DETAILED ACTION
The communication of 4 December 2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 4-8, 12-17, and 27-34 are pending with claims 1, 4-8 and 12-16 withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35 and 37, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The text of those sections of the MPEP not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 17 and 27-32 in the reply filed on 7 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed 4 December overcomes the objection to the specification. The claim rejections are overcome in so far as the amendment changed the scope of the independent claim; however, the reference previously applied are still relevant and thus the arguments addressed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art’s teaching of less then 100nm is not an enabling disclosure for criticality of the claimed range 5-50. This is unpersuasive. A reference is presumed to be enabled with the burden on Applicant to disprove (MPEP 2121). There is no evidence tending to disprove that the reference is enabled. The range disclosed by the reference less then 100nm renders the claimed range obvious (MPEP 2144) and there is no evidence the claimed range is critical.
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach a 3D shape. This is unpersuasive as Applicant defines 3D a bent three-dimensional structure where two opposite surfaces thereof are curved surfaces and Gorelchenko teaches a 3D shape (i.e., one with two opposite surfaces thereof as curved surfaces) in Figure 2 and teaches any of the layers can be glass or glass ceramic. Applicant argues the instant invention overcomes a problem in the art where the glass is “no longer suitable for molding” once crystalized. This is unpersuasive. The current invention teaches (¶114)
when crystallization is being performed after hot bending, the problems such as crystalline phase size growth and deterioration of optical properties of the 3D glass-ceramics during hot bending can be further resolved.
It appears from the specification molding after crystallization is known and possible but can lead to issues with crystalline phase size growth and deterioration of optical properties. The claims however do not simultaneously recite 3D and any limitations with respect to the optical properties. There is also no evidence that issues would preclude one from forming the crystals within the range claimed and taught by Li.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 17, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorelchenko (US 20220161518), Kim (US 20210129486), Dejneka (US 20210070018), and Li (US 20200156994).
Gorelchenko (US 20220161518) teaches a glass substrate comprising two glass clad layers fused to a glass core layer (Figure 1). Gorelchenko teaches the glass substrates can be used as cover glass for electronic devices (¶107). With respect to claim 17, Gorelchenko fails to teach (1) a housing, (2) a glass-ceramic layer between two glass phase layers, or the grain size (3).
As to element 1 above, Kim (US 20210129486) teaches a laminated glass structure (10) for an electronic device with a core glass layer (11) and two glad glass layers (12a/b) where the clad glass has a lower CTE than the core glass (Abstract). The structure (10) may be incorporated into a device (100) with a housing (202) and cover (212) which can be formed from the laminated structure (claims 8-21). Kim teaches each glass layer may be glass and/or glass-ceramic (¶44).
Gorelchenko differs from the claimed invention in that it fails to teach a housing (i.e., element (1) above). Kim teaches it is known in the art to use cover glass substrates for electronic devices with housings. A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use the substrate of Gorelchenko with a housing as taught by Kim because it is nothing more than combining known elements and in combination each element would merely perform the function it does separately.
As to element 2 above, Dejneka (US 20210070018) teaches a laminate glass ceramic article (title) which comprises a core glass-ceramic layer (110) and two clad glass layers (120) forming the laminate article (200) (Fig 2 and ¶78). Dejneka teaches the CTE of the clad glass layer is lower than that of the core layer (¶78). Dejneka teaches the embodiment of Figure 2 (glass : glass-ceramic : glass) provides benefits over the embodiment of Figure 1 (glass-ceramic : glass : glass-ceramic) in particular with respect to durability (¶80).
Gorelchenko differs from the claimed invention in that it fails to teach the glass/glass-ceramic/glass structure of the cover (i.e., element 2 above). Dejneka teaches it is known to form laminated glass in this configuration for the benefit of increased durability. A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use as the laminate of Gorelchenko the laminate with a glass : glass-ceramic : glass configuration for the benefit of durability as taught by Dejneka.
Gorelchenko differs from the claimed invention in that it fails to teach the crystal size (i.e., element 3 above).
Li (US 20200156994) is directed to electronic device glass which has an average transmittance of at least 70%, a Young’s modulus of at least 85 GPa, and comprises a lithium aluminosilicate crystallized glass (abstract). The inventive glass is used as a cover glass of an electronic device (¶2) and is an improvement in that it provides for excellent transparency, strength, scratch resistance, and thermal conductivity (¶13). The glass includes as the preferred crystal beta-spodumene for its chemical strengthening characteristics (¶86). Li discusses generally the effect crystal size has on properties (see e.g., ¶72 and 79) and teaches the desired size is 300 nm or less. Li also discusses the desired crystallinity as a variable which can be optimized based on the desired strength, bending formation, and transparency (¶89).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to use as the glass-ceramic of modified Gorelchenko the glass of Li (i.e., one with a Young’s modulus of at least 85 GPa and 300nm or less crystals formed from beta-spodumene) for the benefit discussed above, in particular its improved transmittance, haze strength, and thermal conductivity. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize crystallinity of the layer since it has been held that, where 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). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed crystallinity is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the crystallinity motivated by the desire to optimize transparency and strength.
Gorelchenko in view of Kim, Dejneka, and Li (herein after modified Gorelchenko) renders obvious claims 17, 28, 31, 33, and 34.
As to claim 27, modified Gorelchenko does not explicitly teach the average crystal size is non-homogenous along a thickness direction. However, considering the breadth of the claim the limitation would be inherent to modified Gorelchenko. The claim recites no measurement just non-homogenous along a thickness direction. The specification teaches
In some other embodiments of this application, as shown in FIG. 7 , the crystals 531 in the glass-ceramic layer 53 are unevenly distributed. Specifically, in FIG. 7 , the crystals 531 on a side of the glass-ceramic layer 53 close to the first glass phase layer 511 are relatively large in size, and the crystals 531 on a side of the glass-ceramic layer 53 close to the second glass phase layer 513 are relatively small in size. In another embodiment, the crystals 531 in the glass-ceramic layer 53 may be distributed in any size.
Based upon the specification and the meaning of the term non-homogenous, it would appear the claim only requires a lack of uniformity (i.e., unevenly distributed) along the thickness direction and not a specific distribution (e.g., smaller on one side vs. the other). Given the method of manufacture in Li includes heat treatment of a layer it is reasonable to conclude the heat treatment would not result in perfect distribution of crystal size in the layer and thus some degree of uniformity.
With respect to claim 29, Gorelchenko teaches the glass composition Na2O, K2O, Li2O and the total amount is between 6 and 40% and can be optimized based on desired characteristics (¶62). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 30, Gorelchenko teaches the total thickness is 0.1-3 mm, the outer layers are 10-40% of the total thickness (i.e., 0.01-1.2 mm), and as such the middle layer must be 20-80% (i.e., 0.02-2.4 mm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 32, as discussed above for claim 17, Gorelchenko teaches a thickness of the glass (0.1-3mm) which overlaps the claimed thickness “t” and teaches the glass-ceramic is 20-80% of the thickness, which overlaps the claimed 0.5t-0.9t. Gorelchenko teaches the DOC is greater than 10% of the total thickness, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.14t-0.23t (¶16). Gorelchenko teaches the compressive stress is greater than 200 MPa in the outer layers (¶88) which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Gorelchenko teaches it would be desirable to ion exchange (i.e., chemical strengthen) the glass for the benefit of further strengthen and/or stress alteration (¶63).
Claims 27 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorelchenko (US 20220161518), Kim (US 20210129486), Dejneka (US 20210070018) and Li (US 20200156994) as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Prest (US 20220117094).
Modified Gorelchenko does not explicitly teach the average crystal size is non-homogenous along a thickness direction.
Prest teaches glass ceramic components for electronic devices including a cover member including a glass ceramic which may have optical properties, electrical properties, magnetic properties, and/or mechanical properties compatible with the requirements of the device. Prest teaches the size of the crystal effects the optical properties (¶41) and in some instances uses a component with a difference in crystal size through the thickness to affect the optical component properties (¶43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the invention of the prior art with a non homogenous crystal size along a thickness direction since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the optical properties.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FRANK J VINEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Greg Tryder can be reached at (571) 270-7365. 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.
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights