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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Dec. 29, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (US 2010/0119846 A1), in view of Harris et al. (US 2019/0161402 A1) (“Harris”).
With respect to claim 1, Sawada discloses a tempered glass sheet having a compressive stress layer in a surface thereof (abstr., 0021, 0033, 0034), wherein the glass sheet comprises a glass composition in terms of mass %: 50-80 % SiO2, 3-25 % Al2O3, 0-15 % B2O3, 0-20 % Li2O3, 0-20 % Na2O, 0-20 % K2O, 0-3 % P2O5 (0037, 0046). The ranges when converted to mol percentages overlap the ranges recited in claim 1. The mass % of Al2O3 and Na2O of the glass suggests that the molar ratio of Al2O3/Na2O overlaps the range recited in claim 1.
The mass percentages of SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3, Li2O, Na2O, K2O and P2O5 of the glass suggest that the range of molar relationship of these components of the glass sheet of Sawada overlaps the range recited in the claim. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Sawada discloses the tempered glass sheet has a sheet thickness of 0.05-2 mm (0020). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 1; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Sawada is silent regarding the tempered glass sheet having a Young’s modulus of 67 GPa or less. Harris discloses a glass article comprising two glass sheets – SUBSTRATE 2 and SUBSTRATE 3 – to be used in electronic devices (abstr., 0002, 0094, 0161), wherein the Young’s modulus of each sheet is about 67 GPa (0185). The range of Young’s modulus overlaps the range recited in claim 1; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the glass sheet of Sawada having Young’s modulus as disclosed in Harris, as glass sheet of Sawada is also to be used in electronic devices (0001, 0002), and it is known in the art that glass sheets having Young’s modulus as disclosed in Sawada are suitable for use in electronic devices.
Regarding the tempered glass sheet having an internal tensile stress value of 60 MPa or more, the references disclose the glass sheet having a composition substantially identical to the composition of the present sheet, as discussed above, having a compression stress value of 200-1500 MPa, the thickness size of the compression stress layer of 40 µm or less (Sawada, 0034), the glass sheet being soaked in a molten salt tank of potassium nitrate for 2-4 hours, at temperatures 410˚C, 475˚C (Sawada, 0087, Table 1), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the internal tensile stress value of the sheet recited in the claim is satisfied.
Regarding claim 2, Sawada and Harris disclose the tempered glass sheet of claim 1. Sawada dislcoses a compressive stress layer in a surface thereof (abstr., 0021, 0033, 0034), wherein the glass sheet comprises a glass composition in terms of mass %: 50-80 % SiO2, 3-25 % Al2O3, 0-15 % B2O3, 0-20 % Li2O3, 0-20 % Na2O, 0-20 % K2O, 0-3 % P2O5 (0037, 0046). The ranges when converted to mol percentages overlap the ranges recited in claim 2. The mass % of Al2O3 and Na2O of the glass suggests that the molar ratio of Al2O3/Na2O overlaps the range recited in claim 2.
The mass percentages of SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3, Li2O, Na2O, K2O and P2O5 of the glass suggest that the range of molar relationship of these components of the glass sheet of Sawada overlaps the range recited in the claim. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 4, Sawada and Harris teach the tempered glass sheet according to claim 1. Sawada discloses the tempered glass sheet has a content of P2O5 of from 0 to 3 mass % (0046). The range of P2O5 content overlaps the range recited in claim 4; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Sawada and Harris teach the glass sheet of claim 1. Sawada discloses the sheet has a content of Li2O of from 0-20 mass % (0037). The range of Li2O content overlaps the range recited in claim 5; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 6, Sawada and Harris teach the glass sheet of claim 1. The references do not disclose explicitly that the glass sheet has a softening point of 950˚C or less, however, since Sawada discloses the glass sheet having a composition as recited in the instant Specification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the glass sheet of Sawada has the same characteristics as the glass sheet of the instant invention. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Sawada and Harris teach the glass sheet of claim 1. The references are silent with respect to the glass sheet having a temperature at a viscosity at high temperature of 102.5 dPa·s of less than 1,650˚C, however, since Sawada discloses the glass sheet having a composition as recited in the instant Specification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the glass sheet of Sawada has the same characteristics as the glass sheet of the instant inventions. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Sawada and Harris teach the glass sheet of claim 1. Sawada discloses that the sheet has dimensions of rectangular shape (Figs. 1 and 3) with “the outside dimension of the order of mm to the order of m” (0020). The range of dimensions overlaps the range recited in claim 9; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 10, Sawada and Harris teach the glass sheet of claim 1. Sawada discloses the compressive stress layer has a compressive stress value of 200 MPa to 1500 MPa on an outermost surface (0034), the compressive stress value overlapping the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 11, Sawada and Harris teach the glass sheet of claim 1. Sawada discloses the compressive stress layer has a depth of 40 µm or less (0034), the thickness of the sheet being from 0.05 mm to 2.0 mm (0020), thus, the percentage range of the depth of the compressive stress layer overlaps the range recited in claim 11; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 12, Sawada and Harris teach the glass sheet of claim 1. While Sawada does not disclose that the glass sheet comprises overflow-merged surfaces in a middle portion thereof in a sheet thickness direction, the recitation relates to the method of making the glass sheet. Since the overflow-merged surfaces of claim 12 are merged, thus the glass sheet has a homogenous structure, and Sawada discloses a glass sheet having a homogenous structure (0087).
Regarding claim 13, Sawada and Harris disclose the glass sheet of claim 1. Sawada and Harris disclose the glass sheet which is used as a cover glass for display devices (Sawada, 0001, Harris, 0002). Sawada and Harris do not explicitly specify that the cover glass is for a flexible display, however, since the references disclose a glass sheet including all elements as recited in claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the glass sheet according to the references is capable to perform as intended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Dec. 29, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argued in Sawada the internal tensile stress value is 40 MPa or less to prevent chipping or breakage during cutting, and so Sawada fails to disclose or suggest the claimed feature of the internal tensile stress value of 60 MPa or more.
The Examiner notes Sawada discloses that the compression stress function is 40 MPa or less (0027), however, Sawada does not disclose the internal tensile stress value of 40 MPa or more as the Applicant argues.
The references disclose the glass sheet having a composition substantially identical to the composition of the present sheet, as discussed above, having a compression stress value of 200-1500 MPa, the thickness size of the compression stress layer of 40 µm or less (Sawada, 0034), the glass sheet being soaked in a molten salt tank of potassium nitrate for 2-4 hours, at temperatures 410˚C, 475˚C (Sawada, 0087, Table 1), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the internal tensile stress value of the sheet recited in the claim is satisfied.
The Applicant argued, based on Table 1 of Sawada, that when the mass% of Table 1 was converted to mol%, Sawada discloses B2O3 content in the glass composition of at most 9.81 mol% based on Example 5. However, the Examiner notes that Sawada discloses B2O3 content generally of from 0 to 15 mass% (0037), which when converted to mol% overlaps the range recited in claim 1.
The Applicant argued Sawada contains no description regarding Young’s modulus. The Examiner notes that feature was found in Harris, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783