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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 16, 2026 has been entered.
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 ion-exchangeable glass sheets to be tempered, as well as finally tempered glass sheets having a compression stress layer on the surface, which can contain in mol% 50-80% SiO2, 8-25% Al2O3, 0-10% B2O3, 3-15%Li2O, 3-21% Na2O, 0-10% K2O, 0-10% MgO, 0-10% ZnO, 0-15% P2O5 (abstract) and can further comprise 0.01-0.3% Cl (Col. 9, lines 1-6), 0.005-1% SnO2 (Col. 8, lines 61-67), 10ppm (0.001%)-1,000ppm (0.1%) Fe2O3 (Col. 9, lines 11-20) and 0.001-1% TiO2 (Col. 8, lines 55-60) all either falling within or overlapping the individual ranges listed in claims 1-3, 5-9, and 18-21 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding the claimed ratios of claims 1, 5-6, 18-21, it is initially noted for the record that the above Li2O, Na2O, K2O and Al2O ranges allow for ratios overlapping the first ratio claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Yuki’s glass can further comprise CaO in an amount of 6mol% or less (Col. 8, lines 23-34), 0-2% of each of SrO and BaO (Col. 8, lines 35-45) and these ranges together with the above listed ranges for SiO2, B2O3, P2O5, SnO2, Al2O3, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, MgO, and ZnO allow for ratios overlapping the second ratio claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally, note that as at least Yuki’s Example 211 shown below clearly suggests that ratios as claimed are desirable in Yuki, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make Yuki’s above broadly disclosed compositions have ratios as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success.
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
Additionally, or in the alternative, note that specifically regarding the above Example composition itself, Yuki’s Example clearly includes every compositional requirement claimed except the Cl being 0.01 instead of 0.11-0.3mol% as now claimed. However, given that Yuki does teach that the Cl in the glasses according to their invention is a fining agent and can be made to be 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 (Col. 3, line 5-8, Example 211 in Table 22) and a depth of layer of the compression stress layer as claimed (Col. 3, lines 18-21, 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 June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. However, the Examiner would like to make the following points regarding Applicants’ argument that it would not have been obvious to modify Yuki’s Example 211 to include a Cl content of 0.11-0.3mol% as now claimed.
Initially, as discussed in the previous and above Office Action, Yuki’s Example 211 is shown below.
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
As shown, Yuki’s Example clearly includes every compositional requirement claimed except the Cl being 0.01 instead of 0.11-0.3mol% as now claimed. However, given that Yuki does teach that the Cl in the glasses according to their invention is a fining agent and can be made to be 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).
While Applicants attempt to argue that it would not have been obvious to increase the Cl content in the Example from 0.1mol% to 0.11mol% or more because Yuki explains that excessive Cl adversely affects the environment and facilities and provides no technical motivation to make such a modification nor a reasonable expectation of success, this is not persuasive.
Initially, while the Examiner does acknowledge that Yuki mentions that excessive Cl adversely affects the environment and facilities, not only does Yuki’s disclosure as a whole still clearly teaches that Cl can be added in contents of 0.01- 0.3mol% but Yuki is clearly indicating that capping Cl at 0.3mol% is suitable in view of the adverse effects mentioned. Specifically, one skilled in the art would readily conclude that while smaller amounts such as the 0.01% in the Example may be exemplary, that 0.01-3mol% can still be successfully used if desired without adversely affecting the environment and facilities and there is nothing of record to indicate that one could not do it or that one would not have a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, while Applicants argue that Yuki provides no technical motivation to make such a modification, note that not only does Yuki teach that 0.01-3mol% Cl can be added in their glasses as desired which is itself enough motivation but also, Yuki teaches Cl being a fining agent and this in itself also provides motivation. Specifically, if one skilled in the art desired to provide additional/more fining, it would be well within the skill in the art to add more fining agent as desired. Again, there is nothing of record that such additional Cl fining agent should not or cannot be added.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights