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The rejection of claims 1, 8-9, 13-15 and 22-25 are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 02/10/2026.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 11-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (JPS56-50145) as cited in the Machine translation provided by Applicant 01/07/2026 and Bernard et al. (US 20200171478)
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 15, Miyata discloses a method for strengthening glass [0001].
Miyata discloses heating the glass in an electric furnace (page 2/3 ¶2 in the translation provided by Applicant)
Rapidly cooling, considered equivalent to shock cooling by contacting the glass with a mist of ion exchange mist (page 2/3 ¶2 in the translation provided by Applicant)
Ion exchanging for 1 minute to 30 minutes at a second temperature (page 3/3 ¶1 in the translation provided by Applicant).
Miyata fails to specify the type of alkali glass, In analogous art of Bernard, Bernard discloses exemplarily glass compositions for ion exchange include alkaline earth silicate, aluminosilicate and borosilicate glasses [0036]-[0037], thus it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use these ion exchangeable glasses in the method of Miyata known in the art as motivated to provide a glass suitable for ion exchange.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 7, the transition temperature of glass is when it begins to soften or exhibit viscoelastic properties, the softening point is when a glass is softened to a viscous flow state, typically around 107.6 poise for the Littleton softening point, and the strain point is when the glass becomes more rigid, typically around 1014.5 poise. Miyata does specify the glass heated above the softening point before quenching and tempering (page 2/3 ¶1 in the translation provided by Applicant) however does not state the precise temperature range.
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the heating of the glass above the transition temperature and softening temperature for the “first temperature” of claim 1 followed by the cooling step of claim 1 as motivated to achieve adequate thermal tempering. Absent any unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims this is simply optimization.
Regarding claim 5, Miyata discloses the glass is kept between the softening point and transition temperature followed by shock cooling directly after [0002] thus considered performed without delay as soon as the glass article has reached the first temperature, or in that the shock cooling is performed with a delay of not more than one minute after the glass article has reached the first temperature given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 11-12, 14, and 16, Miyata discloses a cooling agent of liquid suspension by spraying ion-exchange thus larger ions for smaller ions into the glass [0002]
Regarding claim 15, Miyata discloses a cooling agent of liquid suspension by spraying ion-exchange thus larger ions for smaller ions into the glass [0002]
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 11-12, 14-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkeldey et al. (US 20170197870).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Finkeldey discloses a method for increasing the strength (title), comprising
Heating glass article comprising alkalis or alkaline metal ions thus produced from alkali/alkaline silicate glass [0019], [0109], [0206] to a first temperature which lies above the transition temperature of the glass material [0020], [0236]/[0238]
Shock cooling of the glass article to a second temperature which lies below the transition temperature of the glass material [0020],
the shock cooling taking place by contacting of the glass article with a cooling agent of gas in conventional thermal strengthening which has the second temperature [0093]-[0098],
and broadly suggests performing an ion exchange process after [0020] at a second temperature of 380-420 deg. Celsius for a period in the range from 10 minutes to an hour [0110] it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ion exchange within the range disclosed by Finkeldey which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 minutes to 45 minutes of claim 1 and 20-40 minutes of claim 20
Finkeldey describes the general thermal strengthening involves heating above the transition temperature and quenching to a desired temperature [0236]. Finkeldey discloses an embodiment in Table 19 the ion exchange liquid is applied to the glass at 390 deg Celsius at suggested 15-60 minutes to yield the ion exchange after the thermal exchange.
Finkeldey discusses it is obvious to carry out thermal strengthening followed by chemical strengthening [0020] and traditional thermal strengthening is carried out by rapidly cooling [0003].
It would be obvious to use the ion exchange medium as the cooling medium yielding the second temperature of the ion exchange to be the temperature of the ion exchange as well.
MPEP 2144.04 indicates
In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art
Thus it would additionally be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the teachings of Finkeldey for the thermal tempering and ion exchange to be continuous, yielding a more succinct process.
Regarding claim 2, Finkeldey discloses a first temperature which lies above the transition temperature of the glass material and about 100 deg. Celsius below the softening point [0020], [0236]-[0238].
the first temperature lies in a range from 100 kelvins to 300 kelvins above the transition temperature.
Finkeldey suggests a transition temperature of 550 deg. Celsius or 823.15 K thus the first temperature is 923.15 to 1123.15 K given the broadest reasonable interpretation this is the first temperature.
Regarding claim 3, Finkeldey suggests glasses with softening point of 728-995 deg. Celsius
Thus a softening temperature of 1001.15 K to 1268.15 K yielding a first temperature of 1051.15 to 1298.15 K which overlaps with a transition temperature of 550 deg. Celsius or 823.15 K thus the first temperature is 923.15 to 1123.15 K given the broadest reasonable interpretation this is the first temperature.
Regarding claim 5, Finkeldey discloses the glass is kept between the softening point and transition temperature followed by shock cooling directly after [0236] thus considered performed without delay as soon as the glass article has reached the first temperature, or in that the shock cooling is performed with a delay of not more than one minute after the glass article has reached the first temperature given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 6, Finkeldey discloses in that the glass article is transferred into a kiln for heating [0236].
Regarding claims 11-12, the rejection of claim 1 makes obvious cooling with the salt bath thus meeting the limitations of claims 11-12.
Regarding claims 14-17 and 19, the ion exchange process comprises exchanging sodium ions for potassium ions in a potassium nitrate [0004], [0023], [0255]. As indicated in the rejection of claim 1, using the exchange salt bath/ melt as the cooling agent means the cooling agent is the second temperature.
Regarding claim 18, Finkeldey discloses contacting of the glass article with the exchange agent takes place by immersion [0023], [0108] or by spraying [0110]. Spraying is considered sprinkling given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 21, Finkeldey suggests the glass material is a soda lime silica glass [0131] or potentially borosilicate glass [0175] and does not require an aluminosilicate glass also indicated in [0204].
Regarding claim 22, the glass material has an aluminum oxide fraction of less than 5% [0204]
Regarding claims 23-25, Finkeldey suggests the glass material in the embodiment of Example 6
a silicon dioxide fraction of 65.132 wt% thus within the claimed range of 58% - 85% percent
and
sodium oxide fraction of 11 wt% thus withing 5% to 20% by mass and no potassium oxide or boron oxide
PNG
media_image1.png
168
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
168
166
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant should note another variety of silicate glass compositions are recited in [0182]-[0208] and additional fining components may be included in any of the disclosed alkali silicates [0198] which overlap with the disclosed ranges of silica, alumina, lithium oxide, boron oxide,
Claim(s) 1-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littleton (US 2285595).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 11-20, Litttleton discloses a method for increasing the strength (title),
specifically alkali metal-alkaline earth metal silicate glass or borosilicate glass (Table I),
comprising heating of the glass article to a first temperature which lies above the transition temperature of the glass material (see softening point Table I and higher heating temperatures in Table II), (Page 1; Column 2; lines 1-2),
shock cooling of the glass article to a second temperature which lies below the transition temperature of the glass material which may involve the first or second or both cooling steps indicated by Littleton(Page 1; Column 2; lines 5-15), (page 3; Col 1; lines 65-75)
the shock cooling taking place by contacting of the glass article with a cooling agent, or chilling medium, which has the second temperature lower than the first temperature necessarily where at least Table II suggests ion exchange mediums of potassium as cooling mediums.
Littleton does not specifically indicate performing an ion exchange process at the second temperature for a period in the range from 15 minutes to 45 minutes however cooling a sodium ion containing glass (Table I) with potassium ion cooling mediums (Table II) necessarily causes the potassium ions to exchange with the sodium ions at the contact discussed in at least (Page 2; Column 2, lines 3-20 and 33-46) Littleton discloses the thermal strengthening chilling time is based on the glass thickness (Page 2 column 2; line 20-24) and (Page 2; col 2; lines 46-52)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the time of the applied potassium comprising cooling agent as motivated to cause both thermal strengthening and ion exchange strengthening based on the thickness of the glass and temperature of the cooling medium.
Regarding claims 2-4, and 10 and 13, Littleton discloses a glass that has
less than 5% Al2O3
58% - 85% SiO2
5% - 20% Na2O
at most 7% potassium oxide
less than 15% boron oxide
as overlapping with the disclosed ranges in Table I Compositions A, B, C, E, F of Littleton
as in the presently claimed and disclosed invention. As indicated above Littleton discloses thermally strengthening the glass which comprises cooling wherein the cooling medium may comprise an ion exchange material.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the heat temperature to approach the softening point, otherwise known around the transition point, as disclosed by Littleton (Page 4; col 1; line 8-10), and the cooling rate as motivated to thermally strengthen the glass as well as maintain a temperature to allow for ion exchange (Page 2; Column 2 3-20 and 33-46) , (Page 2 column 2; line 20-24) and (Page 2; col 2; lines 46-52).
Littleton discloses a glass with overlapping ranges of the presently disclosed glass the features of the temperatures and heating and cooling rates in claims 2-4 and 10 and 13 are mere optimization of the combined thermal tempering and ion exchange cooling taught by Littleton.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine.
there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of claimed “first temperature” “second temperature” and the heating and cooling rates and durations.
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In showing criticality of the different temperatures, rates, and or duration of ion exchange the critical results must be commensurate in scope with the claim Applicant is indicating critical.
Regarding claim 6, Littleton indicates the glass can be heated in air (Table II) the, heated air must be exerted from some containment considered a kiln given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 7, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the kiln or heating air be at the first temperature or higher as motivated to heat the glass to the first temperature.
Regarding claims 8-9, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heating time based on the thickness of the article as motivated to heat the entirety of the article throughout the thickness. The glass may be a hollow cup (Col 2; line 1)
Regarding claims 21-26, Littleton discloses a glass that is not aluminosilicate, has
less than 5% Al2O3
58% - 85% SiO2
5% - 20% Na2O
at most 7% potassium oxide
less than 15% boron oxide
as overlapping with the disclosed ranges in Table I Compositions A, B, C, E, F of Littleton
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks Finkeldey is deliberately performed without physical contact between the glass material and a cooling agent because Finkeldey teaches using a gas bearing that is free of solid or liquid matter and thus teaches away from claim 1 step of the cooling agent contacting the glass. Applicant goes on to indicate Finkeldey mentions liquid cooling contact and further discusses disadvantages of it in ¶[0093]-[0100] (page 8, remarks filed 02/10/2026).
In response to this, Examiner indicates that Finkeldey ¶[0020] cited in the rejection and ¶[0093]-[0100] as cited by the Applicant in the remarks the cooling agent of gas contacts the glass and thus does not encounter the issues with liquid cooling agents. Finkeldey discusses disadvantages of a liquid cooling agent contacting the glass in ¶[0093]-[0100] Finkeldey does not teach away from a liquid cooling agent. MPEP 2123 indicates patents are relevant for all they contain and nonpreferred embodiments and alternative embodiments constitute as prior art. Additionally, something does not become patentable simply because it is described as somewhat inferior to something for the same use.
Applicant remarks DE1496095 is directed to the strengthening of glass articles made from aluminosilicate compositions and alkali zirconia silicate glass, which typically implies longer diffusion times and cites examples 6-7 of about 2 hours, whereas Megles discloses ion-exchange times of about 10-15 minutes, Mengles (Col 4; line 9)
In response to this, Examiner does not agree with the remarks but has removed this duplicate rejection in order to expedite compact prosecution.
Applicant remarks that the rejection over Littleton (US 2285595) is inaccurate because Littleton is directed to exclusively thermal tempering with no ion exchange process. Applicant disagrees that a sodium containing glass being contacted with a potassium chilling medium will allow for any ion exchange.
In response to this remark, Littleton discloses heating to the softening temperature then cooling with a cooling medium with a spray action or immersion (Page 2; Col 2, lines 3-32) and indicates following with molten salt contact cooling (Page 2; Col 2, lines 33-46). As indicated in the above rejection, Table II depicts the second “chilling” being in a potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate bath at 450 deg. Celsius for 2 minutes for ¼ inch thick glass. Littleton discloses the thermal strengthening chilling time is based on the glass thickness (Page 2 column 2; line 20-24) and (Page 2; col 2; lines 46-52)
Examiner maintains it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the time of the applied potassium comprising cooling agent as motivated to cause both thermal strengthening and ion exchange strengthening based on the thickness of the glass and temperature of the cooling medium.
Applicant’s arguments do not recognize the immersion in a salt of the silicate glass comprising sodium as cited in Table I with the cooling schedule and immersion in a sodium/potassium nitrate salt bath at 450 deg. Celsius in Table II necessarily cause ion exchange between at least the sodium in the glass and potassium in the cooling bath. Applicant did not address this motivation of optimizing the time in the salt medium based on the thickness of the glass.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 01/07/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741