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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 October 2025 has been entered.
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 24 and 29-34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cleary et al. (US 2022/0184926 A1).
As to claims 24 and 31-32, Cleary et al. discloses a chemically strengthened glass sheet. See Figure 2, paragraphs [0041] and [0116]. The sheet has a thickness of 3.3 to 6 mm. See paragraph [0035]. Examples 1-9, 12-14 and 18-25 anticipate the glass composition limitations of instant claim 24. The cited examples do not contain lithium.
Cleary et al. is silent on the inclusion of trigonally coordinated boron. The instant specification teaches that trigonally boron can be calculated based upon the formula, CTrigonal,B2O3 = CB2O3 + CAl2O3 – CR2O. See paragraph [0043] of the specification. From this formula, examples 1-9, 12-14 and 18-25 have amounts of trigonal boron as shown in the below table, which anticipate the claimed amounts of trigonal boron.
1
2
3
4
5
6
B2O3
12.21
10.75
11.31
12.01
9.84
10.86
Al2O3
3.54
3.54
3.54
4.07
4.04
4.07
Na2O
4.60
4.67
4.68
4.61
4.70
4.57
K2O
2.13
2.18
2.18
2.93
3.05
2.94
Sum R2O
6.73
6.85
6.86
7.54
7.75
7.51
Trigonal boron
9.02
7.44
7.99
8.54
6.13
7.42
7
8
9
12
13
14
B2O3
11.2
11.61
12.26
11.80
12.43
12.89
Al2O3
3.57
3.53
3.56
3.56
3.54
3.54
Na2O
6.35
4.59
4.87
4.29
4.15
3.85
K2O
2.04
2.13
1.01
1.96
1.95
1.80
Sum R2O
8.39
6.72
5.88
6.25
6.10
5.65
Trigonal boron
6.36
8.42
9.94
9.11
9.87
10.78
18
19
20
21
22
23
B2O3
13.60
11.58
11.41
11.26
11.34
11.25
Al2O3
3.50
3.53
3.54
3.53
3.54
3.55
Na2O
5.22
4.58
4.52
4.65
4.57
4.45
K2O
0.92
2.11
2.12
2.18
2.11
2.07
Sum R2O
6.14
6.69
6.64
6.83
6.68
6.52
Trigonal boron
10.96
8.42
8.31
7.96
8.20
8.28
24
25
B2O3
11.29
12.55
Al2O3
3.52
3.51
Na2O
4.57
4.2
K2O
2.14
2.05
MgO
0.98
0.85
CaO
1.03
0.9
Sum R2O
6.71
6.25
Trigonal boron
8.10
9.81
As to claim 29 and 33, examples 1-9, 12-13 and 19-25 have the claimed amounts of trigonal boron.
As to claims 30 and 34, examples 1-8, 12, and 19-24 have the claimed amounts of trigonal boron.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9, 22-25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US 2022/0184926 A1).
For simplicity, claim 24 is rejected in the alternative to the anticipation rejection above, and assumes the reference does not anticipate the claim.
Cleary et al. discloses a chemically strengthened glass sheet. See Figure 2, paragraphs [0041] and [0116]. The sheet has a thickness of 3.3 to 6 mm. See paragraph [0035].
Cleary et al. teaches the glass composition comprises SiO2 74-80 mol%, B2O3 11.5-14.5%, Al2O3 2.5-5%, K2O 0.5-3%, Na2O 4.5-8%, MgO 0.5-2.5% and CaO 0-4%. See paragraph [0015]. This glass composition has overlapping ranges with the glass composition recited in instant claims 1, 6-9, 22-25 and 28. See paragraph [0015]. The composition does not contain lithium.
Cleary et al. does not teach an amount of trigonal boron. As noted, applicants teach the amount of trigonal boron is calculated based upon the formula: CTrigonal,B2O3 = CB2O3 + CAl2O3 – CR2O. From the ranges for B2O3, Al2O3, K2O and Na2O taught by Cleary et al. (i.e., B2O3 11.5-14.5%, Al2O3 2.5-5%, K2O 0.5-3%, Na2O 4.5-8%), the minimum amount of trigonal boron is 3%: 11.5% B2O3 + 2.5% Al2O3 – 8 Na2O – 3 K2O = 3%.
The maximum amount of trigonal boron is 14.5%: 14.5% B2O3 + 5% Al2O3 – 4.5 Na2O – 0.5 K2O = 14.5%.
Thus, Cleary et al. suggests a range of trigonal boron of 3 to 14.5%. This range overlaps the range recited in claims 1, 24, 29 and 30.
Cleary et al. differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range.
However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the glass sheet of Cleary et al. to possess the property recited in claim 2 in view of the overlapping ranges of components and thickness.
Cleary et al. differs from claims 3 and 4 by failing to disclose the glass plate has a size of 136 by 63 mm2. However, it has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have changed the size of the product Cleary et al. because changing the size of a prior art product has been held to have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Further as to claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the glass sheet of Cleary et al. to pass ball drop test property recited in claim 4 in view of the overlapping ranges of components and thickness.
As to claim 5, Cleary et al. teaches the glass sheet has a thickness of 3.9 mm to 6 mm. See paragraph [0035]. This range overlaps the range recited in claim 5, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2145.05.
Claims 11, 13, 21, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US 2022/0184926 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of Gross et al. (US 2018/0148369 A1).
Cleary et al. renders obvious claims 1 and 24 for the reasons recited above. Cleary et al. anticipates claim 24 for the reasons recited above.
Cleary et al. teaches the glass sheet may be employed as a windshield (i.e., automotive glass) and teaches the glass may be ion exchange strengthened. See the title and paragraph [0041]. Cleary et al. fails to disclose a DoC, DoCL or compressive stress of the chemically strengthened glass.
Gross et al. teaches a glass for use in automotive applications such as windshields. See the title and paragraph [0003].
Gross et al. teaches the glass may be strengthened to a depth of compression of less than 20 µm, and a compressive stress of 200 MPa or greater. See paragraphs [0098]-[0099]. These ranges overlap the ranges recited in claims 11, 13, 21, 26 and 27.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have chemically strengthened the glass sheet of Cleary et al. in accordance with the teachings of Gross et al. The rationale for doing so is that it would have been obvious to have employed a known technique to improve similar products. See MPEP 2143 I.D.
The glass composition suggested by Cleary et al. does not contain lithium, and would be strengthened by a potassium for sodium exchange. See also paragraph [0092] of Gross et al. In such cases, DoCL is the same as DoL. See paragraph [0072] of the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue the amendments to the claims overcome the rejection over Cleary et al. As explained above, Cleary et al. continues to anticipate and render obvious the pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dejneka et al. (US 2014/0106172 A1) teaches that an increase in trigonal boron oxide provides damage resistance. See paragraph [0020].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights