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 Interpretation
Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer. Applicant indicates “acentrically” which does not have an understood meaning. Examiner puts the statement that this should mean “not centered” as put on record by the Applicant in the remarks filed 06/11/2025
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.
The rejections of claims 1-3, 6-10, 15-17 as being indefinite are overcome in view of the amendments.
Applicant remarks “eccentrically” is a translation mistake and should recite “acentrically” which does not have an understood meaning. Examiner puts the statement that this should mean “not centered”
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], 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 In some embodiments, the glass articles are aluminosilicate glasses, such as alkali aluminosilicate glasses. [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 Fu discloses a base alkali aluminosilicate glass capable of ion exchange with 2-20% mass% alumina [0060]-[0074]. 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 aluminosilicate base glass of Fu with the expected result of ion exchange. 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 or aluminosilicate base material [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 In some embodiments, the glass articles are aluminosilicate glasses, such as alkali aluminosilicate glasses. [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 aluminosilicate 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 aluminosilicate 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 or aluminosilicate base material [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 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bookbinder deals exclusively with the treatment of alkali-aluminosilicate glass which has an aluminum oxide content in the range of 5-20 mol% and cites [0207].
Applicant’s argument is that Fu discloses a glass-ceramic article with a percent of crystals forming a crystalline phase as discussed in the abstract of Fu. Applicant further argues that Fu discloses that precursor glass, before ceramming, and/or the glass-ceramic after ceramming may have an aluminum oxide concentration of 2-20 wt% [0060]-[0061]. Applicant argues that a “glass-ceramic” is fundamentally different from a glass and would not have the same ion-exchange diffusion properties as the glass material of Bookbinder and a precursor glass pane is not a glass pane of a base material.
Examiner disagrees. As indicated in the quoted paragraphs [0207]-[0208] of Bookbinder below:
PNG
media_image1.png
488
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
210
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
168
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bookbinder clearly states the glass article can be any ion exchangeable glass article, thus an “appropriate composition” is that which is ion-exchangeable glass composition with sodium and lithium to be alkali exchanged. A skilled artisan wouyld be inclined to use any “suitable composition” in the method of Boobkbinder as exactly stated by Bookbinder. . “[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” I.C., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” /In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR /Int’/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” /id. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast to that approach, Appellant’s arguments rigidly focus on a narrow reading of f Fu, without taking full account of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Applicant also argues that modifying the alumina in Bookbinder would depart from the core technical concept. Bookbinder suggests otherwise by stating any suitable composition of glass may be used. Furthermore, applicant provides no evidence that claim 1, at the least, has limitations that the combination of Bookbinder and Fu would not yield.
Applicant further argues that it would not be obvious to modify Bookbinders glass composition with Lee and apply the multi stage ion-exchange of Bookbinder however Applicant does not indicate sufficient reasoning. Applicant states that Lee discloses introducing alumina in a different way than Bookbinder and does not suggest reducing alumina however there is no citation for Examiner to rely on Applicant’s argument of Lee.
Applicant argues result-effective-variable however Examiner does not rely on result-effective-variable based on “obvious-to-try” rationale not optimization within disclosed ranges.
Examiner relies on MPEP2144.05 (I-II) where Lee discloses an overlapping range of the claimed amount it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to find the optimum amount within the disclosed range.
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 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
Prosecution Insights