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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/3/2025 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, which recites, “stress value maximum is at least 1.5 microns”, Applicant in the response filed on 12/3/2025 argues that value is maximum at 1.5 microns, so Examiner requests Applicant to change “at least” to “at most” and point out the support in the specification. For the purpose of Examination, Examiner is interpreting is to be at least 1.5 microns which can be any number greater than 1.5 microns. As pointed out in para 0039 in the PG PUB, “the depth at which the stress is maximum is preferably 0.5 μm or more, more preferably 1 μm or more, and still more preferably 1.5 μm or more.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall (US 2016/0102010).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-9 Beall teaches chemically strengthened glass sheets (abstract, 0178, 0188, Examples) which it is noted that sheets implicitly have first and second opposing main surfaces with an end portion contact each one as claimed. The glasses can have a thickness can be 1mm or less (see 0181) and can be made of a composition (see for instance Beall’s claim 10 and par 0010-0018) that, when converted to mol %, overlaps with that claimed (MPEP 2144.05). For instance, Beall’s disclosed composition where the glass-ceramic has a composition comprising, in wt %: [0011] SiO.sub.2: 55-80%; [0012] Al.sub.2O.sub.3: 2-20%; [0013] Li.sub.2O: 5-20%; [0014] B.sub.2O.sub.3: 0-10%; [0015] Na.sub.2O: 0-5%; [0016] ZnO: 0-10%; [0017] P.sub.2O.sub.5: 0.5-6%; and [0018] ZrO.sub.2: 0.2-15% (para 0010-0020). The glass-ceramic article has a composition further comprising, in wt % the following optional additional components: [0020] K.sub.2O: 0-4%; [0021] MgO: 0-8%; [0022] TiO.sub.2: 0-5%; [0023] CeO.sub.2: 0-0.4% and [0024] SnO.sub.2: 0.05-0.5% (para 0019-0024), where the mass% would overlap the mol% of present claims 7-9). Beall teaches that their chemically strengthened glass can have a compressive stress value of 500MPa or greater (see 0189). The glass-ceramic article has a compressive stress layer formed by ion-exchange having a depth of layer (DOL) of at least about 30 μm (claim 20), where the depth would intrinsically be 0. The compressive stress layer can include one or more average surface compressive stress (CS), and/or one or more depths of layer (para 0193). The glass-ceramic article has a surface compressive stress in a range from about 100 MPa to about 500 MPa (claim 19). The glass article comprises glass ceramic and lithium aluminosilicate glass (para 0158).
As Beall discloses chemically strengthened glass article comprising glass ceramic in mol% based on oxides of claims 7-9, it therefore would be obvious that wherein, when a compressive stress value of an inside of the glass is expressed with a depth from the first surface as a variable, a depth m [um] at which the compressive stress value is maximum is larger than 1.5 microns, and a value of CSm - CSo [MPa] is 30 MPa or more, provided that the compressive stress value at the depth of m [um] is defined as CSm [MPa], and the compressive stress value of the first surface is defined as CSo [MPa].
Regarding claim 2, although Beall does not stress value at a depth of 60 microns, however Beall discloses that their chemically strengthened glass can have a compressive stress value of 500MPa or greater (see 0189), so it would be obvious that compressive stress value would intrinsically be greater than 100 MPa or more at a depth of 60 microns.
Regarding claim 10, As Beall discloses chemically strengthened glass article comprising glass ceramic in mol% based on oxides of claims 7-9, it therefore would be obvious that glass article would satisfy the claimed expressions of claim 10 provided that a thickness of the chemically strengthened glass article is defined as t [um], and ion concentrations of Li, Na, and K at a depth x [um] from the first surface are defined as Li(x), Na(x), and K(x).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall (US 2016/0102010) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Guo et al. (US 2020/0354262).
Regarding claim 14, Beall fails to disclose that the glass article comprises a base glass comprising in terms of mol%, CaO, and MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO in an amount of at least 0.1%.
Whereas, Guo discloses glass compositions with high silica content that present several advantages over glasses and other materials currently used for redistribution layers for RF, interposers, and similar applications (abstract). The term “RO” refers to alkaline earth metal oxides individually or collectively and includes any, or any combination of two or more, of MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO (para 0064). The silicate glass article includes one or more alkaline earth metal oxides (RO), where the sum of RO (MgO, BaO, CaO, and SrO) is in an amount of 1 to 10 mol % (para 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include CaO and MgO+tBaO+CaO+SrO is in an amount of 1 to 10 mol % as taught by Guo in the glass-ceramic composition of Beall motivated by the desire to have improved thermal properties and strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments and Affidavit filed on 12/3/2025 has been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Affidavit in claim 1 recites in part that “a depth m, um, at which the compressive stress value is maximum is at least 1.5 microns” (emphasis added). By “maximum,” it is meant that at depths is 1.5 microns and less, the compressive strength is less than at depth m. Similarly, at all depths i greater than at depth m, the compressive stress is also less than at m.
However, this contradicts what maximum stress value is at least 1.5 microns based on para 0039 in the specification which clearly means that the depth at which the stress is maximum is preferably 0.5 μm or more, more preferably 1 μm or more, and still more preferably 1.5 μm or more. The depth is 1.5 microns and more and not less as mentioned by Applicant above. Hence the Affidavit is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specification explains that differences in the position of the maximum compressive stress are created by the ion-exchange process used when forming the glass article, including using two-stage or three-stage exchange. Specification at /0073/. The Office’s position that the Beall glasses would inherently have the same properties because they may have the same composition, does not take into account the ion-exchange processes used in the formation of the glass. Specifically, Beall is silent about any two-stage or three-stage ion exchanges.
Any difference imparted by product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324, In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 and MPEP 2113.
Applicant argues that Office believes that the compositions of Beall are similar to the present compositions claimed. However, when referring to Beall's examples, it is clear that the sum of each composition does not add up to 100%, suggesting a typographical error in Beall. The differences, which amount to a 5% or higher discrepancy in chemical composition, are significant differences and they would be expected to affect the properties and characteristics of the final glass. Thus, these discrepancies are large enough that the Beall glasses cannot be compared quantitatively to any other glass articles, such as the present glass articles, with any expectation of accuracy.
However, it should be noted that claim does not recite glass comprising components in mol% to be 100 mol% of total weight of all the components, the claim recites, “comprising” language so additional component can be present in the glass composition.
Applicant argues that Beall is silent about such an effect on glass strength with different types of deformations, and is also completely silent about a depth m of the compressive strength, let alone that it could achieve the above benefits. Nevertheless, the Office asserts that Beall teaches glasses having similar composition to the claimed glass, such that the depth m of the compressive stress maximum would be inherently the same in Beall. Applicant argues that to achieve m > 0 in this application, the glass can be held at a certain temperature for a certain time after it is taken out of sodium-containing salt to allow the alkali ions to diffuse progressively and to slightly reduce the stress near the surface. /d. at [0071] and claim 11. This can create a maximum stress at a point several micrometers deep from the surface. /d. at FIG. 1. As a result, high strength and resistance to chipping are achieved. However, neither this problem nor this idea is disclosed or suggested in the cited reference.
“obviousness under 103 is not negated because the motivation to arrive at the claimed invention as disclosed by the prior art does not agree with appellant’s motivation”, In re Dillon, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Tomlinson, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966).
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached on 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788