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Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momono et al. (US 2016/0355434).
Regarding claim 1, Momono discloses a high-strength crystallized glass comprising, in terms of mol % on an oxide basis: an SiO2 component of 30.0% or more and 70.0% or less, an Al2O3 component of 8.0% or more and 25.0%, an Na2O component of 0% or more and 25.0% or less, an MgO component of 0% or more and 25.0% or less, a ZnO component of 0% or more and 30.0% or less and a TiO2 component of 0% or more and 10.0% or less, the molar ratio [Al2O3/(MgO+ZnO)] having a value of 0.5 or more and 2.0 or less, and an Li2O component of 0% or more and 10.0% or less, which overlaps the claimed ranges, see abstract and [0014-0039]. Note that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Additionally, the reference discloses that a compressive stress layer of 8 microns or more, which overlaps the claimed DOLzero, can be formed by performing ion exchange treatment for chemical strengthening, which corresponds to reinforced [0122-0123]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 2, the reference discloses an MgO component of 0% or more and 25.0% or less, a ZnO component of 0% or more and 30.0% or less, which renders obvious the claimed total content; see abstract and MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses that the crystallized glass comprises, in terms of mol % on an oxide basis: a B2O3 component of 0% or more and 25.0% or less, a P2O5 component of 0% or more and 10.0% or less, a K2O component of 0% or more and 20.0% or less, a CaO component of 0% or more and 10.0% or less, a BaO component of 0% or more and 10.0% or less, an FeO component of 0% or more and 8% or less, a ZrO2 component of 0% or more and 10.0% or less, and an SnO2 component of 0% or more and 5.0% or less [0029-0037].
Regarding claim 4, the reference discloses that the crystallized glass comprises, in terms of mol % on an oxide basis: an SrO component of 0% or more and 10.0% or less, an La2O3 component of 0% or more and 3% or less, Y2O3 component of 0% or more and 3% or less, an Nb2O5 component of 0% or more and 5% or less, a Ta2O5 component of 0% or more and 5% or less, and a WO3 component of 0% or more and 5% or less [0038-0045].
Regarding claim 5, the reference discloses that the crystallized glass comprises, in terms of mol % on an oxide basis, a B2O3 component of 0% or more and 25.0% [0030].
Regarding claim 6, the reference discloses that the crystallized glass comprises, in terms of mol % on an oxide basis: an Na2O component of 0% or more and 25.0% or less and a TiO2 component of 0% or more and 10.0% or less, which renders obvious the claimed ratio [0017 & 0020]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 7, the reference discloses the compressive stress value of a compressive stress layer is 800 MPa or more [0122].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present invention differs fundamentally from the cited art because the present invention improves resistance to breakage when the glass is dropped onto a rough surface by utilizing a predetermined amount of Li-2O in combination with specific chemical strengthening conditions. Specially, Applicant notes that the present invention contains a specific composition used as a base material and a compressive stress layer is formed on its surface. Resistance to breakage of the glass is enhanced by performing a two-stage chemical strengthening. According to Applicant, using a composition containing the claimed amount of Li2O and subjecting the glass to a two-stage chemical strengthening process under specific condition, results in average drop heights greater than comparative examples with small amount of Li2O strengthened under different conditions, see Applicant’s examples and comparative examples. Applicant further argues that Monomo does not disclose the claimed amount of Li2O and does not provide any technical reasoning for using the claimed amount with the predetermined chemical strengthening conditions to yield a glass highly resistant to breakage. As such, Applicant concludes that independent claim 1 is patentable over the cited reference under 35 U.S.C. 103. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above and previously, Momono discloses a high strength crystallized glass comprising Li2O from 0 or more and 10% or less [0014-0039]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Note that Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing criticality of the claimed range, generally by showing unexpected results achieved to the prior art range; see MPEP 2144.05 III A.
In order to show criticality of the claimed range, "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims"; see MPEP 716.02(d). The examples cited from Applicant’s specification are for glass compositions containing specific metal oxides (e.g. K2O and ZrO2), for a glass made using a specific method, all of which are not claimed. Given the claims do not include these limitations, Applicant’s argument of criticality based on the inventive examples in Table 1 is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Additionally, Examiner notes that Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range, see MPEP 716.02(c)(II). Further, Applicant must show the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage, see MPEP 716.02(a). In the instant case, the inventive examples do not contain Li2O in the upper amount of the claimed range. The comparative examples provide results for values of Li2O lower than the claimed range, but nothing above the claimed range.
Lastly, any assertion of unexpected results must be compared with the closest prior art, see MPEP 716.02(e). Applicant has failed to provide a comparison between the claimed range and the closest prior art. While Applicant argues the prima facie case of obviousness regarding the claimed ranges is overcome by establishing criticality of the claimed ranges, Applicant has failed to provide a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed ranges, the evidence of nonobviousness is not commensurate in scope with the claims and there is no comparison to the closest prior art.
For the above reasons, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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