CTFR 17/637,648 CTFR 81917 DETAILED ACTION Specification 06-31 AIA 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 11 and 23 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 11 recites the method “consists of” three step, and then further recites the removing the binder step “comprises”. The inconsistency between the consisting language and comprising language makes the claim indefinite as to what the method actually involves. Furthermore, claim 11 recites the method consists applying an aqueous precursor solution, removing the organic binder, and heating the glass based article. It is unclear if these are the same steps as steps a through c, or a repetition. Claim 23 is a run-on sentence that makes it unclear if there are additional alkali metal salts in the “all the alkali metal salt” other than the first alkali metal salt and the second alkali metal salt. Furthermore, it is unclear if the both alkali metal salt need to be different, since the claim recites “comprise potassium” and “alkali metal selected from …potassium”. Please clarify. Claim 23 recites rubium as an alkali metal salt. Rubium is not an alkali metal salt. Please clarify. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4, 7-10, 12, 14, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner et al. (2015/0044445) in view of Denry et al. (5,705,273). Garner teaches a method of chemically strengthening an amorphous glass-based article ([0030]) having a thickness in the range of 50 µm to 300 µm ([0032]), which overlaps within a range of about 20 µm to 300µm. Garner teaches strengthening can be performed by ion exchange processes using a molten salt bath, a solution, a solid thin film, or a paste. ([0034]), wherein the ion exchange source can be applied by the traditional method of immersion in a salt bath ([0024]), spray coating, roll coating, molding, or brush coating ([0035]). Garner further teaches the ion exchange source comprises different alkali metal salt comprising a plurality of alkali metal cations, including sodium, potassium, and silver salts ([0037]). Garner also teaches general method steps include contacting the glass surface with an ion exchange source at room temperature ([0061], [0063]), heating the ion exchange source on the glass surface with a laser to effect removal of components used in the ion source transfer process including water, solvent, binder and other components used for enabling transfer, and further heating so as to initiate ion exchange with the glass article ([0043]), wherein heating to a temperature of about 300°C or even 400°C is needed to produce a salt melt ([0034], [0061]) from the first alkali metal and to replace an alkali metal cations in the glass article with the first alkali metal cations in the salt to form a chemically strengthened glass article ([0063]-[0065]). Garner provides an example wherein the glass article after the ion exchange process has a measure depth of compression of 18 µm and a compressive stress of 610 MPa ([0064]). Garner essentially teaches the method steps of applying a solution comprising a first alkali metal salt and a binder to form a coating on a surface of an amorphous glass article having a thickness in the range of 50-300µm at room temperature, removing the binder, thereby forming a second coating comprising the first alkali metal salt, heating the glass based article and second coating to a temperature of about 300-400°C to form a melt from the first alkali metal and to replace an alkali metal cation in the glass article with the first alkali metal to form a chemically strengthened glass article with a compressive stress layer extending from the surface of the article to a depth of 18 µm and maximum compressive stress of 610 MPa . However, Garner doesn’t offer certain specifics, such as an aqueous solution with two alkali metal salts and an organic binder. Denry also teaches a method of chemically strengthening a glass-based article (col. 4 lines 42-45) comprising an ion exchange process. Like Garner, Denry teaches the ion exchange process comprises preparing an salt mixture and spraying the mixture onto the surface of the glass article. Denry specifies the method comprises applying an aqueous precursor solution comprising an organic binder, a first alkali metal salt comprising a plurality of first alkali metal cations, and a second alkali metal salt comprising a plurality of second alkali metal cations to a surface of the glass based article to form a first coating on the surface (col. 5 lines 55-61, 66-67, col. 6 lines 40-44), wherein the aqueous precursor solution is applied to the surface at room temperature (since the coating is applied before any heat treatment step), removing the organic binder to form a second coating comprising the first alkali metal salt and the second alkali metal salt in solid form (col. 6 lines 44-46, 50-53), and heating the glass based article and the second coating at a temperature in a first range from about 350°C to about 500°C (2 nd heat treatment in tables I and II) to form a melt from the first alkali metal and to replace third alkali metal cations in the glass based article with the first alkali metal cations to form a chemically strengthened glass based article (col. 6 lines 58-67, col. 7 lines 1-10, 43-60, i.e. example IV), thereby providing for a thick compressive stress layer at the surface (col. 10 lines 59-61). Denry teaches using an organic binder can assist the application of the solution (col. 6 lines 43-44) and the use of a double ion exchange provides for higher strength to the glass article (col. 3 line 55-58). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have similarly used an aqueous solution comprising an organic binder and double alkali metal salts as the ion exchange source in process of Garner, as an organic binder would aid in the application of the ion exchange mixture on the surface of the glass article, and double ion exchange would provide for added strength, as taught by Denry. Regarding claim 4, Garner and Denry further teach the alkali metal salts comprises sulfates, nitrates, halides or phosphates ([0037], col. 3 lines 63-65, respectively). Regarding claims 7-8, Garner teaches the ion exchange process comprises exchanging potassium ions in the metal salt with sodium ions within the glass article, wherein the potassium ions have a larger ionic radius than the sodium ions ([0074]). Denry also teaches sodium cations are exchanged for lithium cations in the glass article, wherein sodium cations has a larger ionic radius than that of lithium cations (col. 10 lines 53-56). Regarding claim 9, Garner teaches the glass article comprises a soda lime glass ([0030]), or an alkali aluminosilicate glass, wherein the alkali aluminosilicate glass comprises 61-75 mol% SiO 2 , 7-15 mol% Al 2 O 3 , 0-12 mol% B 2 O 3 , 9-21 mol% Na 2 O, 0-4 mol% K 2 O, 0-7 mol% MgO, and 0-3 mol% CaO, which satisfies limitations of option “b” of claim 9 ([0061]). Regarding claim 10, Garner and Denry further teaches the aqueous precursor solution can be applied by spraying onto the surface ([0035], col. 6 lines 39-42, respectively). Regarding claim 12, Garner teaches heating the glass article with the coating to 400°C ([0061]) and heat treated with a laser for up to 20 minutes ([0066]). Denry teaches a treatment temperature for ion exchange of 450°C for 30 minutes (col. 9 lines 29-32). Denry further teaches the treatment time is a result effective variable for controlling the amount of exchange/diffusion (col. 6 lines 58-64, col. 7 lines 10-12). Regarding claim 14, Denry also teaches a binder such as gum arabic (col. 6 line 43), which appears to be a rheological modifier. Regarding claim 22, Garner teaches heating to a temperature of about 400°C to form a salt melt ([0034], [0061]). Regarding claim 23, Garner teaches alkali metal salts includes potassium and sodium ([0037]), and Denry teaches alkali metal salts includes sodium, potassium, rubidium, and cesium (col. 5 lines 55-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used any combination of the known alkali metal salts to impart strengthening to the glass article . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner et al. (2015/0044445) and Denry et al. (5,705,273) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (2015/0210590). Regarding claim 3, Garner teaches an example of a compressive stress layer with a maximum compressive stress of 610 MPa ([0064]). Regarding claim 13, Garner teaches the glass article has a thickness of less than 100µm ([0032]). However, Garner doesn’t specify a bend radius of the thin glass article. Chang teaches a glass based article that has been subjected to chemically strengthening so as to produce thin glass articles suitable for use as flexible displays for electronic devices. Chang teaches it is desirable for the strengthened thin glass article to have a thickness in the range of 25 µm to 125 µm and a minimum bend radius of 3mm ([0008]) in order to provide a flexible display for electronic devices that are foldable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a thin glass article that has a minimum bend radius of 3 mm, so as to provide for a glass article suitable for use as flexible display in electronic devices, as taught by Chang . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner et al. (2015/0044445) in view of Denry et al. (5,705,273) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Postupack et al. (2004/0221615). Garner teaches the ion exchange source comprises potassium, such as potassium nitrate or potassium phosphate ([0037]). Denry also teaches employing a solution comprising potassium for the ion exchange (col. 5 lines 59-67, table 2). Denry further teaches the salt includes nitrates and phosphates (col. 6 lines 9-11). However, Garner and Denry don’t specify a combination of a nitrate and phosphate salt. Postupack teaches chemical strengthening of a glass article using a solution comprising potassium (abstract). Postupack teaches known potassium salts include KNO 3 , K 3 PO 4 , K 2 SO 4 , and KCl, which can be used in combination ([0007],[0008], [0013],[0018]). Postupack teaches a prior art that exemplifies the combination of KNO 3 and K 3 PO 4 ([0013]). Postupack further teaches one skilled in the art can determine the suitable combination of potassium salts that would provide for a liquid salt bath above an annealing point of the glass and a solid/semi-solid salt at the strengthening temperature through routine experimentation, as this would provide for a roughly uniform coating on the glass article during the heat treatment, and hence uniform strengthening. Postupack teaches a prior art that exemplifies the combination of KNO 3 and K 3 PO 4 ([0013]), as it provides a low melting point salt and a high melting point salt. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have try the combination of KNO 3 and K 3 PO 4 salts for the strengthening solution of Garner and Denry, as there are a finite number of potassium salts to choose from and Postupack teaches the combination of salts is a result effective variable for providing a uniform coating on the glass article . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner et al. (2015/0044445) and Denry et al. (5,705,273) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gates, Jr. (3,917,773). Denry teaches applying a binder, such as gum arabic (col. 6 lines 43-44) and removing the binder by heating the glass based article with the first coating (col. 6 lines 44-46) before the heat treatment step, but doesn’t specify a temperature. Gates teaches a method for producing spherical lens, comprising pressing ceramic granules coated with an organic binder and glass frit to form a porous sphere (col. 7 lines 45-47), drying the sphere (col. 7 lines 64-66), and heating the sphere to remove the binder at a temperature of about 400°C (col. 8 lines 1-6). Gates teaches the binder can be methyl cellulose (col. 7 line 47) or other substitutes including gum arabic (col. 9 lines 61-68). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a similar temperature, of 400°C, to remove the binder of Denry, as Gates teaches such temperature predictably provides for successful removal of a binder comprising gum arabic . In further regards to the consisting language, Garner teaches the ion exchange process essentially consists of applying an aqueous precursor solution (“contacting the ion exchange source to the glass article”), removing the organic binder (“laser energy… volatize…binder”), and heating the glass-based article and the second coating (“is heated”) in paragraph [0043] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner et al. (2015/0044445) and Denry et al. (5,705,273) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (2019/0152832). Garner teaches heating the glass based article by irradiating with a laser, to effect the ion exchange ([0045]). However, Garner doesn’t specify heating in a tunnel oven. Xu teaches a method for chemically strengthening a glass based article comprising applying ion exchange composition to a glass article and heating the glass based article by irradiating with microwave energy. Xu further teaches performing the chemical strengthening by conveying the glass article through a tunnel oven ([0062], [0085], [0092], figs. 9, 14). Xu teaches this provides for an automatic and fast glass strengthening process, thereby reducing cost. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated a tunnel oven for the chemical strengthening and heating of the glass article as it provides for an automatic and efficient process for strengthening glass articles, while reducing cost, as taught by Xu . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to suggest providing chemical strengthening coating in solid form, the coating comprising a first alkali metal salt and a second alkali metal salt, on a glass article, and heating the coating to a temperature in the range of 350°C to 500°C, so that a first alkali metal salt forms a melt while the second alkali metal salt remains in solid form . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Denry fails to strengthen a glass-based article that is amorphous, and thus there would be no reasonable expectation of success. This is not found persuasive because Denry clearly teaches chemical strengthening of a glass based material that is a ceramic by an ion exchange process produces successful result of increased strength. Thus, there would be a reasonable expectation of success of employing an aqueous solution comprising two alkali metal salts and an organic binder for the chemical strengthening solution in the process of Garner, as both treat glass based articles . Applicant also argues the first high temperature of Denry would likely lead to nucleation of crystals and the strengthening processes are completely different. Garner was not modify to completely replace the strengthening process of Garner with that of Denry. In other words, it was not suggested to utilize the heating process of Denry. Instead, Garner (who also recognizes binders in the solution) was modified to incorporate an aqueous solution with two alkali metal salts and an organic binder, as Denry teaches organic binders are known and can assist the application of the solution. Note, Garner teaches heating to a temperature that falls within the claimed range for the ion exchange process. In the applicant’s second point, applicant argues Denry teaches two heat treatments comprising a first high temperature, which when applied to Garner could result in breakage of the thin glass article of Garner. Again, it was not suggested to change the heating temperature of Garner with that of Denry, as Garner already successfully performs ion exchange at 400°C. But instead, it was suggested to modify Garner to incorporate an organic binder into an aqueous solution having two alkali metal salts for the ease of applying the solution to the glass article. In the applicant’s third point, applicant argues Denry teaches problems associated with increasing strength (bottom of page 11). It is not clear what problems applicant is referring to, as the arguments appears to highlight positive aspects of increasing strength, such as reduced fragility. Nonetheless, applicant argues the treatment of Denry would result in a ceramic article. Again, it was not suggests to apply the double heat treatment of Denry to Garner, as already discussed above. Applicant also appears to suggests the improved strength is tied to the double ion exchange process of Denry. While the temperature for ion exchange process plays a role in the strengthening, it is also well known the composition of the salt solution also influences the strengthening of the glass article, wherein a solution comprising of two alkali metal salts can contribute to an increased strength to the glass article. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30. 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 on 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. /QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 2 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 3 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 4 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 5 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 6 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 7 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 8 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 9 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 10 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 11 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 12 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 13 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 17/637,648 Page 14 Art Unit: 1741
Prosecution Insights