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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Note that claim 13 recites 5-10% Al2O3. However, as claim 1 form which the claim depends requires the glass to have 14.8-25% Al2O3, it is unclear how the glass can now only include 5-10%.
For examination, the Examiner is considering the 5-10% Al2O3 range to be merely an oversight on Applicants part wherein it was inadvertently not removed upon the amendment of claim 1 and for the sake of applying prior art, claim 13 will just be combined with the rejection of claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da (US Pub 20200109079).
Regarding claims 1 and 15: Da teaches a chemically tempered glass having a plate shape (see for instance, abstract, Figures, Examples).
The tempered glass comprises a compressive stress layer on a surface (0012-0014, Examples, Table 3), a tensile stress layer on an inner side in a thickness direction with respect to the compressive stress layer (0026, 0104, 0109, Examples, Table 3).
The tempered glass is thin having a thickness t1 (title, abstract, 0050, Examples, Table 3) and is flexible (bendable) (title).
The glass has a thickness t1 of 5-100micron, 5-80micron, etc. (0050) with Example thicknesses being that such as 0.05mm (50micron) (see for instance, 0167, Example 1 in Table 3).
The depth of the compression stress layer (DOL in Da corresponds to the claimed DOC) can be as follows (0103, t in μm, CS= compressive stress in MPa)
DOC= 1μm to 90*t/CS μm
Given that it was discussed above that the glass t= 5-100 μm, 5-80 μm, etc. of even 50 μm and Da teaches that their glass CS can be 500-1200MPa, 600-1200MPa, etc. (0100), Da’s teaching allows for DOCs overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05). For instance, but not limited to, a t of 50 μm with a CS of 800MPa will provide for DOC being 1 μm to 5.63 μm
Da’s tempered glass can have the following composition (0063).
PNG
media_image1.png
144
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Initially note that the above ranges allow for the glass to have 0% alkaline metal oxides, 0% TiO2+ZrO2 as well as 0% P2O5 as follows.
SiO2
40-75
Al2O3
10-30
B2O3
0-20
Li2O+Na2O+K2O
4-30
MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO+ZnO
0
TiO2+ZrO2
0
P2O5
0
Additionally note that Da teaches that the Li2O can be at most 5wt% or even free of Li2O (0wt%) (0056), the Na2O is 4-30wt% (0057) and the K2O can be at most 10wt% or even free of K2O (0%) (0057). This will provide for the following.
SiO2
40-75
Al2O3
10-30
B2O3
0-20
Li2O (0-5)+Na2O(4-30)+K2O(0-10)
4-30
MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO+ZnO
0
TiO2+ZrO2
0
P2O5
0
Note that while the taught composition is in wt%, it allows for compositions in mol% overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05). For instance, but not limited to, see below.
Wt% ranges
Allows for compositions such as (in wt%)
Converted to mol% (approx.)
SiO2
40-75
63
70.1
Al2O3
10-30
23
15.1
B2O3
0-20
2
1.9
Li2O (0-5)+Na2O(4-30)+K2O(0-10)
4-30
Li2O (0), Na2O (12), K2O (0)
12.9
MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO+ZnO
0
0
0
TiO2+ZrO2
0
0
0
P2O5
0
0
0
Regarding claim 2: As discussed above, the glass has a thickness t1 of 5-100micron, 5-80micron, etc. (0050) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05) with Example thicknesses being that such as 0.05mm (50micron) (see for instance, 0167, Example 1 in Table 3) falling within the range claimed.
The glass CS can be 500-1200MPa, 600-1200MPa, etc. (0100) falling within the range claimed.
The depth of the compression stress layer (DOL in Da corresponds to the claimed DOC) can be as follows (0103, t in μm, CS= compressive stress in MPa)
DOC= 1μm to 90*t/CS μm
Given that it was discussed above that the glass t= 5-100 μm, 5-80 μm, etc. of even 50 μm and Da teaches that their glass CS can be 500-1200MPa, 600-1200MPa, etc. (0100), Da’s teaching allows for DOCs overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05). For instance, but not limited to, a t of 50 μm with a CS of 800MPa will provide for DOC being 1 μm to 5.63 μm
Regarding claim 4: The maximum tensile stress CT of the tensile stress layer in the thin glass can be 100MPa or less, 65MPa or less, etc. (0109).
Regarding claim 5: Note that Da’s t1 ranges above along with the DOCs obtained following Da’s formula allow for ratios overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05). However, it is additionally noted that Da clearly provide suggestion and motivation by way of the Examples to obtain ratios as claimed (see for instance Example 1 has a thickness of 50micron with a DOL of 4 micron).
Regarding claim 6: Regarding the claimed features of the tensile stress layer having a first region extending from the DOC to a DCT region in which the tensile stress varies in the thickness direction and a second region extending from the DCT region in which the tensile stress is constant in the thickness, it is initially noted that in chemical tempering, as is done by Da, the claimed features would be implicit as it is well understood that compressive stress decreases until it reaches the DOL (i.e. CS=0MPa, CT=0MPa) at which point, the stress turns to tensile stress which becomes increasingly negative (first region) until a point in which it becomes constant (second region). For example, and provided solely as evidence, see the following Figure from USPUb20170305786 illustrating the general conceptual knowledge in the art for glass undergoing ion exchange.
PNG
media_image2.png
440
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As such, the first and second region features claimed would be expected in Da.
Regarding the depth of such a DCT as claimed, Applicants’ specification calculates DCT depth as DCT=(CS+CT)/(CS/DOC) (see specification par 0041).
In the instant case, given Da’s CS=500-1200MPa, 600-1200MPa, etc., Da’s CT=100MPa or less, 65MPa or less, etc., the DOCs allowed for following Da’s above formula, and Da’s t1=5-100micron, 5-80micron, etc., Da would allow for relationships of
DCT/t1 overlapping the requirement claims (MPEP 2144.05).
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue against any of the above, Da’s tempered glass meets the CS layer, tensile stress layer, glass thickness, DOC and CS/DOC requirements of claim 1. Additionally, Da’s glass is made with a composition overlapping Applicants’ and even has CT, DOC/t1 and CS properties and relationships either falling within and/or overlapping Applicants’ as described previously. Further, Applicants’ tempered glasses are made by chemical tempering glass with a NaNO3, KNO3 or LiNO3, each used or a combination (see Applicants’ specification par 0076) at a temperature of 350-500oC for a duration of 3-300minutes (see Applicants’ specification par 0077). Da’s tempered glasses are similarly made by tempering glass with ions such as NaNO3 and/or KNO3 (0095, 0097, 0158-0159) at temperatures and durations meeting that of Applicants’ (0014, 0149, see Table 3). Given the similarities of Da with that of Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same tensile stress layer first and second region features, DCT and relationship claimed to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 9: Da’s entire tempered glass is thin with the above-mentioned thickness. Given that Da never discloses/mentions the thickness being varied, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the thickness to be substantially uniform.
Regarding claims 10, 12 and 13: As discussed above, Da’s glass can have a composition overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Wt% ranges
Allows for compositions such as (in wt%)
Converted to mol% (approx.)
SiO2
40-75
63
70.1
Al2O3
10-30
23
15.1
B2O3
0-20
2
1.9
Li2O (0-5)+Na2O(4-30)+K2O(0-10)
4-30
Li2O (0), Na2O (12), K2O (0)
12.9
MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO+ZnO
0
0
0
TiO2+ZrO2
0
0
0
P2O5
0
0
0
Regarding claim 11: Da’s glass composition also allows for overlap with that of claim 11 (MPEP 2144.05). For instance, see below.
Wt% ranges
Allows for compositions such as (in wt%)
Converted to mol% (approx.)
SiO2
40-75
63
70.5
Al2O3
10-30
25
16.5
B2O3
0-20
0
0
Li2O (0-5)+Na2O(4-30)+K2O(0-10)
4-30
Li2O (0), Na2O (12), K2O (0)
13
MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO+ZnO
0
0
0
TiO2+ZrO2
0
0
0
P2O5
0
0
0
Regarding claim 14: Given that Da explicitly teaches that glasses of their invention can have the edge surfaces etched for increased strength (see 0007, 0037) or alternatively, the thin glass can be produced by etching from a thicker glass (see 0093), one skilled in the art would conclude Da to be teaching with sufficient specificity an entire surface of the glass being an etched surface, or at the very least, render it obvious.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da (USPub20200109079) as applied to claim 1 and 15 above in view of either one of (USPub20110165393) or (USPN10843960).
Regarding claims 16 and 17: Da’s glasses do comprise front and back surfaces (note this is implicit as they are planar glass sheets, see entire disclosure) and as previously discussed, Da does teach or at the very least render obvious etching for increased strength or during manufacture of making thick glass thin.
Further, it is noted simply for clarity of record that Da teaches that etching can be that in which the thin glass is produced by etching from a thicker glass which would necessarily have to involve etching from at least one of the front or back surfaces as the etching is being done in the thickness direction (going from thick to thin glass).
While Da may not explicitly mention etching of both the front and back surfaces, it is initially noted that Da does not exclude this and instead, only generally teaches chemically strengthened glasses.
As ‘393 and ‘960, both from the same field of endeavor of chemically strengthened glasses, teach that both front and back surfaces can be etched for improved impact resistance (see 0027-0030 in ‘393) or for slimming (see abstract and entire disclosure in ‘960), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Da to include etching both front and back surfaces for improved impact resistance or slimming.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 28, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights