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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-17 and 21 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 3-13, 15-17 and 21are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (CN 113200678A, of record, English equivalent US 2023/0069922, of record, ‘922 hereafter is cited in this office action).
Regarding claims 1, 3-13 and 21, ‘922 discloses a glass-ceramic article comprising 68 to 74 wt% ([0027]), specifically 73.0 wt.% SiO2 as in Component 7 (Table 2); 4 to 10 wt% ([0027]), specifically 5.0 wt.% A1203 as in Component 7 (Table 2); 3 to 9 wt% ([0027]), specifically 3.0 wt.% P205 as in Component 7 (Table 2); 8 to 12 wt% ([0027]), specifically 11.0 wt.% Li2O as in Component 2 (table 2); 1 to 6 wt% ([0027]), specifically 4.6 wt.% ZrO2 as in Component 7 (Table 2); and 0 to 2 wt% ([0030]), specifically 0.6 wt.% CaO as in Component 7 (Table 2). The composition of ‘922 also satisfies present claims 10-13 and 21 ([0043]-[0054]). The glass-ceramic article also comprises greater than or equal to 25 wt% and less than or equal to 45 wt% lithium disilicate ([0014]); greater than or equal to 30 wt% and less than or equal to 45 wt% petalite ([0014]); and 2 to 5 wt% of crystalline phases other than lithium disilicate and petalite (such as aluminum metaphosphate, [0014]), satisfying present claims 5 and 7; and total crystallinity being up to 95%, satisfying present claim 6 (residual amorphous glass 100%-95% =5%). ‘922 also discloses that the visible light transmittance can be 90% or higher ([0038]). ‘922 does not expressly set forth that the article has a haze as recited in the present claims 1 and 3. However, as set forth above, ‘922 discloses a glass-ceramic article having a composition and crystalline phase being substantially identical to the composition of presently claimed glass-ceramic articles, thus it is reasonable to expect that the glass-ceramic article of ‘922 would have the same optical properties as that of the presently claimed glass-ceramic article, including the haze as instantly claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). see MPEP 2112(V) and 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claims 15-17, ‘922 also discloses that the thickness of the article can be in a range of 0.2 to 2 mm, specifically 0.6 mm as in the examples ([0028], [0077]); and an electronic device inherently including a housing, a display panel; and a cover substrate having the glass-ceramic article ([0055]).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (CN 113200678A, of record, English equivalent US 2023/0069922, of record, ‘922 hereafter is cited in this office action) in view of Monique et al (US 2008/0026927, ‘927 hereafter).
Regarding claim 14, ‘922 teaches all the limitation of claim 1, but ‘922 does not set forth that the glass-ceramic article further comprises SnO2. However, it is known in the art that a small amount of SnO2 can be used as fining agent in a glass-ceramic composition to remove gaseous inclusions in the molten glass mass as evidenced by ‘927 ([0009], [0025], [0037]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a small amount of SnO2 as a fining agent to remove gas inclusions in the molten glass mass of ‘922, in order to render a glass-ceramic article having better optical performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks for the haze, the examiner’s position that the prior art teaches a glass-ceramic article having composition (See Component 7 as in Table 2 of ‘922) being identical to the composition of the presently claimed glass-ceramic article, thus it is reasonable to expect the glass ceramic article of ‘922 having the same optical properties including low haze value as the presently claimed. The applicant is invited to provide experimental results to show otherwise.
For the reasons set forth above and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782