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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/28/2026 has been entered.
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.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “an alkali-containing silicate glass which is not an aluminosilicate glass” As a skilled artisan would understand there is not a clearly defined amount of alumina in aluminosilicate glass, nor is there a composition of the recitation of aluminosilicate glass in the specification, therefore it is unclear what glass compositions claim 1 is attempting to exclude. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
All claims dependent from claim 1 are indefinite at least for depending from claim 1.
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) 1-12, 13-17, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder (US 20180251400) and Fu et al. (US 20190300426)
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, and 20, Bookbinder discloses a flat glass pane Fig 1 (100) which is made of a base material which is an alkali-containing silicate glass [0082], [0117], [0157], specifically comprising lithium [0171], and may be any appropriate composition[0157], [0207] characterized in that
at least one surface layer (120) is chemically strengthened thus enriched in potassium which exchanges with thus depleted in sodium and/or lithium which are smaller ions that exchange with potassium on the outer surface to yield a compressive stress as described in at least [0117], [0166], [0173]-[0174],
an inner layer (130) bordering the surface layer (120/122)
The inner layer is not enriched in potassium and not depleted in sodium and/or lithium because the exchange only goes as far as the depth of layers of (120/122) [0120]
the flat glass pane (100) Fig 1,
the surface layers (120 and 122) have a compressive stress depth (d1 and d2) as depicted in Fig 1 and discussed as the depth of compression (DOC) in at least [0117]-[0118]. Asymmetric depth of compression [0127], [0156], [0161] at least Fig 4 Fig 3. Bookbinder discloses beyond the compressive stress (330) depth there is a tensile stress in central region (130) [0117], [0120],
Bookbinder discloses asymmetric depth of compression thus yielding an asymmetric tensile stress [0159]-[0161] in the center of the two sides of depth of compression. the tensile stress rises with increasing depth up to a tensile stress maximum disposed in the inner layer and the profile of the tensile stress as a function of the depth has no linear portion [0138] and/or where the profile of the tensile stress as a function of the depth has no portion in which the tensile stress is constant [0120] as depicted by the compressive stress depth changes in asymmetric profiles Fig 4, [0075], [0156], [0219].
Fig 4 shows that the glass articles has a tensile stress between compressive stress at depths d1 and d2 and as shown in Fig 4 the tensile stress is not constant as a function of precise depth given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Bookbinder indicates the glass may be any appropriate composition [0207]
Bookbinder does not specifically recite the alumina content in the alkali silicate glass as indicated in claim 1.
In an analogous art of chemically strengthening glass through ion exchange Fu discloses a base alkali glass capable of ion exchange with 2-20% mass% alumina [0060]-[0074]. Bookbinder suggests an alkali base glass comprising an overlapping amount of alumina as claim 1 therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ion exchangeable alkali base glass of Fu with the expected result of ion exchange yielding an asymmetric profile. It would be further obvious to optimize the amount of alumina within the disclosed ranges of Fu as indicated in MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Bookbinder has defined a flat glass plate (Fig 1) thus an identical flat glass pane of identical shape and size and identical alkali silicate base material comprising alumina [0082], [0117], [0157]. The flat glass pane is strengthened and has a compressive stress layer [0021]-[0029] thus considered to be stronger than an identical base material of equal shape and size that does not have unknown “features” of claim 1 such as a feature of at least 1.5 times lower in strength given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 2, Bookbinder discloses the flat glass pane Fig 1 in that the surface layer (120/122) has a thickness or depth of layer of 5-10 microns [0127] or about 40 microns [0157] and Fig 2-5 which overlaps the claimed ranges of claim 2.
MPEP 2144.05 indicates overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Bookbinder discloses a thickness of the glass to be 0.5 mm [0156]/ [0160] in an embodiment, 0.8mm in the embodiment [0237]-[0238], less than 1mm [0023]
Which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 8. MPEP 2144.05 indicates overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to modify the thickness of the glass substrate as motivated to obtain the desired glass substrate product.
Regarding claim 10, that the surface layer (10) has an increased hardness by comparison with the inner layer of greater than about 500 MPa [0125] and/or in that the surface layer of 5-10 microns exceeding 600 MPa and 700 MPa respectively [0158] thus overlapping the claimed range of claim 10 given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 11, Bookbinder discloses in the surface layer (120/122) which has been ion exchanged in a potassium bath to exchange potassium with sodium/ lithium ions [0118], [0157]-[0160] to a depth of 5-10 microns [0158] thus it would be obvious to a skilled artisan the fraction of potassium is greater than the total fraction of sodium and lithium down to a depth in the range from 0.5 to 10 microns and in that the fraction of potassium beyond a depth of layers (120/122) in the range from 0.5 pm to 10 pm is smaller than the total fraction of sodium and lithium because potassium is not exchanged for the sodium and lithium in the central layer (130).
Regarding claim 12, Bookbinder discloses an enriched surface layer to a depth of 5-10 microns [0158] created by exchange of potassium ions with sodium or lithium ions to yield compressive stresses. The amount of potassium exchanged yield is the stress profile [0159]-[0160], it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount potassium ions exchanged for sodium and or lithium ions in the surface layer as motivated to achieve to desired stress profile.
Regarding claim 13, Bookbinder suggests the flat glass may be a fusion-drawn glass, float glass pane or a rolled glass pane or slot drawn glass [0203]-[0204].
Regarding claims 14 and 16-17, the flat glass pane is embodied as a display pane [0203], window [0002]-[0003]. A skilled artisan knows a glass display panel comprises commonly known glass displays of 07/2025 of a computer display, tablet or phone display, vehicle display.
Regarding claim 15, Bookbinder discloses the glass material is an alkali metal-alkaline earth metal silicate glass, especially a soda-lime glass or borosilicate glass [0207], [0247].
Regarding claims 21-23, these claims recite method steps of the method of manufacturing the flat glass pane that is being claimed. Thus claims 21-23 are product-by-process claims as discussed in MPEP 2113. The patentability of the claimed product does not depend on its method of production.
Claim(s) 18-19 and alternatively claims 13-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder (US 20180251400) and Fu et al. (US 20190300426) as applied above and further in view of Rinehart (US 4119760)
Regarding claims 18-19 and alternatively claims 14, 16-17 Bookbinder discloses using the chemically strengthened glass plate for displays, cover windows, tablets however fails to states the plate used in a vehicle or as a solar glass plane.
In an analogous art of chemically strengthening glass plate Rinehart suggests using chemically strengthened plates made by float method in automobile windshields, roofs, skylights (Col 3; line 50, Col 24; lines 24-39)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the chemically strengthened glass of Bookbinder as motivated by the need for use of chemically strengthened glass in the articles taught by Rinehart.
Claim(s) 1-12, 13-17, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder (US 20180251400) and Lee et al. (US 20180037497)
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, and 20, Bookbinder discloses a flat glass pane Fig 1 (100) which is made of a base material which is an alkali-containing silicate glass [0082], [0117], or is an aluminosilicate glass [0157], specifically comprising lithium [0171], [0207] characterized in that
at least one surface layer (120) is chemically strengthened thus enriched in potassium which exchanges with thus depleted in sodium and/or lithium which are smaller ions that exchange with potassium on the outer surface to yield a compressive stress as described in at least [0117], [0166], [0173]-[0174],
an inner layer (130) bordering the surface layer (120/122)
The inner layer is not enriched in potassium and not depleted in sodium and/or lithium because the exchange only goes as far as the depth of layers of (120/122) [0120]
the flat glass pane (100) Fig 1,
the surface layers (120 and 122) have a compressive stress depth (d1 and d2) as depicted in Fig 1 and discussed as the depth of compression (DOC) in at least [0117]-[0118]. Asymmetric depth of compression [0127], [0156], [0161] at least Fig 4 Fig 3. Bookbinder discloses beyond the compressive stress (330) depth there is a tensile stress in central region (130) [0117], [0120],
Bookbinder discloses asymmetric depth of compression thus yielding an asymmetric tensile stress [0159]-[0161] in the center of the two sides of depth of compression. the tensile stress rises with increasing depth up to a tensile stress maximum disposed in the inner layer and the profile of the tensile stress as a function of the depth has no linear portion [0138] and/or where the profile of the tensile stress as a function of the depth has no portion in which the tensile stress is constant [0120] as depicted by the compressive stress depth changes in asymmetric profiles Fig 4, [0075], [0156], [0219].
Fig 4 shows that the glass articles has a tensile stress between compressive stress at depths d1 and d2 and as shown in Fig 4 the tensile stress is not constant as a function of precise depth given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Bookbinder indicates the glass may be any appropriate composition [0207]
Bookbinder does not specifically recite the alkali aluminosilicate glass of a base material in weight percentage as claimed in claim 1.
In an analogous art of chemically strengthening glass through ion exchange Lee discloses a base alkali glass capable of ion exchange with 3-20% mass% alumina [0078]. Bookbinder suggests an alkali aluminosilicate base glass therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ion exchangeable alkali base glass of Lee with the expected result of ion exchange. It would be further obvious to optimize the amount of alumina within the disclosed ranges of Lee as indicated in MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Bookbinder has defined a flat glass plate (Fig 1) thus an identical flat glass pane of identical shape and size and identical alkali silicate glass [0082], [0117], [0157]. The flat glass pane is strengthened and has a compressive stress layer [0021]-[0029] thus considered to be stronger than an identical base material of equal shape and size that does not have unknown “features” of claim 1 such as a feature of at least 1.5 times lower in strength given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 2, Bookbinder discloses the flat glass pane Fig 1 in that the surface layer (120/122) has a thickness or depth of layer of 5-10 microns [0127] or about 40 microns [0157] and Fig 2-5 which overlaps the claimed ranges of claim 2.
MPEP 2144.05 indicates overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Bookbinder discloses a thickness of the glass to be 0.5 mm [0156]/ [0160] in an embodiment, 0.8mm in the embodiment [0237]-[0238], less than 1mm [0023]
Which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 8. MPEP 2144.05 indicates overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to modify the thickness of the glass substrate as motivated to obtain the desired glass substrate product.
Regarding claim 10, that the surface layer (10) has an increased hardness by comparison with the inner layer of greater than about 500 MPa [0125] and/or in that the surface layer of 5-10 microns exceeding 600 MPa and 700 MPa respectively [0158] thus overlapping the claimed range of claim 10 given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 11, Bookbinder discloses in the surface layer (120/122) which has been ion exchanged in a potassium bath to exchange potassium with sodium/ lithium ions [0118], [0157]-[0160] to a depth of 5-10 microns [0158] thus it would be obvious to a skilled artisan the fraction of potassium is greater than the total fraction of sodium and lithium down to a depth in the range from 0.5 to 10 microns and in that the fraction of potassium beyond a depth of layers (120/122) in the range from 0.5 pm to 10 pm is smaller than the total fraction of sodium and lithium because potassium is not exchanged for the sodium and lithium in the central layer (130).
Regarding claim 12, Bookbinder discloses an enriched surface layer to a depth of 5-10 microns [0158] created by exchange of potassium ions with sodium or lithium ions to yield compressive stresses. The amount of potassium exchanged yield is the stress profile [0159]-[0160], it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount potassium ions exchanged for sodium and or lithium ions in the surface layer as motivated to achieve to desired stress profile.
Regarding claim 13, Bookbinder suggests the flat glass may be a fusion-drawn glass, float glass pane or a rolled glass pane or slot drawn glass [0203]-[0204].
Regarding claims 14 and 16-17, the flat glass pane is embodied as a display pane [0203], window [0002]-[0003]. A skilled artisan knows a glass display panel comprises commonly known glass displays of 07/2025 of a computer display, tablet or phone display, vehicle display.
Regarding claim 15, Bookbinder discloses the glass material is an alkali metal-alkaline earth metal silicate glass, especially a soda-lime glass or borosilicate glass [0207], [0247].
Regarding claims 21-23, these claims recite method steps of the method of manufacturing the flat glass pane that is being claimed. Thus claims 21-23 are product-by-process claims as discussed in MPEP 2113. The patentability of the claimed product does not depend on its method of production.
Claim(s) 18-19 and alternatively claims 13-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder (US 20180251400) and Lee et al. (US 20180037497) as applied above and further in view of Rinehart (US 4119760)
Regarding claims 18-19 and alternatively claims 14, 16-17 Bookbinder discloses using the chemically strengthened glass plate for displays, cover windows, tablets however fails to states the plate used in a vehicle or as a solar glass plane.
In an analogous art of chemically strengthening glass plate Rinehart suggests using chemically strengthened plates made by float method in automobile windshields, roofs, skylights (Col 3; line 50, Col 24; lines 24-39)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the chemically strengthened glass of Bookbinder as motivated by the need for use of chemically strengthened glass in the articles taught by Rinehart.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combination of Bookbinder and Fu because it rests on the assumption that applying the multi-step process to the glass of Fu with a lower amount of alumina than Bookbinder discloses will not yield the claimed stress profile.
Applicant provides no evidence of this. Bookbinder does not require a specific amount of alumina to yield the asymmetric profile. Bookbinder even claims this asymmetric profile in claims 10 and 29 without reciting the glass.
As indicated in MPEP 2143.01
Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis). Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957-58, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court found an erroneous framing of the motivation inquiry led to an incorrect conclusion of nonobviousness). A "motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill." Zup v. Nash Mfg., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371, 127 USPQ2d 1423, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 [107 USPQ2d 1706] (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 [92 USPQ2d 1849] (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21)). See MPEP § 2143 regarding the need to provide a reasoned explanation even in situations involving common sense or ordinary ingenuity
The rejection simplified is that Bookbinder discloses a glass undergoing ion exchange with alkali ions to produce an asymmetric central tension profile. A glass suitable for ion exchange with alkalis must comprise an alkali. In analogous art of ion exchange Fu discloses an alkali glass with an alumina content under 5wt% a skilled artisan would have good reason to substitute one ion exchangeable glass with another ion exchangeable glass with predictable results of an asymmetric stress profile.
The office does not have the resources to show every stress profile for every suitable ion exchangeable composition; however the rejection relies on prior art that discloses teachings of a suitable ion exchange glass and an ion exchange treatment yielding an asymmetric profile The combination of references is suitable and meets the reason for motivation to combine and yield a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
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
