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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments of claim interpretation are acknowledged. Claim interpretation is inline with ambient air conditions.
Applicant argues that D1 teaches molten salt ion exchange (p. 10 of remarks). This is false. D1 teaches a salt coating with solid or liquid salt application (Line 340-344). Nevertheless, D2 teaches the water and salt to form the paste mixture (Abstract, Col. 4 Line 42-44) that definitively defines a salt paste mixture by dissolving salt in water. The Applicant’s argument ignores the combination made in the rejection.
Applicant argues that the oxygen atmosphere is required but does not state how the laboratory conditions of D1 and/or D2 differ from the claim interpretation made. The burden is on the Applicant to prove that D1 is not performed with oxygen in the atmosphere.
Applicant states that the simultaneous ion exchange in D1 teaches away is not persuasive. D1 specifically states that there is improved strength properties with separated ion exchange; that is not an admission of teaching away. D1’s experimental results for the simultaneous ion exchange is still deemed effective for the reason in the instant application’s title wherein should the artisan not care for optimized strength and would rather optimize efficiency; D1 definitely teaches the mixture of both potassium salt and silver salt (Line 340-342) more than the mere textual presence as argued. D2 also teaches of the compatibility of alkali/potassium salts and silver (Col. 3 Line 18-24, Col. 1 Line 37-44). There is sufficient evidence in all 3 references used of using potassium salt and silver salt together (D3 [0252] with drying of a coated layer [0211]), as well as D2 teaching the salt paste mixture with water.
Applicant argues that D2 teachings are chemically incompatible, thermally incompatible, mechanistically incompatible, without a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant argues crystallization, AgNO3 phase separation, viscosity collapse, local supersaturation, and heterogenous ion availability as reasons for the incompatibility. These arguments are not persuasive because these limitations do not stem from anything in the independent claim. The logic for the argument also fails with regards to all claim limitations are met by the combination of references used in the rejection; as such, the collective prior art has a reasonable expectation of compatibility with each other. The phase separation/viscosity collapse may be relevant; however is not relevant to claim 1: the argument is relevant with regards to claim 9/11, which requires the addition of D4 and D5 respectively. Based on the argument presented, only water based paste dispersion can be used which excludes the use of rheological binders included in dependent claim 9.
Applicant argues that the heat treatment temperature must rely from D2 because of the screen printing process relied upon; the Examiner disagrees. The heat treatment temperature relied upon is taught by D1 which has the salt layer applied on the glass substrate. D2 is relied upon as a compatible application process to attach the salt to the glass substrate.
Applicant argues that the water in D2 is merely an evaporative dispersing medium to form the applied paste to be dried while the instant invention uses water as a chemically active part to maintain silver ion stability and prevent crystallization. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). D2 also teaches of the compatibility of alkali/potassium salts and silver (Col. 3 Line 18-24, Col. 1 Line 37-44).
Applicant argues that D2 only teaches alcohol or oil-based screen printing which does not read on the instant claims aqueous printing and the alcohol or oil-based screen printing requires substantial technical adaptation. This is unpersuasive because D2 teaches that aqueous pastes are suitable under the limitation that these paste solutions do not have unlimited shelf life (Col. 4 Line 28-46; “suitable for coating… prepared by methods known… aqueous or nonaqueous suspending liquid”). Thus, D2 teaches the aqueous paste as a known option in the art compatible with their method. The Applicant has not provided any specific argument about technical adaptations that D2 has not already addressed. Regarding a paste requiring both K+ and Ag+ ions, there is inherent support in the simultaneous coating step taught by D1 that teaches the compatibility of the two salts as a paste. The instant specification does not further specify what technical adaptation is needed for the potassium salt and silver salt as a paste should be adapted for screen printed. Arguments alone are insufficient as evidence; evidence is required for rebuttal. Should the Applicant would like to further argue, the instant specification teaches of aqueous paste preparation with water and clay in [0004] and other rheological agents [0039]. D2 teaches the majority of the same rheological agents (Col. 4 Line 48-59); the 103 introduces D4 for the missing clay rheological agent. Modifying the viscosity of a salt paste with rheological agents for the purpose of screen printing is known in the art.
Applicant argues that D1 and D2 teach high-energy molten salt immersion processes. D1 and D2 teach molten salt immersion as conventional method for ion exchange; however, the 103 rejection relies upon D1 and D2 are not expressly teaching molten salt immersion, rather directly reading on the instant salt paste method.
Applicant argues that D3 is only strengthening the glass and does not teach antimicrobial properties of Ag+. The antimicrobial properties are already taught by D1 by virtue of the Ag+. Per MPEP 2112.01, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties. D1 teaches the diffusion penetration depth of the ions but does not expressly explain the process as exchange of the Na+ and/or Li+ present in the glass substrate. D3 teaches that the Na+ exchange with the Ag+ [0077] for a similar singular K+ and Ag+ ion exchange that could be achieved with a paste [0116]. Transitively, D3 has antimicrobial properties because of the presence of Ag+. It is irrelevant that D3 teaches a molten salt immersion process because D3 is relied upon only for the exchange of the ions present in the glass substrate with the ions of the salt. The salt mixture of D1 and screen printing of D2 is relied upon. The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038.
Applicant argues the combination of D1, D2, D3, and D4 to read produce the product with the same properties. The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Applicant argues that “D4 and D5 merely show that aqueous salt pastes with clay can be used to introduce Ag+ into grave, but they do not bridge the substantial technical gap between single-ion glass modification and the claimed dual-ion antimicrobial-strengthening process”. The Examiner disagrees: there is sufficient evidence from D1/D2/D3 that alkali salts and silver salt are compatible.
Applicant argues that D5 does not teach the drying range of claim 11. The argument does not admit that D5 explicitly teaches of dry at room temperature for at least 6 hours and for an additional 6 hours once flipped [0068]. The Applicant also does not recognize that the salt paste mixture is made with alkali salt, water, and rheological binder [0068]. The combination of references teaches that the salt paste has potassium salt and silver salt. The time and temperature range to dry a salt paste mixture is known in the art.
Each reference used teaches some form of ion exchange in glass. The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038. The prior art combination made would combine familiar elements of the salt mixture of D1 (potassium salt and silver salt) with the aqueous salt paste mixture of D2 with rheological and drying parameters taught by D4 and D5, while D3 teaches both the silver and potassium ions exchange with the sodium ions present in the glass substrate. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 231 USPQ375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Arguments are not persuasive to overcome the 103 rejection. Application is still not in condition of allowance.
Applicant argues that JP-2010138025-A’s abstract could be considered pertinent art but cannot retrieve the specification through Espacenet. While Google Patents, has the reference in question translated, the Examiner provides the translation of the published patent JP-4916503-B2 which is derived from the patent application reference JP-2010138025-A wherein the Applicant requests the translation from Espacenet. This reference further proving the compatibility of potassium and silver salts in a water-soluble solution applied and dried on a glass substrate (Example 1). The difference between this reference being dissolving the salts to coat compared to mixture of salt mixture (D1) or salt paste mixture (D2).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “under oxygen atmosphere”; this limitation is treated under broadest reasonable interpretation whereas the instant specification does not further elaborate or define what entails as an oxygen atmosphere and wherein the layperson understands that normal atmosphere contains oxygen such as unmodified air conditions wherein air is known to be 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% trace gases including carbon dioxide suitable for humans to inhale oxygen.
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 1-8, 10, 13-14, 16-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (KR-20120117495-A, English translation provided by Espacenet), and further in view of Kiefer et al (US-5127931-A), and Li et al (US-20170233287-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches of a method for strengthening Na+ and/or Li+ ion containing glass (Line 40-42) and providing antimicrobial properties to alkali containing glass (Line 11-13), wherein a glass thickness is 3 mm or less (Line 246/506; 0.7 mm), in one ion exchange step (Line 637-639), comprises the steps of cleaning glass substrates with alcohol and distilled water (Line 251/288), preparation of ion exchange salt paste mixture and coating a layer of the surface of the glass substrate by mixing potassium salt and silver salt (Line 340-342) and applying the prepared ion exchange salt paste mixture to the glass surface (Line 340-342), heat treating 250-450°C (Table 8; Line 702-705) for ion exchange in the glass substrate (Line 637-638).
Choi does not expressly teach of applying the prepared ion exchange salt paste mixture by screen printing and cleaning the ion exchange glass substrate. In the same field of endeavor, Kiefer teaches of preparing the salt paste mixture by mixing the salt with distilled water (Abstract, Col. 4 Line 42-44), coating the glass surface by applying the prepared salt paste to the glass surface with screen printing (Col. 4 Line 20-22; Col. 5 Line 14-20), drying the ion exchange salt paste mixture to form a coating layer for 1 hour (Col. 6 Line 30), and cleaning the ion exchanged glass with water (Col. 5 Line 52-53). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the potassium salt silver salt as required by Choi into a salt paste mixture with distilled water as taught by Kiefer and coat the glass substrate with the ion exchange salt mixture by screen printing method over the liquid salt coat as a known method and to precisely apply the desired strengthening and antimicrobial properties to localized regions of the glass substrate. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to wash the remaining salt mixture after the heat treatment as taught by Kiefer using the alcohol and water solution as taught by Choi.
Choi teaches of simultaneously ion-exchanging the Ag+ and K+ ions (Line 637-638) with a glass containing alkali that is specifically Na+ (Line 234). Choi does not expressly state the diffusion/exchange of the Na+ in the glass with the Ag+ and K+ in the salt paste mixture. In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches that the sodium ions exchange with the silver ions [0077] for a similar singular potassium-silver ion exchange. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the silver ions in the paste of modified Choi exchange with the sodium ions present in the glass for a potassium-silver ion exchange in glass.
Choi teaches that the heat treating is conducted in a generic furnace with no additional atmospheric limitations (Line 150-152 It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the heat treating by conducted in an atmosphere containing oxygen wherein Choi does not include further limitation on their heat treating apparatus.
Regarding claim 2-5, depending from claim 1, Choi teaches of using potassium nitrate and silver nitrate to coat the glass surface (Line 340-342). Kiefer teaches of using sulfate, chloride, pyrosulfate, carbonates, nitrates, phosphates, nitrite, and oxide salts (Col. 3 Line 28-30). Kiefer does not expressly state these salts paired with potassium or silver. Li teaches of using potassium nitrate and silver nitrate [0118] and other silver salts such as silver chloride, silver sulfate, and silver carbonate [0114]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use potassium and silver salts of the nitrate, chloride, sulfate, carbonate family as known salts capable of ion exchange.
Regarding claim 6-7, depending from claim 1, Choi teaches of using >95% potassium nitrate and <5% silver nitrate (Table 8 [0140] Line 667), presumably by weight percent per Line 667. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the potassium and silver concentrations in the method of modified Kiefer as workable range for ion exchange. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the potassium nitrate and silver nitrate concentration that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 1, Kiefer teaches the screen-printed paste has a solid salt concentration about 25-55% by weight (Col. 5 Line 1-2). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the solid salt concentration in the paste that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 1, Kiefer teaches that the screen-printed paste coating layer is in the range of 0.02-2.0mm (Col. 3 Line 57-59).
Regarding claim 13, depending from claim 1, Choi teaches that the minimum heat treatment time is 15 minutes (Line 790-792). Kiefer teaches the ion exchange time is 4 hours (Col. 6 Line 32-34). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as heat treatment time for the ion exchange through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, depending from claim 1, Choi teaches the glass substrate to be an alkali alumina silicate or soda-lime silicate with a glass transition temperature of 500°C (Line 234-235), wherein the ion exchange heat treatment is conducted at 450°C (Line 398-399). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ion exchange the soda lime silicate at the known workable temperature range below the glass’s transition temperature.
Regarding claim 16-17, depending from claim 1, Choi teaches the glass substrate is soda-lime silicate, alkali alumina silicate (Table 1; original [0054]).
Regarding claim 18, depending from claim 1, Choi teaches of a glass thickness is 2 mm or less (Line 246/506; 0.7 mm),
Regarding claim 19, depending from claim 1, Choi teaches the alcohol used for cleaning the glass is ethanol (Line 288).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (KR-20120117495-A), and further in view of Kiefer et al (US-5127931-A), and Li et al (US-20170233287-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suguwara et al (US-20040041514-A1).
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 1, Kiefer teaches of adding agents to adjust the viscosity of the paste (Col. 4 Line 48-59), reading on rheological agent. Kiefer does not expressly teach the use of clays in their list of rheological agents. In the same field of endeavor, Suguwara teaches of strengthening glass with potassium nitrate and silver nitrate [0081] by using a paste prepared with potassium nitrate/silver nitrate and clay such as kaolin [0070, 82]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use known rheological agents such as clay, specifically kaolin, to modify the viscosity of the salt paste.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (KR-20120117495-A), and further in view of Kiefer et al (US-5127931-A), and Li et al (US-20170233287-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varshneya et al (US-20150166407-A1).
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 1, Kiefer teaches of drying the paste layer for 1 hour (Col. 6 Line 30). Kiefer teaches of conducting the drying at elevated temperature prior to ion exchange but at a rate to not damage the layer from excessive evaporation (Col. 5 Line 4-11). In the same field of endeavor, Varshneya teaches of salt paste applied on glass surface that is dried at room temperature for at least 6 hours on one side, flipped and dried for an additional at least 6 hours [0068]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to dry the salt paste in the time required to sufficiently dry the layer without incurring cracks. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a drying time at room temperature that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Office Action dated 06/03/2025 for addition prior art made of record but not relied upon
JP-2010138025-A/JP-4916503-B2, CN-103723929-B teach simultaneous aqueous film heat processing step to diffuse potassium and silver ions into glass
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741