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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of the foreign priority applications papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
However, note that Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority applications to overcome any rejection herein because a translation of said applications has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki et al. (WO2020138062, rejection using corresponding English document USPN11,964,908).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-9, 18-21: Yuki teaches examples of ion-exchangeable glass sheets to be tempered, as well as finally tempered glass sheets having a compression stress layer on the surface, such as (but not limited to) that shown below in mol%.
211
SiO2
59.41
Al2O3
18.6
B2O3
0.2
Li2O
8.11
Na2O
8.3
K2O
0.45
MgO
0.5
ZnO
0
P2O5
4.3
SnO2
0.03
Fe2O3
0.01
TiO2
0.01
Cl
0.01
Li2O+Na2O+K2O/Al2O3
16.86/18.6= 0.907
SiO2+B2O3+P2O5/
((100*SnO2)*(Al2O3+
Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO
+CaO+SrO+BaO+ZnO))
63.91/((100*0.03)*(35.96))=
63.91/ ((3)*(35.96))=
63.91/ (107.88) = 0.59
The above Example meets every compositional requirement claimed except the Cl is 0.01 instead of 0.02-0.3mol% as claimed. However, note that the 0.01 in the Example is so close to the claimed 0.02 end point and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Alternatively, given that Yuki does teach that the Cl in the glasses according to their invention can be made to have 0.01-0.3mol% Cl (see Col. 9, line 4-5), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Yuki’s composition to include 0.01-0.3mol% Cl overlapping the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Yuki et al. also teaches a method of manufacturing the tempered glass sheets comprising a preparation step comprising preparing the glass sheets to be tempered comprising the above compositions and an ion exchange strep comprising subjecting the sheets to a plurality of ion exchange treatments to obtain the tempered glass sheets comprising the compression stress layer (see Examples).
Regarding claim 10 and 11: The tempered glasses can have a surface compression stress as claimed and a depth of layer of the compression stress layer as claimed (see 211 in Table 22).
Regarding claims 12 and 13: While Yuki may not explicitly discuss the features of claims 12 and 13, given that Yuki’s glasses are of the same composition as Applicants and Yuki teaches a substantially similar ion exchange treatment (see for instance, Yuki Col. 12, line 9 to Col. 14 and description of Examples and Applicants’ specification par 0076-0082, 0086-0097 and Examples), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same profile results (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 14: The temperature at a viscosity in high temperature of 102.5 dPa.s of Yuki’s glasses are preferably less than 1,650oC (Col. 3, line 25), less than 1,620oC, etc. (Col. 9, lines 62-65).
Regarding claim 15: The sheets comprise overflow-joined surfaces at a central portion in the sheet thickness direction (see Yuki claim 7).
Regarding claim 16: The sheets are used as cover glass for a touch panel display (Col. 1, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 17: The sheets can have a stress profile in a thickness direction including first and second peaks and first and second bottoms (see Col. 3, lines 66-67 bridged to Col. 4, lines 1-3 and Figures).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In summary, Applicants argue that the compositional features now required in the claim provide for certain characteristics and not only does Yuki not disclose or suggest the compositional features, Applicants assert that Yuki discloses a number of examples but provides no indication that the objectives of Yuki’s glass are to have Applicants’ certain characteristics, Yuki does not even contemplate the claimed ratio and none of Yuki’s Examples include both Cl in the range claimed with a ratio as claimed.
The above arguments are all not persuasive.
Initially, while the Examiner agrees that Yuki may no longer anticipate the composition as now claimed, does not mean that the compositional features would not still be obvious.
Specifically, as noted in the Office Action, Yuki teaches examples of ion-exchangeable glass sheets to be tempered, as well as finally tempered glass sheets having a compression stress layer on the surface, such as (but not limited to) that shown below in mol%.
211
SiO2
59.41
Al2O3
18.6
B2O3
0.2
Li2O
8.11
Na2O
8.3
K2O
0.45
MgO
0.5
ZnO
0
P2O5
4.3
SnO2
0.03
Fe2O3
0.01
TiO2
0.01
Cl
0.01
Li2O+Na2O+K2O/Al2O3
16.86/18.6= 0.907
SiO2+B2O3+P2O5/
((100*SnO2)*(Al2O3+
Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO
+CaO+SrO+BaO+ZnO))
63.91/((100*0.03)*(35.96))=
63.91/ ((3)*(35.96))=
63.91/ (107.88) = 0.59
The above Example meets every compositional requirement claimed except the Cl is 0.01 instead of 0.02-0.3mol% as claimed. However, note that the 0.01 in the Example is so close to the claimed 0.02 end point and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Alternatively, given that Yuki does teach that the Cl in the glasses according to their invention can be made to have 0.01-0.3mol% Cl (see Col. 9, line 4-5), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Yuki’s composition to include 0.01-0.3mol% Cl overlapping the claimed range absent evidence of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05). As Applicants have yet to provide such evidence, the rejection is proper and maintained.
Further, regarding Applicants arguments that Yuki provides no indication that the objectives of Yuki’s glass are to have Applicants’ certain characteristics, Yuki does not have to. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Even further, regarding Applicants arguing that Yuki does not even contemplate the claimed ratio, the Examiner points to Yuki’s Example above which clearly meets the ratio.
Additionally, regarding the argument that none of Yuki’s Examples include both Cl in the range claimed with a ratio as claimed, the Examiner notes that it has been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to their Examples but instead, what it teaches as a whole. In the instant case, as described above, Yuki as a whole would render a composition as claimed obvious.
Finally, the Examiner notes for clarity of record that Applicants provided a Table in their arguments to support that none of the Examples include both Cl from 0.02-0.3mol% as claimed and a ratio as claimed, but it appears that the Table includes incorrect ratio values. For instance, Applicants’ Table indicates Yuki’s Example 211, relied upon in the Office Action above for instance, provides for a ratio of 0.72 but as clearly calculated above, in view of the parenthesis used and following order of operations the correct value obtained should actually be 0.59. In the instance Applicants are calculating their ratio completely differently, the Examiner urges Applicants to clarify where their values within their Table/arguments are coming from.
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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784