DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki (WO 2019/230889). Note that Yuki (US 2021/0214269) will be used as the English translation of Yuki (WO 2019/230889), and all citations hereinafter will refer to Yuki (US 2021/0214269).
Regarding claim 1, Yuki discloses a glass that includes as a composition, in terms of mol %, 50% to 80% of SiO2, 0% to 20% of Al2O3, 0% to 10% of B2O3, 0% to 15% of P2O5, 0% to 35% of Li2O, 0% to 12% of Na2O, and 0% to 7% of K2O, see abstract. Additionally, the reference discloses the content of Y2O3 is preferably from 0% to 15%, the content of La2O3 is preferably from 0% to 15%, and the ZrO2 content is preferably from 0% to10% [0033, 0038 & 0039]. Note that the disclosed ranges render obvious Applicant’s example 13 from Table 3. As such, the reference also renders obvious the claimed inequality, total amounts and ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Yuki discloses a glass that includes as a composition, in terms of mol %, 50% to 80% of SiO2, 0% to 20% of Al2O3, 0% to 10% of B2O3, 0% to 15% of P2O5, 0% to 35% of Li2O, 0% to 12% of Na2O, and 0% to 7% of K2O, see abstract. Additionally, the reference discloses the content of Y2O3 is preferably from 0% to 15%, the content of La2O3 is preferably from 0% to 15%, and the ZrO2 content is preferably from 0% to10% [0033, 0038 & 0039]. Note that the disclosed ranges render obvious Applicant’s example 13 from Table 3. As such, the reference also renders obvious the claimed total amounts and ratios1
Regarding claim 4, the reference discloses the fracture toughness as 0.8MPa·m0.5 or more, which overlaps the clamed range [0050]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 5, the glass composition disclosed by the reference overlaps the claimed ranges, see above discussion. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a composition within the disclosed range including one that falls within the portion of those ranges overlapping the claimed ranges and having the claimed property; see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claims 6-9, the oxides ranges disclosed by the reference render obvious a composition with the claimed properties, see abstract and Applicant’s Example 13. Note that the reference also discloses the Young’s modulus as 80 GPa or more, which overlaps the claimed range [0010]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 10, the reference renders obvious the disclosed composition with the claimed fragmentation properties when chemically strengthened, see abstract and [0028], Applicant’s example 45 in Tables 5 & 6 and MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 17, the reference discloses a glass that includes as a composition, in terms of mol %, 50% to 80% of SiO2, 0% to 20% of Al2O3, 0% to 10% of B2O3, 0% to 15% of P2O5, 0% to 35% of Li2O, 0% to 12% of Na2O, and 0% to 7% of K2O, see abstract. Additionally, the reference discloses the content of Y2O3 is preferably from 0% to 15%, the content of La2O3 is preferably from 0% to 15%, and the ZrO2 content is preferably from 0% to10% [0033, 0038 & 0039]. Note that the disclosed ranges render obvious Applicant’s example 13 from Table 3. As such, the reference also renders obvious the claimed inequality, total amounts and ratio.
The reference further discloses the glass sheet is subjected to an ion exchange treatment to form a compressive stress layer [0062]. The compressive stress layer has a compressive stress of 1800 MPa or less and a depth of layer of 90 microns or less [0053 & 0054]. While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed compressive stress value at a depth of 50 microns, it is considered to render obvious a compressive stress of at least 150 MPa and at least 180 MPa at 50 microns given the values disclosed for the compressive stress and depth of layer as well as the overlapping compositions and similar strengthening methods (i.e. salt, time and temperature) between the disclosed and claimed glass compositions, see above discussion and Applicant’s specification Table 6.
Regarding claim 13, the glass composition disclosed by the reference overlaps the claimed range, see above discussion. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a composition within the disclosed range including one that falls within the portion of those ranges overlapping the claimed ranges and having the claimed property; see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the reference discloses that the compressive stress layer has a compressive stress of 1800 MPa or less and a depth of layer of 90 microns or less [0053 & 0054]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 16, the reference discloses the central tension as 65 MPa or more, which overlaps the claimed range [0056]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 18, the reference discloses the glass has a sheet shape with a thickness of from 0.1 mm to 2.0 mm, which overlaps the claimed range [0012].
Regarding claim 20, the reference discloses the glass as a cover glass for a touch panel display, which corresponds to an electronic device [0001].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki (WO 2019/230889) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0022475). Note that Yuki (US 2021/0214269) will be used as the English translation of Yuki (WO 2019/230889), and all citations hereinafter will refer to Yuki (US 2021/0214269).
Yuki discloses the claimed glass composition having a sheet shape and used as a cover glass for a touch panel display, see above discussion.
The reference, however, fails to disclose a glass having a curved surface portion with a radius of curvature of 100 mm or less.
Watanabe discloses an electronic device having a curved structure, see abstract, Fig. 7 and [0090]. Additionally, the reference discloses the outer shape of the device has a radius of curvature of not less than 50 mm and not more than 500 mm [0012]. The reference further discloses the device limits manipulation fatigue and inadvertent inputs from unintended touches can be suppressed [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the display of Yuki to have the curvature of Watanabe in order to prevent hand fatigue and inadvertent input while holding an electronic device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yuki is a reference to a glass ceramic. According to Applicant, when a person skilled in the art attempts to obtain amorphous glass, there is no motivation to produce amorphous glass by referring to the composition of amorphous glass described as a precursor to glass ceramic. Further, Applicant argues that Yuki’s example 24 differs from the compositions of amended claims 1 and 11. As such, Applicant requests the withdrawal of the current rejections. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding glass ceramic, Examiner notes that Yuki discloses that the tempered glass is preferably formed of a crystallized glass [0042]. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure; see MPEP 2123 II. The reference further discloses that when glass sheet is a crystallizable glass, it is preferred to subject the crystallizable glass sheet to heat treatment to obtain a crystallized glass sheet [0061]. As such, an amorphous glass is also disclosed as an intermediate product. Given crystallized glass is only disclosed as a preferred embodiment and given the reference also discloses amorphous glass, Examiner maintains the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the teachings of Yuki in order to produce an amorphous glass.
Regarding Yuki’s example 24, note that the rejection is no longer based on a specific example disclosed in the prior art that falls within the claimed range. Instead, the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yuki. Specifically, the ranges disclosed in Yuki render obvious Applicant’s example 13, which satisfies the claimed inequalities, total amounts and ratios.
Lastly, to the extent that Applicant argues that Yuki does not recognize Applicant’s purpose for the claimed total amounts, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 4-20 over Yuki and Yuki in view of Watanabe are respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm EST.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights