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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. In the final rejection, the Office action did not include a rejection for claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant once again argues that Gorman does not reach the temperature range of the instant claim. This was addressed with the inclusion of the Coen reference, wherein Coen teaches the narrower temperature range than Gorman that falls within the instant claim (Col. 19 Line 50-Col. 20 Line 29).
Applicant argues the temperature discrepancy between the 3 references. The Examiner would like to point out that the instant claim refers to a temperature range around a temperature that is reflective of a viscosity of glass (wherein glass is a known viscoelastic material dependent on temperature). There is no express glass composition in the instant claim. The attorney arguments are conflating anticipation with obviousness. There is no requirement that the compositions or temperatures be consistent amongst the combination of references; rather, only one reference of the compatible relevant reference needs to read on the instant claim.
Applicant argues that the Pan reference seeks to avoid microcracks during manufacturing and not for classic tempering process. The Examiner agrees that Pan seeks to avoid microcracks; the Examiner is confused by the argument for the latter. Pan teaches 4 main steps (Line 54-64) which includes S1 melt/molding a glass blank, S2 heating the molded blank, S3 quenching the molded blank to obtain a tempered glass article, and S4 additional coating step. Classic tempering only requires heating and quenching. Pan deliberately teaches that microcracks are commonly generated from the heating and cooling of the tempering process and their process reduces the cracks that would form thereof (Line 131-132). The induction of stresses is evident by the high strength/impact resistance property of their product (Line 35-36, 60) wherein the inducted stress is taught (Line 93-96). Thus, Pan is a relevant glass tempering reference in the same field of endeavor as Gorman and Coen.
Applicant argues that Pan is incompatible because Pan operates at a lower temperature. Pan is relevant as teaching tempering glass wherein the temperature difference and time are both taught; the combination relies on the contact time. A skilled artisan understands that the heat flux to quickly cool the heated glass article is limited by the heat capacity of the liquid cooling agent. The composition or the specific heat capacity of the liquid cooling agent is not claimed. The instant claim requires the contact time which Pan expressly teaches. Additionally, the claim only requires a difference between the primary temperature of the glass body and the cooling agent temperature;, the softening point of the glass material is dependent on the composition of the glass and can vary widely. The argument is not persuasive. The breadth of the claims are read by the combination of prior art.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “the Littleton softening point of the glass material”. It is well understood to a skilled artisan that the Littleton Softening Point is the temperature/viscosity at which the glass deforms under its own weight: 10^7.6 Poise.
Claim 23 recites “a regeneration material” which is given a broad definition according to PGPUB [0035-41]. It is advised that the instant claim further define the regeneration material.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US-3802860-A) and further in view of Coen et al (US-3973942-A) and Pan et al (CN-108675634-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Gorman teaches a method for producing a glass article characterized by steps producing a glass body from a glass material (Col. 9 Line 29-33), and contacting the glass body at a primary temperature of the Littleton softening point of the glass material (Col. 4 Line 7-17; wherein “107.6 poises” in the reference should be 10^7.6 poise which is the defined viscosity of the Littleton softening point known by a skilled artisan) with a liquid cooling agent (Col. 4 Line 18-20) which exhibits a cooling temperature (Col. 9 Line 5-24).
Gorman teaches of a working example in which the glass body is heated to 1230°F (665°C) and contacts the liquid cooling agent at 400°F (204°C; Col. 12 Example 8). There is a 460 kelvin difference between the primary temperature and cooling agent temperature which falls within the broader range stated in claim 1. Gorman teaches of heating near the softening point (Col. 4 Line 7-9) but not expressly above the softening point (Col. 12 Line 65-67). In related quenching of glass art with liquid cooling agent (Col. 8 Line 39-55), Coen teaches contacting the glass body at a primary around the Littleton softening point of the glass material (Col. 19 Line 50-Col. 20 Line 29, wherein the surface temperature of the glass is in the range of 108-6.2 poise, reading on the primary temperature) with a liquid cooling agent (Col. 19 Line 50-Col. 20 Line 29, cooling oil/cooling liquid) at a cooling agent temperature (Col. 21 Line 21-25; 150-270°C). In Coen’s working examples, the primary temperature ranges from 600-800°C (Col. 19 Line 50-Col. 20 Line 29, wherein the viscosity range falls within the Littleton softening point). Using the upper end of the cooling agent temperature, Coen teaches the cooling agent temperature to be 330-530 kelvin below the primary temperature. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process temperature of Gorman’s glass body to the workable range above the Littleton softening point and the liquid cooling agent at a cooling agent temperature which lies in the known workable range for quenching glass while not deforming the shape of the glass article and determine the stress desired to be induced in the glass article (Col. 8 Line 26-55).
Gorman teaches the glass body to be immersed for 15-30 seconds (Col. 12 Example 8). Gorman does not expressly teach the glass body contacts the liquid cooling agent for more than five minutes. In related quenching of glass art with liquid cooling agent (Line 153-171). Pan teaches their glass body that is heated to an elevated temperature contacts a liquid cooling agent at a cooling agent temperature that overlaps in range with modified Gorman for contact of 3-10 minutes (Line 170). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the contact time between the glass body and the liquid cooling agent to uniformly cool and distribute the compressive stress of the glass body (Line 93-96).
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, modified Gorman relies on the temperature parameters taught by Coen: Coen teaches that the contacting step causes the surface temperature to drop 200 kelvin in the first few milli-seconds (Col. 8 Line 30-34); however, in the working examples, Coen teaches that the surface temperature of the blank is cooled to a surface viscosity of at least 1012.5 poise and removed within 5 seconds of immersion (Col. 20 Line 23-29). Coen teaches a cooling rate, wherein the implied cooling rate from the cited first excerpt is very high and the implied cooling rate from the cited second excerpt is low compared to the instant claim. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 3, depending from claim 1, modified Gorman relies on the temperature parameters taught by Coen: Coen is clear that the surface temperature of the glass body is in the range of 108-6.2 poise (Col. 19 Line 50-Col. 20 Line 29) wherein a skilled artisan understands that the Littleton softening point is the temperature/viscosity at which the glass body has a viscosity of 107.6 poise. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Coen reads on the instant claim limitation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 4-5, depending from claim 1, Gorman is silent regarding the melting of the glass body for the purpose of producing a glass body. Coen teaches that the glass body is produced from a melt of the glass material (Col. 8 Line 7-14) and in a first cooling process is cooled outside the cooling bath until the primary temperature is reached and then immediately thereafter is contacted with the liquid cooling agent (Col. 19 Line 50-65). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the glass body from a melt prior to the processing step of modified Gorman. Similarly, Pan teaches of melting glass to be shaped and chilling the glass body in a furnace (Line 141-157).
Regarding claim 6, depending from claim 5, Gorman does not expressly how the glass body is heated to the primary temperature. In related quenching of glass art with liquid cooling agent (Line 153-171). Pan teaches of heating the glass body in a furnace prior to contact with the liquid cooling agent (Line 149-157). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transfer the glass body to a furnace/kiln as known means in the art to modify the temperature of a glass body.
Regarding claim 7-8, depending from claim 6, modified Gorman relies on the temperature parameters taught by Coen: Coen is clear that the surface temperature of the glass body is in the range of 108-6.2 poise (Col. 19 Line 50-Col. 20 Line 29) wherein a skilled artisan understands that the Littleton softening point is the temperature/viscosity at which the glass body has a viscosity of 107.6 poise. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Coen reads on the instant claim limitation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 15, depending from claim 1, Gorman teaches the contacting takes place by immersion of the glass article in a cooling bath which contains the cooling agent (Col. 8 Line 53-56).
Regarding claim 17, depending from claim 1, Gorman teaches the liquid cooling agent contains an oil. (Col. 7 Line 58-67). Coen teaches that the liquid cooling agent contain an oil and/or salt melt (Col. 3 Line 49-53). Pan teaches that the liquid cooling agent is an oil (Line 164-171). Thus, proving the compatibility of the references.
Regarding claim 18, depending from claim 1, Gorman teaches of using soda-lime-silica glass and borosilicate glass (Col. 5 Line 42-50; Col. 9 Line 30-32; Col. 10 Example 10). Coen also teaches their glass is soda-lime-silica glass (Col. 19 Line 50-52) which contains alkali metal, alkaline earth metal, and silicate.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US-3802860-A), Coen et al (US-3973942-A), and Pan et al (CN-108675634-A) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Li (CN-109678329-A, English translation provided by Espacenet) and Littleton et al (US-2347116-A).
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 6, Gorman teaches the glass body can be a glass sheets (Col. 10 Line 41-44). Modified Gorman incorporates the kiln heating of Pan which teaches a heating rate and time of 5-10 minutes (Line 153-157). Modified Gorman does not expressly teach the amount of time the glass body remains in the kiln in the instantly claimed range. In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches of heating glass in a kiln before quenching (Line 63-68) wherein the glass remains in the kiln for 40 seconds per millimeter of thickness. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known processing parameters such as the time to place the glass body in the kiln relative to its thickness as taught by Li and used in a similar quenching method.
Modified Gorman with Pan teaches that the longer contact times is suitable for glass bodies with complicated shaped (Line 92-94). Modified Gorman does not expressly teach that the glass body is a hollow body. In the same field of endeavor, Littleton teaches of heating a hollow glass article near the softening point (p. 3 Right Line 49-52) contacting a hollow glass body with a liquid cooling agent (p. 1 Right Line 10-15; p. 2 Left Line 20-23) that has a wall thickness (p. 2 Right Line 8-11). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Gorman to accommodate a glass body that is a hollow body having a wall thickness and use the processing parameters as taught by Li as familiar elements within the art. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the time per thickness that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US-3802860-A), Coen et al (US-3973942-A), and Pan et al (CN-108675634-A) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Li (CN-109678329-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 6, Gorman teaches the glass body can be a glass sheets (Col. 10 Line 41-44), reading on a flat embodiment. Modified Gorman incorporates the kiln heating of Pan which teaches a heating rate and time of 5-10 minutes (Line 153-157). Modified Gorman does not expressly teach the amount of time the glass body remains in the kiln in the instantly claimed range or is based on wall thickness. In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches of heating glass in a kiln before quenching (Line 63-68) wherein the glass remains in the kiln for 40 seconds per millimeter of thickness. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known processing parameters such as the time to place the glass body in the kiln relative to its thickness as taught by Li and used in a similar quenching method.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the time per thickness that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US-3802860-A), Coen et al (US-3973942-A), and Pan et al (CN-108675634-A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yu et al (CN-106630567-A, English translation provided by Espacenet).
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 5, Gorman does not expressly how the glass body is heated to the primary temperature, such as in a multistage/two-stage process. In related thermal tempering of glass art, Yu teaches a method of a multistage heating process to temper glass (Line 54-61). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the glass body in a multistage process to avoid warping of the glass to ensure flatness (Line 91-99).
Regarding claim 12, depending from claim 11, Yu teaches a first temperature and first heating rate (Line 68-74) prior to heating to the primary temperature at a second heating rate that is above the first heating rate (Line 76-78).
Regarding claim 13, depending from claim 11, Yu teaches of heating the glass body at a first kiln temperature and thereafter to a second kiln temperature which is higher than the first kiln temperature (Line 123-134).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US-3802860-A), Coen et al (US-3973942-A), Pan et al (CN-108675634-A), and Yu et al (CN-106630567-A) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lezzi et al (WO-2017019840-A1).
Regarding claim 14, depending from claim 13, Yu teaches the second kiln temperature is held for 10 minutes (Line 76-78) which is outside of the instantly claimed range. In the same field of endeavor, Lezzi teaches of a two-step/temperature heating wherein the second kiln temperature is held for 60 seconds [00213]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the temperature and time for the heating step can be modified since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US-3802860-A), Coen et al (US-3973942-A), and Pan et al (CN-108675634-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chisholm (US-3701266-A).
Regarding claim 16, depending from claim 1, Gorman teaches in the prior art of spray quenching (Col. 1 Line 46-57) but does not utilize this technique for their method. In related tempering glass art, Chisholm teaches of spraying softened glass with a liquid cooling agent (Col. 7 Line 12-18). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the contacting take place by spraying with the cooling agent as a known technique in the prior art.
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US-3802860-A), Coen et al (US-3973942-A), and Pan et al (CN-108675634-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seto (US-20160194239-A1).
Regarding claims 19-22, depending from claim 1, Gorman teaches of using soda-lime-silica glass (Col. 5 Line 42-50; Col. 9 Line 30-32) which contains alkali metal, alkaline earth metal, and silicate. Gorman does not expressly teach the compositional range of the glass used in their process. In related thermally tempered glass composition art [0073], Seto teaches of silicon dioxide [0014], alkali metal oxide [0033], potassium oxide [0033], and boron trioxide [0016] that falls within the instantly claimed range. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known glass composition that is capable of being thermally tempered is compatible with the instantly claimed method.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman (US-3802860-A), Coen et al (US-3973942-A), and Pan et al (CN-108675634-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leger et al (GB-1218093-A).
Regarding claim 23, depending from claim 1, Gorman teaches of a multilayer oil bath of varying compositions for their liquid cooling agent (Col. 8 Line 53-Col. 9 Line 2). Coen teaches their liquid cooling agent comprises potassium salts (Col. 3 Line 49-53). Modified Gorman does not expressly teach of regeneration material in contact with the liquid cooling agent progressively or at time intervals. In related tempering glass art (p. 1), Leger teaches of providing regeneration material progressively or at time intervals (p. 3 Left column Line 57-Right column 84) for regenerating potassium ions (p. 4 right column Line 74-90). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gorman so that the liquid cooling agent contain potassium salt that is known to strengthen glass (Leger p. 5 left column Line 5-12) and a known regeneration material to replenish potassium ions to the liquid (p. 4 right column Line 80-90).
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Office Action dated 12/31/2025 for previously cited but not relied upon art
US-20200255317-A1 teaches the primary temperature
CN-108555725-A teaches the 5 minute contact time for their thick glass embodiment
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights