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 .
Status of claims
Claim(s) 8, 12-31 are pending. Claim(s) 29 is/are newly added in the response filed 09/15/2025.
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) 8, 12-19, 21-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20210355026) and further in view of Baker (US 20150239772) and Duffy (US 20200055764).
Regarding claims 8, 12-14, 18-19, 21-25 and 31, Jin ‘026 discloses a process of chemically strengthening glass [0038]-[0039], [0083] comprising;
Immersing a glass article in multiple salt baths [0008], the glass articles being lithium containing glass [0053], [0060], [0063], [0093]
The first salt bath comprising a concentration of potassium at 70-80% and a balance of sodium thus 30-20%, thus more potassium [0085]-[0087] and a
Second molten salt 100% potassium [0083], [0093], thus overlapping with 85% potassium or higher thus overlapping the claimed amount of sodium nitrate in claims 8 and 31.
Jin ‘026 fails to disclose the additive of silicic acid.
In an analogous art of chemical strengthening Baker discloses chemical strengthening of a lithium silicate glass [0005], wherein the chemical strengthening occurs in a molten salt bath and 0.5 wt % silicic acid is added therein to prevent etching [0154].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the potassium nitrate bath of Jin ‘026 with .5 wt% silicic acid to prevent etching of the lithium containing glass during ion exchange.
Jin discloses the potassium in the salt bath derived of potassium nitrate [0083], [0093].
MPEP 2144.05 states [A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
Jin ‘026 fails to disclose a specific embodiment of a mass ratio of sodium ions to lithium ions is at the most 15 however; with a molten salt bath of 100% potassium it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the bath would have expected a ratio of sodium to lithium to be little to non-existent at some point in time, even zero before the start of exchange.
MPEP 2112.01
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Prior art Jin ‘026 discloses a glass [0053] comprising;
silica in 55-75 mol%
alumina 10-25 mol %
lithium oxide 0-15 mol %
sodium oxide in 0-15 mol %
potassium oxide in 0-15 mol %
MgO 0-7 mol%
which overlap with the lithium containing glass of the presently claimed invention as recited in the specification [0074], and preferred embodiment [0078]-[0088].
And immersions in salt baths with overlapping compositions of the presently claimed invention, suggested molten salt temperatures of 380-470 deg. Celsius [0083]
With a suggested first ion exchange of 1-10 hours [0086] and second ion exchange time for 0.5-4 hours [0087]-[0088] which overlap with the claimed time of the present invention,
And there is motivation to include .5wt% silicic acid in the potassium nitrate bath of Jin a skilled artisan would readily expect the “mass ratio of sodium ions to lithium ions is at most 15.” Thus there is a sound prima facie case of obviousness that the claimed mass ratio of sodium to lithium ions is at most 15.
Further regarding claims 15-17, Jin ‘026 does not disclose the tensile stress after the first ion exchange but as indicated in the rejection above Jin and Baker disclose every method step of the claimed process within the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges within the specification thus a skilled artisan would expect the central tension after the first and second ion-exchange treatments to meet claims 15-17.
Regarding claim 30, In analogous art of dual ion-exchange of lithium glass Duffy discloses suggests introducing lithium nitrate to one or both baths [0091]. Duffy suggests 0.1-1 wt % of lithium nitrate [0096] which would dissolve in the salt to yield 0.1-1 wt% lithium ions overlapping with the claimed range of claim 8.
to avoid the formation of a vitreous layer, the DIOX treatment disclosed herein may be further enhanced by the addition of a small percentage of Li to the bath of one or both steps, which offsets any initial pure bath condition…The resulting in-process and final samples are more uniform than otherwise,
MPEP 2144.05 states;
The examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. See In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See also In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359,1361,121 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
The Supreme Court has clarified that an "obvious to try" line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. However, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Claim(s) 8, 12-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20210355026) and further in view of and Duffy (US 20200055764) and Jin (US 20210163349) referred to as Jin ‘349 herein after.
Regarding claims 8, 10-14, 18-20, 22-25 and 31, Jin discloses a process of chemically strengthening an ion exchangeable glass [0033] glass [0038]-[0039], [0083] comprising;
Immersing a glass article in multiple salt baths [0008], the glass articles being lithium containing glass [0053], [0060], [0063], [0093]
The first salt bath comprising a concentration of potassium at 70-80% and a balance of sodium thus 30-20%, thus more potassium [0085]-[0087] and a
Second molten salt potassium [0083], [0093], thus overlapping with 85% potassium or higher.
Jin fails to disclose the additive of carbonate in the molten salt bath.
In an analogous art of chemical strengthening Jin ‘349 discloses chemical strengthening of a lithium silicate glass [0041], wherein the chemical strengthening occurs in a molten salt bath and 0.1-0.3 wt % carbonate is added to bond with Lithium ions in the salt bath but an amount to prevent etching or haze [0069]-[0070].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the potassium nitrate bath of Jin with 0.1-0.3 wt % carbonate to prevent etching due to excess lithium ions than desired in solubility due during ion exchange.
Jin discloses the potassium in the salt bath derived of potassium nitrate [0083], [0093].
MPEP 2144.05 states [A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
Jin fails to disclose a specific embodiment of a mass ratio of sodium ions to lithium ions is at the most 15 however; with a molten salt bath of 100% potassium it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the bath would have expected a ratio of sodium to lithium to be little to non-existent.
Regarding claims 13-18, Prior art Jin discloses a glass [0053] comprising;
silica in 55-75 mol%
alumina 10-25 mol %
lithium oxide 0-15 mol %
sodium oxide in 0-15 mol %
potassium oxide in 0-15 mol %
MgO 0-7 mol%
which overlap with the lithium containing glass of the presently claimed invention as recited in the specification [0074], and preferred embodiment [0078]-[0088].
And immersions in salt baths with overlapping compositions of the presently claimed invention, suggested molten salt temperatures of 380-470 deg. Celsius [0083]
With a suggested first ion exchange of 1-10 hours [0086] and second ion exchange time for 0.5-4 hours [0087]-[0088] which overlap with the claimed time of the present invention,
And there is motivation to include .5wt% silicic acid in the potassium nitrate bath of Jin a skilled artisan would readily expect the “mass ratio of sodium ions to lithium ions is at most 15.” Thus there is a sound prima facie case of obviousness that the claimed mass ratio of sodium to lithium ions is at most 15.
MPEP 2112.01
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Further regarding claims 15-17, Jin does not disclose the tensile stress after the first ion exchange but as indicated in the rejection above Jin and Baker disclose every method step of the claimed process within the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges within the specification thus a skilled artisan would expect the central tension after the first and second ion-exchange treatments to meet claims 15-17.
Regarding claim 30, In analogous art of dual ion-exchange of lithium glass Duffy discloses suggests introducing lithium nitrate to one or both baths [0091]. Duffy suggests 0.1-1 wt % of lithium nitrate [0096] which would dissolve in the salt to yield 0.1-1 wt% lithium ions overlapping with the claimed range of claim 8.
to avoid the formation of a vitreous layer, the DIOX treatment disclosed herein may be further enhanced by the addition of a small percentage of Li to the bath of one or both steps, which offsets any initial pure bath condition…The resulting in-process and final samples are more uniform than otherwise,
MPEP 2144.05 states;
The examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. See In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See also In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359,1361,121 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
The Supreme Court has clarified that an "obvious to try" line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. However, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the addition of the “small percentage” of lithium in the first or second salt bath as motivated avoid the formation of a vitreous layer on the lithium glass substrate and facilitating consistency in the chemical strengthening as taught by Duffy.
It is to be understood that the molten salt baths are melted and ions are exchanged and compounds are dissolved thus all weight percentages in the salt baths correspond to ion percentages.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments do not apply the rejections of Claims 8, 12-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin ‘026 in view of Duffy et al. and Baker and alternatively Jin ‘026 in view of Duffy et al. and further in view of Jin ‘349 herein after, Examiner has removed the other alternative rejection over Duffy and Jin ‘349 to make the action more concise and further prosecution thus the arguments over Duffy in view of Jin ‘349 are moot.
Applicant argues the rejection over Jin ‘026, Baker, and Duffy by indicating Baker does not remedy the deficiencies of Duffy and the teachings that Duffy requires 10% sodium nitrate in the second ion exchange bath. This is not how this rejection is written and Duffy is not relied on for the method steps or molten salt ion exchange bath in the rejection over Jin ‘026, Baker and Duffy thus this is irrelevant.
Applicant argues the rejection over Jin ‘026, Jin ‘349, and Duffy by indicating Baker does not remedy the deficiencies of Duffy and the teachings that Duffy requires 10% sodium nitrate in the second ion exchange bath. This is not how this rejection is written and Duffy is not relied on for the method steps or molten salt ion exchange bath in the rejection over Jin ‘026, Baker and Duffy thus this is irrelevant.
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