6.228
2.81
6.667
3.17
Na2O
10.73
10.77
9.42
9.67
11.295
10.56
6.689
6.59
K2O
0.24
0.37
1.24
1.93
0.996
1.41
0.031
0.05
MgO
1.70
1.10
1.58
1.05
0.052
0.03
1.499
0.95
CaO
1.80
1.63
0.69
0.64
0.048
0.04
0.058
0.05
SnO2
0.09
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.083
0.19
0.008
0.02
Although Beall’s above compositions fail to show the presence of P2O5 in the amount claimed, Beall’s does teach that their compositions can include 0-4mol% P2O5 as provided below allowing for composition overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05) (see 0005, 0007 and 0019 for instance).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, and solely for clarity of record, see below along with the relevant paragraphs relied upon and cited by the Examiner supporting their assertion of overlap.
mol% teaching
Additional teaching of the mol% ranges
Allows for compositions in Mol%
Converts to
wt% (Approx)
SiO2
About 55 - about 75 (0005, 0007)
About 58- about 69 (0019)
65.2
60.02
Al2O3
9-18 (0005) or even 10-18 (0007)
about 10-about 17 (0019)
14
21.91
B2O3
2.5-20 (0005) or even 3.5-9.5 (0007)
About 3.5-about 9.5 (0019)
4
4.30
Li2O
About 3 - about 20 (0005) or about 7-14 (0007)
About 7- about 14 (0019)
7
3.21
P2O5
0 – about 4 (0005, 0007)
0-about 2.5 (0019)
0.75
1.63
Na2O
0.2-14 (0019)
8.4
7.99
K2O
0-2.5 (0019)
0.65
0.94
MgO
0-5 (0019)
0
0
ZnO
0-4 (0019)
0
0
Li2O/R2O
About 0.1- about 0.4 (0007, 0019) (note that the “about” 0.4 will allow for values slightly above the 0.4 endpoint of the disclosed range (see In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) MPEP 2144.05)
0.44 (note that not only is 0.44 considered to fall within the “about” 0.4 taught as it is only slightly above but 0.44 rounds down to 0.4 which clearly meets the taught 0.4 endpoint)
Regarding claim 5: Beall only explicitly discloses glasses according to their invention having a modulus of at least 68GPa (0016, 0038, 0069). However, given that Beall’s compositions meet that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties of having a modulus of at least 72GPa, when measured similarly, to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 6: Given that Beall’s glasses meet that claimed and is ion exchanged with a substantially similar process to Applicants (note Beall’s abstract, 0004, 0090 and Examples discussing their ion exchange process including overlapping temperature, overlapping duration and the same salts as discussed in par 0105 of Applicants’ published specification), one skilled in the art would conclude the same features to result (i.e. comprise an ion exchange prestress that increases an elastic component of deformation as claimed) (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 16: The glass article can have a thickness of 0.5 to 1.5mm (0072).
Regarding claim 18: The glass article can be configured for use as a cover sheet for display devices, mobile phones, etc. (0028, 0101).
. Claim(s) 44 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall (USPub20170197869) as applied to claim 43, in view of 9145333
Regarding claims 44 and 45: As discussed above, Beall teaches a chemically strengthened borosilicate glass.
As ‘333, who similarly teaches chemically strengthened borosilicate glass, discloses that the coordination of B2O3 in the glass can be that of trigonal and that of tetragonal wherein the coordinates are result effective as they affect chemical strengthening properties such as mutual diffusion, compressive stress and indentation threshold and suggest that balancing the contents of the coordinations in the glass alters the properties (see abstract, Fig 17-18 and Col. 5, lines 19-42 and 62-67), it would have been well within the skill in the art at the time of invention to find it obvious to modify Beall to include B2O3 being that of trigonal and tetragonal as desired depending on chemical strengthening properties desired and to adjust the content of the coordinations therein depending on desired final chemical strengthening results.
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In summary, Applicants argue that the references of Gross and Beall each fail to teach the composition of claim 1 and argue against the Office’s assertion of Gross and Beall teaching overlapping ranges because the broad ranges of both Gross and Beall fail to hint or suggest how to use the ranges to determine how to adjust the compositions to that of claim 1 and as shown by the provided Declaration, the claimed composition has criticality to achieve various properties.
The above arguments are not persuasive. Initially, regarding Applicants argument that the references fail to hint or suggest how to use and adjust compositions, it is noted that a reference’s composition overlapping that claimed, as is taught in the cited references, is all that is needed to provide for a prima facie case of obviousness absent an adequate showing of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally, while Applicants provide a Declaration in an attempt to argue criticality and unexpected results, it is noted that the provided evidence is not persuasive. Initially, note that Applicants’ evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as it uses a very specific Example composition which is not claimed. For instance, it includes specific amounts of SiO2, Al2O3, all not claimed Li2O and includes additional oxides of Na2O and SnO2 in specific amounts also not claimed. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). In the instant case, whether or not Applicants’ Declaration’s specific Example composition may provide improvement over the comparative Example therein is not enough to show that any composition that would meet the broader composition of claim 1 would still have the same effects.
Further, note that Applicants’ Declaration only provides a single Example having B2O3 and P2O5 within the claimed range and one comparative Example wherein P2O5 falls outside of the claimed range but this is not enough to show criticality of the claimed ranges. Initially, as noted above, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
In the instant case, showing results of a single Example wherein B2O3 is 5wt% and P2O5 is 2.96wt% is not enough to show that the same results will occur over the entirety of the B2O3 range of “about 4.0 wt% to not more than 7wt% B2O3” and over the entirety of the P2O5 range of “from at least 0.5wt% to not more than 3wt% of P2O5”. Note that there are no Examples showing closer to 4wt% or closer to and at 7wt% B2O3 and similarly, no Examples showing closer to or at 0.5wt% P2O5.
Further, it has also been held by the courts that to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, Applicants’ Declaration only provides one comparative Example wherein the P2O5 is 5.44wt% which is not enough to show criticality for the claimed B2O3 and P2O5 end points. Note first that as the 5.44wt% P2O5 is much higher than the maximum claimed 3wt%, it is not yet clear whether the 3wt% end point is even critical (i.e. would the same results occur at 3.1wt% for instance), there is no comparative showing what occurs if less than the minimum end point of 0.5wt% P2O5 is present to determine criticality for that end point and there is absolutely no comparative Example showing any criticality of the claimed B2O5 end points at all. Instead, both the comparative Example and Example have B2O3 within the claimed range.
Even further, note for the record that the Declaration’s singular Example includes 5wt% B2O3 but at least claim 2 in the present Application, B2O3 can not be higher than 4.5wt%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784