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 .
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 24 and 29-34 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cleary et al. (US 2022/0184926 A1);
The rejection of claims 1-9, 22-25 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US 2022/0184926 A1); and
The rejection of claims 11, 13, 21, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US 2022/0184926 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 24, and further in view of Gross et al. (US 2018/0148369 A1).
In each instance, the declaration by Jan-Oliver Fritzsche under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 is sufficient to establish that composition alone is insufficient to establish that the resultant glass possesses the claimed amounts of trigonal boron.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 31 defines the trigonal coordinated boron based upon the formula: cB2O3,trigonal = cB2O3 + cAl2O3 – cR2O. The previous action employed this formula to calculate the amount of trigonal boron in Cleary et al. In response, the expert declaration by Jan-Oliver Fritzsche established that composition alone (i.e., the concentrations of B2O3, Al2O3 and R2O) is insufficient to determine the amount of trigonal boron. Therefore, claim 31 is unclear as to whether it employs the formula as a stand-in or estimation for the amount of trigonal boron, or the claim requires trigonal boron in some amount based upon the actual amount of trigonal boron in the glass.
Claims 32-34 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9, 22-25, 28 and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US 2022/0184926 A1) in view of Dejneka et al. (US 2015/0368147 A1).
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.
In addition, 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, 28, 31 and 32. See paragraph [0015]. The composition does not contain lithium. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Cleary et al. is silent on the inclusion of trigonally coordinated boron.
Dejneka et al. discloses a chemically strengthened borosilicate glass containing 3 to10 mol% B2O3. See paragraphs [0030] and [0034]. By incorporating boron in the trigonal configuration, the resultant glass has greater damage resistance due to the more open nature of the structure. See paragraph [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the glass of Cleary et al. with trigonal boron in the glass because the resultant glass will have a greater damage resistance.
Further as to claim 1 and as to claims 29, 30, 33 and 34, Cleary et al. teaches a range of B2O3 of 11.5-14.5% which is outside the claimed trigonal B2O3 amounts recited in the claims. However, Dejneka et al. discloses a portion of the trigonal boron oxide decreases. Thus, the combination of references suggests some amount of 11.5-14.5% B2O3 is in the tetragonal state. The result is some lesser amount, such as less than 10 or less than 9, that is in the trigonal state.
As to claim 2, the combination of reference suggests that increasing the amount of trigonal boron will increase the damage resistance of the glass. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the glass sheet suggested by the combination of Cleary et al. and Dejneka et al. because an improved damage resistance flows from the teachings of the references.
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 that results from Cleary et al. and Dejneka et al. to pass ball drop test property recited in claim 4 because Dejneka et al. suggest the result of increased trigonal boron is a more damage resistant glass.
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.
As to claims 29, 30, 33 and 34, Cleary et al. teaches a range of B2O3 of 11.5-14.5% which is outside the claimed trigonal B2O3 recited in the claims. However, Dejneka et al. discloses a portion of the trigonal boron oxide decreases. Thus, the combination of references suggests some amount of 11.5-14.5% B2O3 is in the tetragonal state. The result is some lesser amount, such as less than 10 or less than 9, that is in the trigonal state.
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) in view of Dejneka et al. (US 2015/0368147 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of Gross et al. (US 2018/0148369 A1).
Cleary et al. and Dejneka et al. render obvious claims 1 and 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 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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