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 .
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
The Appeal Brief After Final Rejection filed 05/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8, 14-15, 19-28 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-6, 8, 14-15, and 19-28 stand rejected and are appealed
Applicant' s arguments, see Appeal Brief, filed 05/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation of Xue.
The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
The Applicant argues regarding Claim 1, 21 and 25 that,
Rejection of Independent Claims 1, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103,
Summary of Subject Matter of Independent Claims 1, 21, and 25
Independent Claims 1, 21, and 25 recite a method of treating a glass-based substrate to induce a compressive stress layer in combination with a hydrogen container layer. Each of the independent Claims 1, 21, and 25 recite that the glass-based substrate includes greater than or equal to 3.5mol% to less than or equal to 6.0mol% P2O5 in combination with the ratio (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9, where R2O is the total amount of monovalent metal oxides in the glass-based substrate.
The present Application states in Para [0093] (emphasis added by Applicant):
PNG
media_image1.png
138
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…and that additions of P2O5 may cause undesirable phase separation in the glass as noted in Para. [00100] (emphasis added by Applicant):
PNG
media_image2.png
118
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, that the presence of P2O5 in combinations with the ratio of (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9 has an unexpected synergistic effect that results in relatively fast diffusivity with having a single glassy phase.
Examiner’s Position
The Examiner rejected Claim 1 as being obvious over Bookbinder in view of Xue and Ernsberger, conceding Bookbinder fails to teach:
PNG
media_image3.png
30
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where Xue cures the deficiencies of Bookbinder. Further the Examiner arbitrarily selected discrete points from the broad ranges of composition material values in Xue Table 1 for Li2O mol% and P2O5 mol% to meet Li2O = 3.5 = , which meets 2.0≤x≤5.0, P2O5 = 4.5 = y which meets 3.5 ˂ y ˂ 6.0, where (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 = (18.5 +4.5)/(15) = 1.53 = (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 The Examiner asserts that (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 is a means to assess charge balance in the glass, where (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 is a results effective variable and can be optimized (In re Antonie 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)). The Examiner had similar arguments for Claims 21 and 25.
Independent Claims 1, 21 and 25 are patentable over Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger
The relationship (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 in independent Claims 1, 21 and 25 is not disclosed in the prior art and therefore is not a “result effective variable” which may be optimized. Xue does not recognize any relationship between R2O, P2O5, and Al2O3 or that (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9, the Applicant cites MPEP 2144 and rebuts the prima facie case for obviousness.
The Examiner has constructively taken Official Notice of alleged facts on record without supporting documentary evidence, citing MPEP 2144.03. The Examiner has alleged (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 is a means to assess charge balance in the glass without supporting evidence, where obviousness is based upon this unsupported evidence.
The Examiners rejections are based on impermissible hindsight of reconstruction of the Appellant’s claims, citing MPEP 2142 and In re Warner, 379 F.2d. 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Each of the independent Claims 1, 21, and 25 recite a method of treating a glass-based substrate includes greater than or equal to 3.5mol% to less than or equal to 6.0mol% P2O5 in combination with the ratio (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9. The Examiner cited Xue to cure the deficiencies of Bookbinder in this regard. The composition used by the Examiner for rejection is not a composition found in Xue but is specifically constructed to meet compositional elements and the ratio of (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9, yet Xue does not disclose (nor does Bookbinder or Ernsberger) the combination of P2O5 and (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3.
Independent Claims 1, 21 and 25 embody a combination of ranges that provide new and unexpected results, citing MPEP 2144.05 and Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 329 F.d3 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The present application discloses unexpected results achieved by controlling the content of P2O5 and (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 per the noted claims, in that the diffusivity of hydrogen in the glass-based substrate may be increased while also preventing phase separation of the glass substrate (Para. [0093], [00100] of the Present Application). Examples A-V fall within the compositional space and examples 6A-6F fall outside of the compositional space recited in Claims 1, 21, and 25. The recited features of Claims 1, 21, and 25 demonstrate, unexpectedly, avoidance of phase separation within the glass based article (See Para [00137], [00144], Table I and VII of the Present Application). Neither Bookbinder, Xue or Ernsberger contemplate the unexpected synergistic effect by the combination of greater than or equal to 3.5mol% to less than or equal to 6.0mol% P2O5 with the ratio (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9.
Bartholomew and Pierson do not cure the deficiencies of Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger.
In response to the Applicant’s Arguments the Examiner replies that,
Rejection of Independent Claims 1, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The Examiner is in agreement with 1.a) and 1.b). In regard to b), which the noted items are in the instant application, and although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner will address the unexpected synergistic effect of P2O5 in combinations with the ratio of (R2O+ P2O5)/Al2O3 in 3.d).
The Examiner is in agreement with the summary by the Applicant for 2.a).
Note: for 3.a) – 3.d) below, the Examiner will address Applicant’s Arguments made in view of a new interpretation of Xue
Independent Claims 1, 21 and 25 are patentable over Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger
Respectful disagreement. The Examiner respectfully argues that Xue does teach that P205 mol% is 3.5 <y< 6.0 and Li2O mol% is 2.0≤x≤5.0 and the ratio of (R20 + P205)/Al203 being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9 The Examiner notes, regarding Xue Table 1 in mol%:
PNG
media_image4.png
499
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
SiO2 values between 45-70%
LiO2 values are between 3-8%
P2O5 values are between 0.5-5%
Al2O3 values between 13-25%
R2O values between 10-19%.
First, the claimed range values of LiO2 and P205 are overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Xue’s mol% range for LiO2 and P2O5 range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Next, in reviewing the end points of the ranges for R2O , Al2O3, and P2O5 and calculating the ratio, See Table I below:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
From the compositional range of Xue, Xue provides some teaching that the ratio R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 of Xue meets the claimed ratio of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3, and further in particular for the claimed and overlapping range of P2O5 mol% (3.5 <y< 6.0 claimed range, Xue range for overlapping P2O5 0.5-5%). Here, Xue provides overlapping ranges for the ratio (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 in that the range of (R2O +P2O5)/Al2O3 is 0.420-1.846. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Xue’s ratio of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 that corresponds to the claimed range of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 . See MPEP 2144.05. Further, that Xue does not specifically disclose a relationship of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 does not indicate lack of a teaching, as noted above. Simple calculations are not inventions. Hence, the argument is moot.
While the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as charge balance in glass formulations and glass making is common in the art known to a PHOSITA (no requirement for supporting evidence - the level of one skilled in the art, albeit not specifically defined due to its transient nature, encompasses at least engineering logic and common sense logic applicable in the art in addition to those disclosed in the prior art references. It must have presumed that one of ordinary skill in the art knows something about the art apart from what the references alone teach, see In re Bode, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977)), the Examiner addresses the Applicant’s arguments as in 3.a). Hence the argument is moot.
While the Examiner respectfully disagrees, the Examiner addresses the Applicant’s arguments as in 3.a). Hence the argument is moot.
Respectful disagreement. First, regarding the Specification ([0093], [00100]), although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, below is Summary Table 1 regarding claimed ranges, ranges for A-V, and range for 6A-6F for claimed ranges of Li2O, P2O5 and ratio (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3.
Summary Table 1:
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Specification does not include results data across the entire claimed ranges for Li2O, P2O5 and ratio (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3. Further, for the ratio values of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3, there lacks values for Li2O and P2O5 across the entire claimed ranges for Li2O and P2O5. The Applicant has provided data for values of the ratio (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 greater than 1.9 yet there is absent data for ratio (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 less than 1.4 across the full claimed ranges for Li2O and P2O5. Unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims, MPEP 716.02(d)
Further, 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). Hence, the argument is moot.
Bartholomew and Pierson do not cure the deficiencies of Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger. As the Examiner has responded in 3.a) regarding Xue where it is argued Xue does not have a deficiency to cure, there is absent a need for Bartholomew and Pierson to cure the deficiencies of Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger. Hence, the argument is moot.
In view of the new interpretation of Xue, the rejection to Claims 1, 21, and 25, as well as all dependent claims thereof, is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 21 and 25 – recite the phrase “ a single glassy phase”. The Examiner understands this to mean, or have the equivalence of, a glass that is not phase separated.
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”. Claims 1, 21, and 25 contain the structural limitation “a single glassy phase”.
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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20120277085A1 by Bookbinder (hereinafter “Bookbinder”) in view of USPGPUB20190382302A1 by Xue et. al. (herein “Xue”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,756,798 by Ernsberger (herein “Engsberger”).
Regarding Claim 1, Bookbinder teaches a method comprising:
exposing a glass-based substrate to a treatment environment with a pressure greater than or equal to 0.1 MPa and a water partial pressure of greater than or equal to 0.05 MPa [0069]; “100% steam atmosphere at atmospheric pressure”. Atmospheric pressure, or 1atm, is cited. 1 atm =.101 MPa. Further, in a 100% steam environment, or at water saturation, the water partial pressure at 85°C is 0.057MPa; referenced from “Water Vapor Saturation Pressure: Data, Tables and Calculator/Online Water Saturation Pressure Calculator.”
and a temperature greater than 85°C to form a glass-based article; [0029], [0031], “…the disclosure provides a method for a strengthened and durable glass article by contacting with steam or water immersion…contacting a standardized glass article and aqueous vapor at about 80°C to 500°C…”.
wherein the glass substrate comprises,
SiO2, Al2O3, K2O; [0059].
Bookbinder teaches glass compositions that contain SiO2, A12O3, K2O, Na2O that are ion exchangeable as well as an R2O / Al2O3 ratio for adhering to glass chemistry rules about glass network charge balance but fails to teach,
Li2O mol% is 2.0≤x≤5.0
P2O5 mol% is 3.5≤y≤6.0
(R2O+P2O5)/(Al2O3) being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9
In a similar endeavor as toughening glass, Xue teaches ion exchangeable glass with a group of compositions in mol% [0121] below from Table 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
499
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Xue Table 1 in mol%:
SiO2 values between 45-70
LiO2 values are between 3-8
P2O5 values are between 0.5-5
Al2O3 values between 13-25
R2O values between 10-19.
The claimed range values of LiO2 and P205 are overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Xue’s mol% range for LiO2 and P2O5 range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
In reviewing the end points of the ranges for R2O , Al2O3, and P2O5 for Xue and calculating the ratio, See Table I below:
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Xue provides some teaching that the ratio R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 of Xue meets the claimed ratio of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3, and further in particular for the claimed and overlapping range of P2O5 mol% (3.5 <y< 6.0 claimed range, Xue range for overlapping P2O5 0.5-5%). Here, Xue provides overlapping ranges for the ratio (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 in that the range of (R2O +P2O5)/Al2O3 is 0.420-1.846. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Xue’s ratio of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 that corresponds to the claimed range of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 . See MPEP 2144.05
By corollary, Xue teaches a compressive stress layer of at least 653 MPa and a depth of layer of at least 25um from the teachings in Table 3.
PNG
media_image8.png
668
710
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the overlapping range compositions of Xue and the ion exchange process of Xue in the method of Bookbinder to obtain high depth of layer and high compressive stress as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of reducing the geometry variation/expansion of the glass substrate in ion exchange, as noted by Xue ([0038], [0039]).
Bookbinder teaches the hydrogen containing layer extending from the surface of the glass to the depth of layer ([0071], [0072] but not for the glass composition of Xue.
In a related endeavor of steam treatment of glass, Ernsberger conducted a water analysis of steam treated glass with penetration of 0.2 mm (Col. 18 Line 43-65, greater than the 5um in the instant claim and greater than the 25um depth of Xue), thus water which contains hydrogen is present to a depth of layer extending from a surface of the glass article. Ernsberger also states that the absorption of water is the greatest at the surface of the glass that decreases in concentration into the interior of the article (Col. 6 Line 5-9). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that steam treating glass articles as suggested by Ernsberger, hydrates a layer of the glass. The mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249.
Xue fails to teach,
A single glassy phase. This is a structural limitation. See Claim Interpretation.
Regarding Claim 2, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder further teaches a saturated steam environment; [0029], [0032], “the aqueous vapor can be…for example about 20 to 100% by volume, about 50% to 100% by volume…”.
Regarding Claim 4, , Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder further teaches a temperature greater than 85°C to form a glass-based article; [0031], “at about 80°C to 500°C…”.
Regarding Claim 5, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1.
Bookbinder teaches the glass substrate produced by a fusion forming process [0060], but not for the glass of Xue. Xue further teaches the glass substrate can be produced by a fusion forming process, “ According to the present disclosure, the flat glass processes may be selected from the group consisting of pressing, down-draw, re-draw, overflow fusion, floating and rolling”, [0118]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the glass substrate by the fusion process as one skilled on the art knows flat glass produced by the fusion process eliminates the need for grinding the surfaces of the glass, which is a cost benefit. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1.
Xue teaches a substrate with an ion exchangeable glass composition, along with an alkali ion source ion-exchange process to provide a depth of layer and surface compression but not a glass substrate with a glass composition that meets the depth of layer and surface compression of the instant claim without alkali ion sourced ion-exchange. Ernsberger teaches a glass composition that contains all the constituents of the Xue glass composition except for B2O3 (one skilled in the art would know that B2O3 and Al2O3 provide similar coordination/structure to a glass network (Col 8 lines 10-23)) and a specific composition that is steam treated that contains Li2O and P2O5; see Table V below:
PNG
media_image9.png
313
468
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Further, Ernsberger teaches for composition D (containing SiO2/Al2O3/Na2O/K2O/Li2O, P2O5), that by varying the stream treatment different depth of layers and different surface compression values can be obtained (Col 16, lines 51-63). Per the conversion method outlined by Ernesberger (Col 11 lines 10-23),
Process 1: steam for 2hrs at 725°C, then 2hrs at 800°C; 160um depth of layer, 23,300 millimicrons / inch *2.13 = 48,990 psi = 337MPa
Process 2: steam for 2hrs at 750°C, then 2hrs at 825°C; 180um depth of layer, 8700 millimicrons/inch *2.13 = 18,531 psi = 127MPa
Process 3: steam for 2 hrs. at 750°C, then 800°C, then 825°C; 220um depth of layer, 8200 millimicrons/inch *2.13 = 17,446 psi = 120MPa.
Further, Ernsberger teaches modifying the steam treatment process based on a different glass composition (Composition F in Table V), that include different amounts Li2O and P2O5 vs. Composition D, where the steam process is noted as Process 4 by the Examiner:
Process 4: steam for 2 hrs. at 750°C, then 800°C, then 2hrs at 850°C; 180um depth of layer, 5670 millimicrons/inch *2.13 = 12,077 psi = 83MPa.
While Ernsberger does not teach the specific composition of Xue, Ernsberger teaches a steam process and the ability to modify a steam process to provide varied results for depth of layer and compressive stress for different glass compositions (that contain SiO2/Al2O3/Na2O/K2O/Li2O, P2O5), where the depth of layer and compressive stress read, and extend far beyond, claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the steam process of Ernsberger to replace the ion-exchange process of Xue for the glass composition of Xue, as one skilled in the art would be motivated by using a less complicated process , such as steam treatment process, vs. an ion-exchange process for the purpose of increase efficiency, reduced cost, and improved safety.
Regarding Claim 8, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1.
Xue teaches wherein the glass-based substrate further comprises Na2O; See claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1.
While Bookbinder teaches the glass substrate comprises a fusion line [0060], Bookbinder fails to do so for the glass of Xue. Xue further teaches the glass substrate can be produced by a fusion forming process, “ According to the present disclosure, the flat glass processes may be selected from the group consisting of pressing, down-draw, re-draw, overflow fusion, floating and rolling”, [0118]. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that a fusion forming process is part of a fusion line. Furthermore, claim 14 is considered a structural limitation only. A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”.
Regarding Claim 15, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1.
The glass of Xue is not taught to have any globular chain platinum defect, and the concentration of this feature is taken to be zero which would fall below the limit of less than 1 globular platinum defect per pound of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention not to have globular chain platinum defects in the glass, as one skilled on the art would know globular chain platinum defects arise from corrosion of the melt apparatus/components and be motived not to have globular chain platinum defects in the glass to reduce discoloration of the glass, improve glass homogeneity, and eliminate potential optical damage.
Regarding Claim 20 - Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1.
Xue further teaches a compressive layer where the compressive stress is greater than or equal to 200MPa; See claim 1.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20120277085A1) by Bookbinder (hereinafter “Bookbinder”) in view of USPGPUB20190382302A1 by Xue et. al. (herein “Xue”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,756,798 by Ernsberger (herein “Engsberger”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,811,853 by Bartholomew, et. al (herein “Bartholomew”).
Regarding Claim 3 - Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger in the rejection of claim 1 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach a treatment environment that has a pressure greater than or equal to
1MPa. In the same endeavor of steam treating glass, Bartholomew teaches a treatment environment
for a glass article of 1245 PSIG (8.6 MPa); Col 16, lines 38-44. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use
the treatment pressure of Bartholomew in the method of the combination as pressure is one of the
main factors in hydration rate of glasses, per Bartholomew (Col 16 lines 14-16, 39-42). One would have
been motivated to do so to expedite the hydration, as noted by Bartholomew (Col 16 lines 44-45).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20120277085A1) by Bookbinder (hereinafter “Bookbinder”) in view of USPGPUB20190382302A1 by Xue et. al. (herein “Xue”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,756,798 by Ernsberger (herein “Engsberger”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,726,981 by Pierson et. al. (herein “Pierson”).
Regarding Claim 19, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 in the rejection of Claim 1.
Xue teaches an ion-exchange process using KNO3 and NaNO3 molten salts to create a surface compressive stress and a depth of layer. As one skilled on the art would know, ion exchange processes inherently creates a depth of compressive stress but Xue fails to explicitly teach a depth of compressive stress. In a related endeavor ion exchanging aluminosilicate glasses containing Li2O and P2O5, Pierson teaches an ion exchange process using a mixture of molten Li2SO4, Na2O4 and K2O4 for a variety of general glass compositions containing Li2O and P2O5. Pierson also teaches,
a variety of ion-exchange processes (Table 3) that each compositional sample was processed (Table 9), whereby controlling time and temperature of the ion-exchange process , different stress profiles are capable (Col 5 lines 1-5).
Depths of exchange, and hence, depth of layer, can be controllably and beneficially achieved by modifying the base glass composition…and/or time and temperature of the heat treatment (ion-exchange) (Col 4 lines 62-67).
different batch compositions for the desired oxide in proper proportions (Col 6 lines 27-30).
A depth of the compressive layer of .001”; “it is possible to produce a skin layer which exhibits very high compressive stresses….and a somewhat deeper layer of lower compressive stresses (Col 5, lines 20-24); “ a surface compression layer having a depth of at least .001 (25.4um)” (Col 10; lines 14-15); “surface layer having a thickness not than .001” (25.4um) for an ion-exchanged surface” (Col 4 lines 59-60).
In summary, the teaching of Pierson is one can change the glass composition and the time and temperature of the ion-exchange process to achieve the desired depth of layer and a depth of layer that has compressive stress.
While Pierson does not teach exactly the composition of Xue or the ion-exchange process of Xue, Pierson does teach an ion-exchange process for a related composition as compared to Xue with the ability to change the ion-exchange process for different glass compositions in order to obtain the depth of layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an optimized ion-exchange process as the capability to do so is taught by Pierson, for the composition of Xue to achieve to the compressive depth of layer. One would have been motivated to do so to improve flexural and impact strength, as noted by Pierson (Col 3 lines 18-21).
Claims 21-22, and 24 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20120277085A1) by Bookbinder (hereinafter “Bookbinder”) in view of USPGPUB20190382302A1 by Xue et. al. (herein “Xue”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,756,798 by Ernsberger (herein “Engsberger”).
Regarding Claim 21, Bookbinder teaches a method comprising:
o exposing a glass-based substrate to a treatment environment with a pressure greater than or equal to 0.1 MPa and a water partial pressure of greater than or equal to 0.05 MPa [0069]; “100% steam atmosphere at atmospheric pressure”. Atmospheric pressure, or 1atm, is cited. 1 atm =.101 MPa. Further, in a 100% steam environment, or at water saturation, the water partial pressure at 85°C is 0.057MPa; referenced from “Water Vapor Saturation Pressure: Data, Tables and Calculator/Online Water Saturation Pressure Calculator.”
o and a temperature greater than 85°C to form a glass-based article; [0029], [0031], “…the disclosure provides a method for a strengthened and durable glass article by contacting with steam or water immersion…contacting a standardized glass article and aqueous vapor at about 80°C to 500°C…”.
wherein the glass substrate comprises,
o SiO2, Al2O3, K2O; [0059].
Bookbinder teaches glass compositions that contain SiO2, A12O3, K2O, Na2O that are ion exchangeable as well as an R2O / Al2O3 ratio for adhering to glass chemistry rules about glass network charge balance but fails to teach,
o Li2O mol% is 2.0≤x≤5.0
o P2O5 mol% is 3.5≤y≤6.0
o (R2O+P2O5)/(Al2O3) being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9
In a similar endeavor as toughening glass, Xue teaches ion exchangeable glass with a group of compositions in mol% [0121] below from Table 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
499
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Xue Table 1 in mol%:
o SiO2 values between 45-70
o LiO2 values are between 3-8
o P2O5 values are between 0.5-5
o Al2O3 values between 13-25
The claimed range values of LiO2 and P205 are overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Xue’s mol% range for LiO2 and P2O5 range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
In reviewing the end points of the ranges for R2O , Al2O3, and P2O5 for Xue and calculating the ratio, See Table I below:
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Xue provides some teaching that the ratio R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 of Xue meets the claimed ratio of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3, and further in particular for the claimed and overlapping range of P2O5 mol% (3.5 <y< 6.0 claimed range, Xue range for overlapping P2O5 0.5-5%). Here, Xue provides overlapping ranges for the ratio (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 in that the range of (R2O +P2O5)/Al2O3 is 0.420-1.846. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Xue’s ratio of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 that corresponds to the claimed range of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 . See MPEP 2144.05
By corollary, Xue teaches a compressive stress layer of at least 653 MPa and a depth of layer of at least 25um from the teachings in Table 3.
PNG
media_image8.png
668
710
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the overlapping range compositions of Xue and the ion exchange process of Xue in the method of Bookbinder to obtain high depth of layer and high compressive stress as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of reducing the geometry variation/expansion of the glass substrate in ion exchange, as noted by Xue ([0038], [0039]).
Bookbinder teaches the hydrogen containing layer extending from the surface of the glass to the depth of layer ([0071], [0072] but not for the glass composition of Xue.
In a related endeavor of steam treatment of glass, Ernsberger conducted a water analysis of steam treated glass with penetration of 0.2 mm (Col. 18 Line 43-65, greater than the 5um in the instant claim and greater than the 25um depth of Xue), thus water which contains hydrogen is present to a depth of layer extending from a surface of the glass article. Ernsberger also states that the absorption of water is the greatest at the surface of the glass that decreases in concentration into the interior of the article (Col. 6 Line 5-9). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that steam treating glass articles as suggested by Ernsberger, hydrates a layer of the glass. The mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249.
Xue fails to teach,
o A single glassy phase. This is a structural limitation. See Claim Interpretation.
Regarding Claim 22, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger in the rejection of claim 21 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21.
Bookbinder further teaches a saturated steam environment; [0029], [0032], “the aqueous vapor can be…for example about 20 to 100% by volume, about 50% to 100% by volume…”.
Regarding Claim 24, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger in the rejection of claim 21 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21.
Bookbinder further teaches a temperature greater than 85°C to form a glass-based article; [0031], “at about 80°C to 500°C…”.
Claims 25-26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20120277085A1) by Bookbinder (hereinafter “Bookbinder”) in view of USPGPUB20190382302A1 by Xue et. al. (herein “Xue”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,756,798 by Ernsberger (herein “Engsberger”).
Regarding Claim 25, Bookbinder teaches a method comprising:
exposing a glass-based substrate to a treatment environment with a pressure greater than or equal to 0.1 MPa and a water partial pressure of greater than or equal to 0.05 MPa [0069]; “100% steam atmosphere at atmospheric pressure”. Atmospheric pressure, or 1atm, is cited. 1 atm =.101 MPa. Further, in a 100% steam environment, or at water saturation, the water partial pressure at 85°C is 0.057MPa; referenced from “Water Vapor Saturation Pressure: Data, Tables and Calculator/Online Water Saturation Pressure Calculator.”
and a temperature greater than 85°C to form a glass-based article; [0029], [0031], “…the disclosure provides a method for a strengthened and durable glass article by contacting with steam or water immersion…contacting a standardized glass article and aqueous vapor at about 80°C to 500°C…”.
wherein the glass substrate comprises,
SiO2, Al2O3, K2O; [0059].
Bookbinder teaches glass compositions that contain SiO2, A12O3, K2O, Na2O that are ion exchangeable as well as an R2O / Al2O3 ratio for adhering to glass chemistry rules about glass network charge balance but fails to teach,
Li2O mol% is 2.0≤x≤5.0
P2O5 mol% is 3.5≤y≤6.0
(R2O+P2O5)/(Al2O3) being greater than 1.4 and less than 1.9
In a similar endeavor as toughening glass, Xue teaches ion exchangeable glass with a group of compositions in mol% [0121] below from Table 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
499
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Xue Table 1 in mol%:
SiO2 values between 45-70
LiO2 values are between 3-8
P2O5 values are between 0.5-5
Al2O3 values between 13-25
R2O values between 10-19.
The claimed range values of LiO2 and P205 are overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Xue’s mol% range for LiO2 and P2O5 range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
In reviewing the end points of the ranges for R2O , Al2O3, and P2O5 for Xue and calculating the ratio, See Table I below:
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Xue provides some teaching that the ratio R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 of Xue meets the claimed ratio of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3, and further in particular for the claimed and overlapping range of P2O5 mol% (3.5 <y< 6.0 claimed range, Xue range for overlapping P2O5 0.5-5%). Here, Xue provides overlapping ranges for the ratio (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 in that the range of (R2O +P2O5)/Al2O3 is 0.420-1.846. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Xue’s ratio of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 that corresponds to the claimed range of (R2O + P2O5)/Al2O3 . See MPEP 2144.05
By corollary, Xue teaches a compressive stress layer of at least 653 MPa and a depth of layer of at least 25um from the teachings in Table 3.
PNG
media_image8.png
668
710
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the overlapping range compositions of Xue and the ion exchange process of Xue in the method of Bookbinder to obtain high depth of layer and high compressive stress as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of reducing the geometry variation/expansion of the glass substrate in ion exchange, as noted by Xue ([0038], [0039]).
Bookbinder teaches the hydrogen containing layer extending from the surface of the glass to the depth of layer ([0071], [0072] but not for the glass composition of Xue.
In a related endeavor of steam treatment of glass, Ernsberger conducted a water analysis of steam treated glass with penetration of 0.2 mm (Col. 18 Line 43-65, greater than the 5um in the instant claim and greater than the 25um depth of Xue), thus water which contains hydrogen is present to a depth of layer extending from a surface of the glass article. Ernsberger also states that the absorption of water is the greatest at the surface of the glass that decreases in concentration into the interior of the article (Col. 6 Line 5-9). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that steam treating glass articles as suggested by Ernsberger, hydrates a layer of the glass. The mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249.
Xue fails to teach,
A single glassy phase. This is a structural limitation. See Claim Interpretation.
Regarding Claim 26 - Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger in the rejection of claim 25 teaches all of the limitations of claim 25.
Bookbinder further teaches a saturated steam environment; [0029], [0032], “the aqueous vapor can be…for example about 20 to 100% by volume, about 50% to 100% by volume…”.
Regarding Claim 28 - Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger in the rejection of claim 25 teaches all of the limitations of claim 25.
Bookbinder further teaches a temperature greater than 85°C to form a glass-based article; [0031], “at about 80°C to 500°C…”.
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20120277085A1) by Bookbinder (hereinafter “Bookbinder”) in view of USPGPUB20190382302A1 by Xue et. al. (herein “Xue”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,756,798 by Ernsberger (herein “Engsberger”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,811,853 by Bartholomew, et. al (herein “Bartholomew”).
Regarding Claim 23, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger in the rejection of claim 21 teaches all of the limitations of claim 21.
The combination fails to teach a treatment environment that has a pressure greater than or equal to
1MPa. In the same endeavor of steam treating glass, Bartholomew teaches a treatment environment
for a glass article of 1245 PSIG (8.6 MPa); Col 16, lines 38-44. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use
the treatment pressure of Bartholomew in the method of the combination as pressure is one of the
main factors in hydration rate of glasses, per Bartholomew (Col 16 lines 14-16, 39-42). One would have
been motivated to do so to expedite the hydration, as noted by Bartholomew (Col 16 lines 44-45).
Claim 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20120277085A1) by Bookbinder (hereinafter “Bookbinder”) in view of USPGPUB20190382302A1 by Xue et. al. (herein “Xue”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,756,798 by Ernsberger (herein “Engsberger”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 3,811,853 by Bartholomew, et. al (herein “Bartholomew”).
Regarding Claim 27, Bookbinder, Xue and Ernsberger in the rejection of claim 25 teaches all of the limitations of claim 25.
The combination fails to teach a treatment environment that has a pressure greater than or equal to
1MPa. In the same endeavor of steam treating glass, Bartholomew teaches a treatment environment
for a glass article of 1245 PSIG (8.6 MPa); Col 16, lines 38-44. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use
the treatment pressure of Bartholomew in the method of the combination as pressure is one of the
main factors in hydration rate of glasses, per Bartholomew (Col 16 lines 14-16, 39-42). One would have
been motivated to do so to expedite the hydration, as noted by Bartholomew (Col 16 lines 44-45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Gross et. al. (U.S. Patent 9,975,803) discloses glass compositions containing Li2O, P2O5, and Al2O3 with R2O, P2O5 and Al2O3 mol% values used to calculate certain mol% ratios of composition. The compositions are ion exchanged to form depth of layer and surface compressive stresses.
Gross et. al. (U.S. Patent 9,969,644) discloses glass compositions containing Li2O, P2O5, and Al2O3 with R2O, P2O5 and Al2O3 mol% values used to calculate certain mol% ratios of composition. The compositions are ion exchanged to form depth of layer and surface compressive stresses.
Dejneka et. al. (U.S. Patent 9,815,733) discloses glass compositions containing P2O5 and Al2O3 where Youngs modulus and coefficient of thermal expansion values are cited.
Dejneka et. al. (U.S. Patent 8,969,266) discloses glass compositions containing Li2O and Al2O3 where R2O values are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights