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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original claims and specification set forth a glass including “greater than or equal to 6 mol% to less than or equal to 12 mol% Li2O”, “greater than or equal to 0.4 mol% to less than or equal to 3 mol% K2O” and “greater than or equal to 2 mol% to less than or equal to 6 mol% MgO.” There is no support in the original specification and claims for a glass that does not include Li2O, K2O and MgO in these amounts and a glass without those oxides having the claimed fracture toughness and Young’s modulus. All the examples include these oxides in amounts within the ranges of the original specification. The paragraphs [0091], [0093], [0093] that state that the glass compositions “include” these oxides do not support their exclusion any more than the other paragraphs that state the compositions “include” other oxides support their exclusion. Thus the exclusion from claim 1 and 14 is new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMartino et al. US 2017/0022093 in view of Hu et al US 2016/0102011.
Regarding claim 1, DeMartino et al. disclose a glass comprising in mol%:
45-80% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 58-70%)
5-28% Al2O3 (encompasses claimed 12-20%)
0-10% P2O5 (encompasses claimed 0-4%)
0-8% B2O3 (same as claimed 0-8%)
0-18% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 6-12%)
0-18% Na2O (encompasses claimed 4-12%)
0-5% K2O (encompasses claimed 0.4-3%)
0-5% MgO (overlaps claimed 2-6%)
0-2% CaO (overlaps claimed 1-4%)
0% SrO (encompassed by claimed 0-3%)
0-2% ZnO (encompassed by claimed 0-5%)
0-1% ZrO2 (same as claimed 0-1%) [0147]-[0158].
The component mol% of the glass of DeMartino et al. either encompass, overlap or are encompassed by the component mol%s of the claimed glass, thus prima face obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 1, DeMartino et al. disclose a Young’s modulus of at least 70 GPa [0171] with some embodiments up to 80 GPa. Thus DeMartino et al. disclose range of Young’s modulus that encompasses the claimed 80-90 GPa. Further the disclosure of embodiments up to 80 GPa abuts the claimed range of greater than 80 GPa and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected glass with modulus of 80 GPS would be similar to one with modulus just greater than 80 GPa.
Regarding claim 1, DeMartino et al. do not teach fracture toughness of the glass
Hu et al. teach that glass-based articles with compression stress layer may exhibit fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the glass of DeMartino with a fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ), as taught by Hu et al. to provide the glass-based article made therefrom with compression stress layer exhibiting the fracture toughness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how to modify the formulation of the glass without undue experimentation to arrive at a glass having the desired Young’s modulus and fracture toughness as taught by the references as combined.
Regarding claim 2, DeMartino et al. disclose 45-80% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 60-64%).
Regarding claim 3, DeMartino et al. disclose 5-28% Al2O3 (encompasses claimed 14-16%).
Regarding claim 4, DeMartino et al. disclose 0-18% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 8-9%).
Regarding claim 5, DeMartino et al. disclose 0-18% Na2O (encompasses claimed 7-12%).
Regarding claim 6, DeMartino et al. disclose 0-5% K2O (encompasses claimed 0.4-1%).
Regarding claim 7, DeMartino et al. disclose 0-5%MgO (encompasses claimed 2.5-4%).
Regarding claim 8, DeMartino et al. disclose 0-2% CaO (overlaps claimed 1.5-3%).
Regarding claim 9, DeMartino et al. disclose 0-2% SnO2 as fining agent [0161] (encompasses claimed 0.05-0.5%).
Regarding claim 10, DeMartino et al. disclose using thin rolling process to form article from the glass when the glass exhibits a liquidus viscosity less than 100 kP [0181] (overlaps claimed greater than or equal to 50 kP).
Regarding claim 13, DeMartino et al. disclose a method comprising chemically strengthening the glass by ion exchange by immersion in molten salt bath to cause a spike or increase the slope of stress profile at the surface of the glass-based article to form a compressive stress layer (CS) and central tension (CT) region [0041][0047][0063][0067] and discloses glass comprising in mol%:
45-80% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 58-70%)
5-28% Al2O3 (encompasses claimed 12-20%)
0-10% P2O5 (encompasses claimed 0-4%)
0-8% B2O3 (same as claimed 0-8%)
0-18% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 6-12%)
0-18% Na2O (encompasses claimed 4-12%)
0-5% K2O (encompasses claimed 0.4-3%)
0-5% MgO (overlaps claimed 2-6%)
0-2% CaO (overlaps claimed 1-4%)
0% SrO (encompassed by claimed 0-3%)
0-2% ZnO (encompassed by claimed 0-5%)
0-1% ZrO2 (same as claimed 0-1%) [0147]-[0158].
The component mol% of the glass of DeMartino et al. either encompass, overlap or are encompassed by the component mol%s of the claimed glass, thus prima face obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, DeMartino et al. disclose a chemically strengthened glass article comprising compressive stress layer (CS) and central tension (CT) region and made from composition comprising in mol%:
45-80% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 56-70%)
5-28% Al2O3 (encompasses claimed 12-20%)
0-10% P2O5 (encompasses claimed 0-4%)
0-8% B2O3 (same as claimed 0-8%)
0-18% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 6-12%)
0-18% Na2O (encompasses claimed 4-12%)
0-5% K2O (encompasses claimed 0.4-3%)
0-5% MgO (overlaps claimed 2-6%)
0-2% CaO (overlaps claimed 1-4%)
0% SrO (encompassed by claimed 0-3%)
0-2% ZnO (encompassed by claimed 0-5%)
0-1% ZrO2 (same as claimed 0-1%) [0147]-[0158].
The component mol%s of the glass of DeMartino et al. either encompass, overlap or are encompassed by the component mol%s of the claimed glass, thus prima face obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, DeMartino et al. disclose a Young’s modulus of at least 70 GPa [0171] with some embodiments up to 80 GPa. Thus DeMartino et al. disclose range of Young’s modulus that encompasses the claimed 80-90 GPa. Further the disclosure of embodiments up to 80 GPa abuts the claimed range of greater than 80 GPa and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected glass with modulus of 80 GPS would be similar to one with modulus just greater than 80 GPa.
Regarding claim 14, DeMartino et al. do not teach fracture toughness of the glass
Hu et al. teach that glass-based articles with compression stress layer may exhibit fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the glass of DeMartino with a fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ), as taught by Hu et al. to provide the glass-based article made therefrom with compression stress layer exhibiting the fracture toughness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how to modify the formulation of the glass without undue experimentation to arrive at a glass article having the desired Young’s modulus and fracture toughness as taught by the references as combined.
Regarding claim 15, DeMartino et al. disclose compressive stress layer (CS) of compressive stress of 150-1200 MPa [0073] (overlaps claimed 400-2000 MPa).
Regarding claim 16, DeMartino et al. disclose central tension (CT) region of tension of 25-400 MPa [0074] (encompasses claimed 30-180).
Regarding claim 17, DeMartino et al. disclose compressive stress layer extends from surface to depth of compression (DOC) of 0.1t or greater, wherein t is thickness of the article [0045] (encompasses claimed 0.15t to 0.25t).
Regarding claim 19, DeMartino et al. disclose glass article thickness of less than 3mm [0045] (encompasses claimed 0.2-2mm).
Regarding claim 20, DeMartino et al. disclose consumer electronics product including a housing having a front surface, electrical components provided at least partially internal to the housing, the electrical components including at least a controller, a memory, and a display; and a cover glass disposed at the front surface of the housing and over the display, the cover glass comprising strengthened glass article as described therein [0008] and disclose chemically strengthened glass article comprising compressive stress layer and made from composition comprising in mol%:
45-80% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 56-70%)
5-28% Al2O3 (encompasses claimed 12-20%)
0-10% P2O5 (encompasses claimed 0-4%)
0-8% B2O3 (same as claimed 0-8%)
0-18% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 6-12%)
0-18% Na2O (encompasses claimed 4-12%)
0-5% K2O (encompasses claimed 0.4-3%)
0-5% MgO (overlaps claimed 2-6%)
0-2% CaO (overlaps claimed 1-4%)
0% SrO (encompassed by claimed 0-3%)
0-2% ZnO (encompassed by claimed 0-5%)
0-1% ZrO2 (same as claimed 0-1%) [0147]-[0158].
The component mol%s of the glass of DeMartino et al. either encompass, overlap or are encompassed by the component mol%s of the claimed glass, thus prima face obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMartino et al. in view of Hu et al US 2016/0102011 as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Roussev et al. US 2017/0305786.
Regarding claim 18, DeMartino et al. teach providing the glass-based article with a compressive stress spike [0090] but do not disclose depth of the spike.
Roussev et al. teach that a chemically strengthened glass-based article with may have a compressive stress spike depth of about 5 um to about 15 um [0299] (encompassed by claimed 3 um to 15 um).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the glass-based article with a compressive stress spike of DeMartino with a spike depth of about 5 um to about 15 um, as taught by Roussev et al. as compressive spike depth provided in a chemically strengthened glass-based article.
Claims 1-8, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. US 2020/0325066 in view of Hu et al US 2016/0102011.
Regarding claim 1, Murayama et al. disclose a glass comprising in mol%:
45-75% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 58-70%)
1-30% Al2O3 (encompasses claimed 12-20%)
0-6% P2O5 (encompasses claimed 0-4%)
0-6% B2O3 (encompassed by claimed 0-8%)
1-20% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 6-12%)
1-10% Na2O (overlaps claimed 4-12%)
0.5-10% K2O (overlaps claimed 0.4-3%)
1-15% MgO (encompasses claimed 2-6%)
0.1-5% CaO (overlaps claimed 1-4%)
0.1-3% SrO (encompassed by claimed 0-3%)
0.1-3% ZnO (encompassed by claimed 0-5%)
0-5% ZrO2 (encompasses claimed 0-1%) [0079]-[0103].
The component mol%s of the glass of Murayama et al. either encompass, overlap or are encompassed by the component mol%s of the claimed glass, thus prima face obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 1, Murayama et al. disclose a Young’s modulus of the glass of 80-110 GPa (encompasses claimed 80-90 GPa).
Regarding claim 1, Murayama et al. do not teach fracture toughness of the glass
Hu et al. teach that glass-based articles with compression stress layer may exhibit fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the glass of Murayama et al. with a fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ), as taught by Hu et al. to provide the glass-based article made therefrom with compression stress layer exhibiting the fracture toughness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how to modify the formulation of the glass without undue experimentation to arrive at a glass having the desired Young’s modulus and fracture toughness as taught by the references as combined.
Regarding claim 2, Murayama et al. disclose 45-75% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 60-64%).
Regarding claim 3, Murayama et al. disclose 1-30 Al2O3% (encompasses claimed 14-16%).
Regarding claim 4, Murayama et al. disclose 1-20% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 8-9%).
Regarding claim 5, Murayama et al. disclose 1-10% Na2O (overlaps claimed 7-12%).
Regarding claim 6, Murayama et al. disclose 0.5-10% K2O (overlaps claimed 0.4-1%).
Regarding claim 7, Murayama et al. disclose 1-15% MgO (encompasses claimed 2.5-4%).
Regarding claim 8, Murayama et al. disclose 0.1-5% CaO (encompasses claimed 1.5-3%).
Regarding claim 13, Murayama et al. disclose a method comprising chemically strengthening the glass by immersion in sodium nitrate at 450C and immersion in potassium nitrate at 450C for ion exchange to form a surface compressive layer to a depth of 70-200 um [0127]-[0151] and disclose glass comprising in mol%:
45-75% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 58-70%)
1-30% Al2O3 (encompasses claimed 12-20%)
0-6% P2O5 (encompasses claimed 0-4%)
0-6% B2O3 (encompassed by claimed 0-8%)
1-20% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 6-12%)
1-10% Na2O (overlaps claimed 4-12%)
0.5-10% K2O (overlaps claimed 0.4-3%)
1-15% MgO (encompasses claimed 2-6%)
0.1-5% CaO (overlaps claimed 1-4%)
0.1-3% SrO (encompassed by claimed 0-3%)
0.1-3% ZnO (encompassed by claimed 0-5%)
0-5% ZrO2 (encompasses claimed 0-1%) [0079]-[0103].
The component mol%s of the glass of Murayama et al. either encompass, overlap or are encompassed by the component mol%s of the claimed glass, thus prima face obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Murayama et al. disclose a chemically strengthened glass comprising compressive stress layer and made from composition comprising in mol%:
45-75% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 56-70%)
1-30% Al2O3 (encompasses claimed 12-20%)
0-6% P2O5 (encompasses claimed 0-4%)
0-6% B2O3 (encompassed by claimed 0-8%)
1-20% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 6-12%)
1-10% Na2O (overlaps claimed 4-12%)
0.5-10% K2O (overlaps claimed 0.4-3%)
1-15% MgO (encompasses claimed 2-6%)
0.1-5% CaO (overlaps claimed 1-4%)
0.1-3% SrO (encompassed by claimed 0-3%)
0.1-3% ZnO (encompassed by claimed 0-5%)
0-5% ZrO2 (encompasses claimed 0-1%) [0079]-[0103].
The component mol%s of the glass of Murayama et al. either encompass, overlap or are encompassed by the component mol%s of the claimed glass, thus prima face obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Murayama et al. disclose a Young’s modulus of the glass of 80-110 GPa (encompasses claimed 80-90 GPa).
Regarding claim 14, Murayama et al. do not teach fracture toughness of the glass
Hu et al. teach that glass-based articles with compression stress layer may exhibit fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the glass of Murayama et al. with a fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ), as taught by Hu et al. to provide the glass-based article made therefrom with compression stress layer exhibiting the fracture toughness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how to modify the formulation of the glass without undue experimentation to arrive at a glass article having the desired Young’s modulus and fracture toughness as taught by the references as combined.
Regarding claim 15, Murayama et al. disclose a surface compressive stress value of 800-1500 MPa [0132] (encompassed by claimed 400-2000 MPa).
Regarding claim 20, Murayama et al. disclose using the chemically strengthened glass to make a cover glass for a mobile apparatus such as smartphone or display device [0153]. Such devices inherently have a housing, electrical components provided within the housing and a cover substrate.
Claims 1-8, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi US 2022/0139424 (effectively filed 2/25/2019) in view of Hu et al US 2016/0102011.
Regarding claim 1, Sakaguchi disclose a glass comprising in mol%:
53-67% SiO2 (overlaps claimed 58-70%)
10-19% Al2O3 (overlaps claimed 12-20%)
0% P2O5 (encompasses claimed 0-4%)
0% B2O3 (encompassed by claimed 0-8%)
5-12% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 6-12%)
5-12% Na2O (encompassed by claimed 4-12%)
0-3% K2O (encompasses claimed 0.4-3%)
2-4% MgO (encompassed by claimed 2-6%)
4-12% CaO (overlaps claimed 1-4%)
0% SrO (encompassed by claimed 0-3%)
0% ZnO (encompassed by claimed 0-5%)
0% ZrO2 (encompassed by claimed 0-1%) (claim 3).
The component mol%s of the glass of Sakaguchi either encompass, overlap or are encompassed by the component mol%s of the claimed glass, thus prima face obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 1, Sakaguchi disclose a Young’s modulus of the glass of 85 or more [0061] (encompasses claimed 80-90 GPa).
Regarding claim 1, Sakaguchi does not teach fracture toughness of the glass
Hu et al. teach that glass-based articles with compression stress layer may exhibit fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the glass of Sakaguchi with a fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ), as taught by Hu et al. to provide the glass-based article made therefrom with compression stress layer exhibiting the fracture toughness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how to modify the formulation of the glass without undue experimentation to arrive at a glass having the desired Young’s modulus and fracture toughness as taught by the references as combined.
Regarding claim 2, Sakaguchi disclose 53-67% SiO2 (encompasses claimed 60-64%).
Regarding claim 3, Sakaguchi disclose 10-19% Al2O3 (encompasses claimed 14-16%).
Regarding claim 4, Sakaguchi disclose 5-12% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 8-9%).
Regarding claim 5, Sakaguchi disclose 5-12% Na2O (overlaps claimed 7-12%).
Regarding claim 6, Sakaguchi disclose 0-3% K2O (overlaps claimed 0.4-1%).
Regarding claim 7, Sakaguchi disclose 2-4% MgO (encompasses claimed 2.5-4%).
Regarding claim 8, Sakaguchi disclose 3-15% CaO (overlaps by claimed 1-3%).
Regarding claim 13, Sakaguchi disclose a method comprising chemically strengthening the glass by immersion in molten salt at 4560-500C for ion exchange to form compressive stress in the surface of the glass [0067].
Regarding claim 14, Sakaguchi. disclose a chemically strengthened glass comprising compressive stress layer and made from composition comprising in mol%:
53-67% SiO2 (overlaps claimed 56-70%)
10-19% Al2O3 (overlaps claimed 12-20%)
0% P2O5 (encompasses claimed 0-4%)
0% B2O3 (encompassed by claimed 0-8%)
5-12% LiO2 (encompasses claimed 6-12%)
5-12% Na2O (encompassed by claimed 4-12%)
0-3% K2O (encompasses claimed 0.4-3%)
2-4% MgO (encompassed by claimed 2-6%)
4-12% CaO (overlaps claimed 1-4%)
0% SrO (encompassed by claimed 0-3%)
0% ZnO (encompassed by claimed 0-5%)
0% ZrO2 (encompassed by claimed 0-1%) (claim 3).
The component mol%s of the glass of Sakaguchi either encompass, overlap or are encompassed by the component mol%s of the claimed glass, thus prima face obviousness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Sakaguchi disclose a Young’s modulus of the glass of 85 or more [0061] (encompasses claimed 80-90 GPa).
Regarding claim 14, Sakaguchi does not teach fracture toughness of the glass
Hu et al. teach that glass-based articles with compression stress layer may exhibit fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the glass of Sakaguchi with a fracture toughness of about 0.7 to about 1 MPa.m1/2 [0111] (encompasses claimed 0.75-0.9 MPa.m1/2 ), as taught by Hu et al. to provide the glass-based article made therefrom with compression stress layer exhibiting the fracture toughness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how to modify the formulation of the glass without undue experimentation to arrive at a glass article having the desired Young’s modulus and fracture toughness as taught by the references as combined.
Regarding claim 20, Sakaguchi disclose using the chemically strengthened glass to make a cover glass for displays and solar cells [0068]. Such devices inherently have a housing, electrical components provided within the housing and a cover substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has failed to provide specific, concrete evidence to show that a glass having a composition within the ranges disclosed by DeMartino would have "a Young's modulus greater than 80 GPa to less than or equal to 90 GPa" as recited in independent claims 1 and 14 and, thus, has failed to establish inherency. In rejecting claim 12, the Office has failed to provide evidence that a glass having a composition within the ranges of paragraphs [0147]-[0158] or the Examples of DeMartino would have the properties of the claimed glass. Indeed, DeMartino fails to disclose the Young's modulus range on which the rejection of claim 12 is based on. In addition, the Examples in DeMartino only range from 68.1 GPa to 78.74 GPa. Thus, the Office has not provided any evidence that a glass having a composition within the ranges or Examples of DeMartino has a Young's modulus greater than 80 MPa. As such, the Office has not shown that Young's modulus is an inherent characteristic that necessarily flows from the teachings of DeMartino.
Applicant’s arguments are not convincing. A position if inherency has not been taken. Applicant is correct that DeMartino et al. does not disclose a Young’s modulus range of 80-110 GPa, however it does disclose a Young’s modulus of at least 70 GPa in [0171] with some embodiments up to 80 GPa. Thus DeMartino et al. does not limit the Young’s modulus to up to 80 GPa even if all the examples are less than 80 GPa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to formulate the composition to result in any Young’s modulus taught by DeMartino (or the other applied references) as suitable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN C MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights