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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 3 – 4, & 6. Claims 1 – 20 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 10 – 12, & 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,246,371 B1), in view of Keller (“The dielectric constant of glasses as a function of the glass composition,” Zeitschr. F. tech, Physik, No. 5, 1932, pp. 237-239) and Boek et al. (US 2020/0231490 A1).
With regard to claims 1 & 6, Dejneka et al. teach a chemically strengthened glass comprising:
According to an eighth aspect, the glass article comprises 5 – 20 mol% B2O3 wherein SiO2 is about 55 mol% to about 75 mol%, and Al2O3 is about 8 mol% to about 12 mol% (Col. 4, Lines 20 – 23), which are within Applicant’s claimed ranges.
Additionally, the glass article 0.1 – 50 mol% R2O (Li2O, Na2O, K2O) (Col., 10, Lines 12 – 17), & 0.02 – 50 mol% RO (MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, ZnO) (Col. 10, Lines 54 – 58), which include Applicant’s claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Articles made of the disclosed compositions may exhibit a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) in the range of about 10 x 10-7/°C to about 60 x 10-7/°C measured over a temperature range from about 0 – 300°C (Col. 16, Lines 29 – 34), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of about 60 x 10-7/°C or more at 50 to 350°C. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As discussed above, Dejneka et al. teach 0.02 – 50 mol% RO (MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, ZnO) (Col. 10, Lines 54 – 58) and 0.1 – 50 mol% R2O (Li2O, Na2O, K2O) (Col., 10, Lines 12 – 17)
Y = 1.2 x ([MgO] + [CaO] + [SrO] + [BaO]) + 1.6 x ([Li2O] + [Na2O] + [K2O])
= [1.2 x (0.02 to 50] + [1.6 x (0.1 to 50)].
= [0.024 to 60] + [0.16 to 80]
As such, Dejneka et al. teach Y in the range of 0.184 to 140, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 19.5 or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dejneka et al. do not teach the relative permittivity (i.e., dielectric constant) of the glass article.
Keller teaches the dielectric constants of glasses change as a function of the glass composition. When the SiO2 content is replaced in increasing amounts with metal oxides, the dielectric constant increases in accordance with the higher dielectric constant of these metal oxides as compared to that of SiO2 (pg. 5).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Keller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the concentration of the metal oxides of glass within the ranges taught by Dejneka et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass article with the desired dielectric constant (i.e., “relative permittivity”). 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).
Dejneka et al. fail to teach the dielectric loss tangent of the glass.
Boek et al. teach a low dielectric loss glass comprising a loss tangent of about 0.01 or less, more preferably 0.008 or less, measured at 10 GHz (paragraphs [0005], [0043], & [0077]). The combination of MgO and at least one additional RO, such as CaO, SrO, and/or Bao, in the range of about 3 mol% to about 15 mol% can facilitate forming a glass having a lower dielectric constant and/or loss tangent compared to some glasses which include only a single RO species (paragraph [0046] & [0063]). Furthermore, increasing the amount of SiO2 can decrease the loss tangent at frequences of 10 GHz or higher (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Boek et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the content of SiO2, MgO, and other RO species through routine experimentation in order to achieve a dielectric loss tangent at 10 GHz or higher of 0.01 or less. 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).
With regard to claim 2, the claim recites X = 3 x [Al2O3] + [MgO] + [Li2O] – 2 x ([Na2O] + [K2O]). As such, Dejneka et al. teach X is in the range of 24.12 to 236, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 30.0.0 or more.
= 3 x (8 to12 mol.% Al2O3) + 0.02 to 50 mol% MgO + 0.1 to 50 mol% Li2O – (0.1 x (0 to 50 mol% Na2O + K2O))
= (24 to 36) + (0.02 to 50) + (0.1 to 50) + (0 to 100)
= 24.12 to 236
With regard to claim 5, Dejneka et al. teach working examples in which glass articles include may be processed into a glass-ceramic state at a thickness of about 0.5 mm (500 µm) (Col. 17, Lines 25 – 26), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 100 – 2000 µm, such as in the form of a sheet (Col. 10, Lines 40 – 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form any of the embodiments of the glass article taught in the reference as sheet of similar thickness as formed in a working example.
With regard to claims 10 – 12, Dejeka et al. teach crystalline precipitates may be formed of titanium oxide, tungsten oxide and/or molybdenum oxide transforming the glass state into a glass-ceramic state (Col. 2, Lines 53 – 59 & Col. 14, Lines 17 – 26).
With regard to claims 19 – 20, as discussed above, based on the teachings of Keller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the concentration of the metal oxides of glass within the ranges taught by Dejneka et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass article with the desired dielectric constant (i.e., “relative permittivity”). 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).
With regard to claim 3, Dejneka et al. teach a chemically strengthened glass comprising 5 – 20 mol% B2O3 wherein SiO2 is about 55 mol% to about 75 mol%, and Al2O3 is about 8 mol% to about 12 mol% (Col. 4, Lines 20 – 23), 0.1 – 50 mol% R2O (Li2O, Na2O, K2O) (Col., 10, Lines 12 – 17), & 0.02 – 50 mol% RO (MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, ZnO) (Col. 10, Lines 54 – 58). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
X = 3 x [Al2O3] + [MgO] + [Li2O] – 2 x ([Na2O] + [K2O])
= 3 x (8 to12 mol.% Al2O3) + 0.02 to 50 mol% MgO + 0.1 to 50 mol% Li2O – (0.1 x (0 to 50 mol% Na2O + K2O))
= (24 to 36) + (0.02 to 50) + (0.1 to 50) + (0 to 100)
= 24.12 to 236
As such, Dejneka et al. teach X is in the range of 24.12 to 236, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 25.0 or more.
Z = 3 x [Al2O3] – 3 x [B2O3] – 2 x [Li2O] + 4 x [Na2O]
= 3 x (8 to 12 mol.% Al2O3) – [3 x (5 to 20 mol% B2O3)] – [2 x (0.1 to 50 mol% Li2O)] + [4 x (0.1 to 50 mol% Na2O)]
= (24 to 36) – (15 to 60) – (0.1 to 100) + (0.4 to 200)
= 9.3 to 76
As such, Dejneka et al. teach Z is 9.3 to 76, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 22.0 or less.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dejneka et al. do not teach the relative permittivity (i.e., dielectric constant) of the glass article.
Keller teaches the dielectric constants of glasses change as a function of the glass composition. When the SiO2 content is replaced in increasing amounts with metal oxides, the dielectric constant increases in accordance with the higher dielectric constant of these metal oxides as compared to that of SiO2 (pg. 5).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Keller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the concentration of the metal oxides of glass within the ranges taught by Dejneka et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass article with the desired dielectric constant (i.e., “relative permittivity”). 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).
Dejneka et al. fail to teach the dielectric loss tangent of the glass.
Boek et al. teach a low dielectric loss glass comprising a loss tangent of about 0.01 or less, more preferably 0.008 or less, measured at 10 GHz (paragraphs [0005], [0043], & [0077]). The combination of MgO and at least one additional RO, such as CaO, SrO, and/or Bao, in the range of about 3 mol% to about 15 mol% can facilitate forming a glass having a lower dielectric constant and/or loss tangent compared to some glasses which include only a single RO species (paragraph [0046] & [0063]). Furthermore, increasing the amount of SiO2 can decrease the loss tangent at frequences of 10 GHz or higher (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Boek et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the content of SiO2, MgO, and other RO species through routine experimentation in order to achieve a dielectric loss tangent at 10 GHz or higher of 0.01 or less. 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).
With regard to claim 17, Dejeka et al. teach crystalline precipitates may be formed of titanium oxide, tungsten oxide and/or molybdenum oxide transforming the glass state into a glass-ceramic state (Col. 2, Lines 53 – 59 & Col. 14, Lines 17 – 26).
With regard to claim 4, Dejneka et al. teach a chemically strengthened glass comprising 5 – 20 mol% B2O3 wherein SiO2 is about 55 mol% to about 75 mol%, and Al2O3 is about 8 mol% to about 12 mol% (Col. 4, Lines 20 – 23), 0.1 – 50 mol% R2O (Li2O, Na2O, K2O) (Col., 10, Lines 12 – 17), & 0.02 – 50 mol% RO (MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, ZnO) (Col. 10, Lines 54 – 58). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
X = 3 x [Al2O3] + [MgO] + [Li2O] – 2 x ([Na2O] + [K2O])
= 3 x (8 to12 mol.% Al2O3) + 0.02 to 50 mol% MgO + 0.1 to 50 mol% Li2O – (0.1 x (0 to 50 mol% Na2O + K2O))
= (24 to 36) + (0.02 to 50) + (0.1 to 50) + (0 to 100)
= 24.12 to 236
As such, Dejneka et al. teach X is in the range of 24.12 to 236, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 35.0 or more.
Y = 1.2 x ([MgO] + [CaO] + [SrO] + [BaO]) + 1.6 x ([Li2O] + [Na2O] + [K2O])
= [1.2 x (0.02 to 50] + [1.6 x (0.1 to 50)].
= [0.024 to 60] + [0.16 to 80]
As such, Dejneka et al. teach Y in the range of 0.184 to 140, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 35.0 or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Z = 3 x [Al2O3] – 3 x [B2O3] – 2 x [Li2O] + 4 x [Na2O]
= 3 x (8 to 12 mol.% Al2O3) – [3 x (5 to 20 mol% B2O3)] – [2 x (0.1 to 50 mol% Li2O)] + [4 x (0.1 to 50 mol% Na2O)]
= (24 to 36) – (15 to 60) – (0.1 to 100) + (0.4 to 200)
= 9.3 to 76
As such, Dejneka et al. teach Z is 9.3 to 76, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 35.0 or less.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dejneka et al. do not teach the relative permittivity (i.e., dielectric constant) of the glass article.
Keller teaches the dielectric constants of glasses change as a function of the glass composition. When the SiO2 content is replaced in increasing amounts with metal oxides, the dielectric constant increases in accordance with the higher dielectric constant of these metal oxides as compared to that of SiO2 (pg. 5).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Keller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the concentration of the metal oxides of glass within the ranges taught by Dejneka et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass article with the desired dielectric constant (i.e., “relative permittivity”). 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).
Dejneka et al. fail to teach the dielectric loss tangent of the glass.
Boek et al. teach a low dielectric loss glass comprising a loss tangent of about 0.01 or less, more preferably 0.008 or less, measured at 10 GHz (paragraphs [0005], [0043], & [0077]). The combination of MgO and at least one additional RO, such as CaO, SrO, and/or Bao, in the range of about 3 mol% to about 15 mol% can facilitate forming a glass having a lower dielectric constant and/or loss tangent compared to some glasses which include only a single RO species (paragraph [0046] & [0063]). Furthermore, increasing the amount of SiO2 can decrease the loss tangent at frequences of 10 GHz or higher (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Boek et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the content of SiO2, MgO, and other RO species through routine experimentation in order to achieve a dielectric loss tangent at 10 GHz or higher of 0.01 or less. 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).
With regard to claim 18, Dejeka et al. teach crystalline precipitates may be formed of titanium oxide, tungsten oxide and/or molybdenum oxide transforming the glass state into a glass-ceramic state (Col. 2, Lines 53 – 59 & Col. 14, Lines 17 – 26).
Claim(s) 1 – 6 & 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (US 2020/189962 A1), in view of Keller (“The dielectric constant of glasses as a function of the glass composition,” Zeitschr. F. tech, Physik, No. 5, 1932, pp. 237-239) and Boek et al. (US 2020/0231490 A1).
With regard to claims 1 & 6, Dejneka et al. teach a chemically strengthened glass comprising, in terms of mole percentage based on oxides: 50 – 80 mol% SiO2 (paragraph [0091]), 10 – 25 mol% Al2O3 (paragraph [0093]), 0 – 8 mol% B2O3 (paragraph [0108]), greater than or equal to 4 mol% Li2O (paragraph [0092]), 0 – 4.0 mol% Na2O (paragraph [0095]), 0 – 0.5 mol% K2O (paragraph [0096]), and 0 – 2 mol% MgO (paragraph [0100]). Alkaline earth oxides (MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO) are 0 – 5.0 mol% (paragraph [0099]). The glass composition may also be free of coloring agents, such as TiO2 (paragraph [0121]).
Y = 1.2 x ([MgO] + [CaO] + [SrO] + [BaO]) + 1.6 x ([Li2O] + [Na2O] + [K2O])
= [1.2 x (0 to 5 mol%)] + [1.6 x (4 mol% or more)].
= [0 to 6 mol%] + [6.4 mol% or more]
= 0 or more
As such, Dejneka et al. teach Y in the range of zero or more, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 19.5 or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The CTE of the glass article may be greater than or equal to 54 x 10-7/K and less than or equal to 70 x 10-7/K (paragraph [0136]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 60 x 10-7 or more. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dejneka et al. do not teach the relative permittivity (i.e., dielectric constant) of the glass article.
Keller teaches the dielectric constants of glasses change as a function of the glass composition. When the SiO2 content is replaced in increasing amounts with metal oxides, the dielectric constant increases in accordance with the higher dielectric constant of these metal oxides as compared to that of SiO2 (pg. 5).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Keller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the concentration of the metal oxides of glass within the ranges taught by Dejneka et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass article with the desired dielectric constant (i.e., “relative permittivity”). 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).
Dejneka et al. fail to teach the dielectric loss tangent of the glass.
Boek et al. teach a low dielectric loss glass comprising a loss tangent of about 0.01 or less, more preferably 0.008 or less, measured at 10 GHz (paragraphs [0005], [0043], & [0077]). The combination of MgO and at least one additional RO, such as CaO, SrO, and/or Bao, in the range of about 3 mol% to about 15 mol% can facilitate forming a glass having a lower dielectric constant and/or loss tangent compared to some glasses which include only a single RO species (paragraph [0046] & [0063]). Furthermore, increasing the amount of SiO2 can decrease the loss tangent at frequences of 10 GHz or higher (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Boek et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the content of SiO2, MgO, and other RO species through routine experimentation in order to achieve a dielectric loss tangent at 10 GHz or higher of 0.01 or less. 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).
With regard to claim 2, X = 3 x [Al2O3] + [MgO] + [Li2O] – 2 x ([Na2O] + [K2O])
= 3 x (10 – 25 mol% Al2O3) + 0 to 5.0 mol% MgO + 4 mol% or more Li2O – 2 x (0 – 4.5 mol% Na2O/K2O))
= (30 to 75) + (0 to 5) + (4 or more) + (0 to 8.5)
= 34 or more
As such, Dejneka et al. teach X is in the range of 34 or more, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 35.0 or more. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 5, the chemically strengthened glass is formed into a sheet (paragraph [0138]) and working examples were formed to a thickness 0.5 mm to 1 mm (500 µm to 1000 µm) (paragraph [0141]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 100 – 2000 µm.
With regard to claims 19 – 20, as discussed above for claims 1 & 6, based on the teachings of Keller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the concentration of the metal oxides of glass within the ranges taught by Dejneka et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass article with the desired dielectric constant (i.e., “relative permittivity”). 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).
With regard to claim 3, Dejneka et al. teach a chemically strengthened glass comprising, in terms of mole percentage based on oxides: 50 – 80 mol% SiO2 (paragraph [0091]), 10 – 25 mol% Al2O3 (paragraph [0093]), 0 – 8 mol% B2O3 (paragraph [0108]), greater than or equal to 4 mol% Li2O (paragraph [0092]), 0 – 4.0 mol% Na2O (paragraph [0095]), 0 – 0.5 mol% K2O (paragraph [0096]), and 0 – 2 mol% MgO (paragraph [0100]). Alkaline earth oxides (MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO) are 0 – 5.0 mol% (paragraph [0099]). The glass composition may also be free of coloring agents, such as TiO2 (paragraph [0121]).
X = 3 x [Al2O3] + [MgO] + [Li2O] – 2 x ([Na2O] + [K2O])
= 3 x (10 – 25 mol% Al2O3) + 0 to 5.0 mol% MgO + 4 mol% or more Li2O – 2 x (0 – 4.5 mol% Na2O/K2O))
= (30 to 75) + (0 to 5) + (4 or more) + (0 to 8.5)
= 34 or more
As such, Dejneka et al. teach X is in the range of 34 or more, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 35.0 or more. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Z = 3 x [Al2O3] – 3 x [B2O3] – 2 x [Li2O] + 4 x [Na2O]
= 3 x (10 – 25 mol% Al2O3) – [3 x (0 – 8 mol% B2O3)] – [2 x (4 mol% or more Li2O)] + [4 x (0 – 4.0 mol% Na2O)]
= (30 to 75) – (9 to 24) – (8 or more) + (0 to 8)
= 51 or less
As such, Dejneka et al. teach Z is 51 or less, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 35.0 or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The CTE of the glass article may be greater than or equal to 54 x 10-7/K and less than or equal to 70 x 10-7/K (paragraph [0136]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 60 x 10-7 or more. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dejneka et al. do not teach the relative permittivity (i.e., dielectric constant) of the glass article.
Keller teaches the dielectric constants of glasses change as a function of the glass composition. When the SiO2 content is replaced in increasing amounts with metal oxides, the dielectric constant increases in accordance with the higher dielectric constant of these metal oxides as compared to that of SiO2 (pg. 5).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Keller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the concentration of the metal oxides of glass within the ranges taught by Dejneka et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass article with the desired dielectric constant (i.e., “relative permittivity”). 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).
Dejneka et al. fail to teach the dielectric loss tangent of the glass.
Boek et al. teach a low dielectric loss glass comprising a loss tangent of about 0.01 or less, more preferably 0.008 or less, measured at 10 GHz (paragraphs [0005], [0043], & [0077]). The combination of MgO and at least one additional RO, such as CaO, SrO, and/or Bao, in the range of about 3 mol% to about 15 mol% can facilitate forming a glass having a lower dielectric constant and/or loss tangent compared to some glasses which include only a single RO species (paragraph [0046] & [0063]). Furthermore, increasing the amount of SiO2 can decrease the loss tangent at frequences of 10 GHz or higher (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Boek et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the content of SiO2, MgO, and other RO species through routine experimentation in order to achieve a dielectric loss tangent at 10 GHz or higher of 0.01 or less. 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).
With regard to claim 4, Dejneka et al. teach a chemically strengthened glass comprising, in terms of mole percentage based on oxides: 50 – 80 mol% SiO2 (paragraph [0091]), 10 – 25 mol% Al2O3 (paragraph [0093]), 0 – 8 mol% B2O3 (paragraph [0108]), greater than or equal to 4 mol% Li2O (paragraph [0092]), 0 – 4.0 mol% Na2O (paragraph [0095]), 0 – 0.5 mol% K2O (paragraph [0096]), and 0 – 2 mol% MgO (paragraph [0100]). Alkaline earth oxides (MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO) are 0 – 5.0 mol% (paragraph [0099]). The glass composition may also be free of coloring agents, such as TiO2 (paragraph [0121]).
X = 3 x [Al2O3] + [MgO] + [Li2O] – 2 x ([Na2O] + [K2O])
= 3 x (10 – 25 mol% Al2O3) + 0 to 5.0 mol% MgO + 4 mol% or more Li2O – 2 x (0 – 4.5 mol% Na2O/K2O))
= (30 to 75) + (0 to 5) + (4 or more) + (0 to 8.5)
= 34 or more
As such, Dejneka et al. teach X is in the range of 34 or more, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 35.0 or more. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Y = 1.2 x ([MgO] + [CaO] + [SrO] + [BaO]) + 1.6 x ([Li2O] + [Na2O] + [K2O])
= [1.2 x (0 to 5 mol%)] + [1.6 x (4 mol% or more)].
= [0 to 6 mol%] + [6.4 mol% or more]
= 0 or more
As such, Dejneka et al. teach Y in the range of zero or more, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 35.0 or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Z = 3 x [Al2O3] – 3 x [B2O3] – 2 x [Li2O] + 4 x [Na2O]
= 3 x (10 – 25 mol% Al2O3) – [3 x (0 – 8 mol% B2O3)] – [2 x (4 mol% or more Li2O)] + [4 x (0 – 4.0 mol% Na2O)]
= (30 to 75) – (9 to 24) – (8 or more) + (0 to 8)
= 51 or less
As such, Dejneka et al. teach Z is 51 or less, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 35.0 or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The CTE of the glass article may be greater than or equal to 54 x 10-7/K and less than or equal to 70 x 10-7/K (paragraph [0136]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 60 x 10-7 or more. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dejneka et al. do not teach the relative permittivity (i.e., dielectric constant) of the glass article.
Keller teaches the dielectric constants of glasses change as a function of the glass composition. When the SiO2 content is replaced in increasing amounts with metal oxides, the dielectric constant increases in accordance with the higher dielectric constant of these metal oxides as compared to that of SiO2 (pg. 5).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Keller, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the concentration of the metal oxides of glass within the ranges taught by Dejneka et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a glass article with the desired dielectric constant (i.e., “relative permittivity”). 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).
Dejneka et al. fail to teach the dielectric loss tangent of the glass.
Boek et al. teach a low dielectric loss glass comprising a loss tangent of about 0.01 or less, more preferably 0.008 or less, measured at 10 GHz (paragraphs [0005], [0043], & [0077]). The combination of MgO and at least one additional RO, such as CaO, SrO, and/or Bao, in the range of about 3 mol% to about 15 mol% can facilitate forming a glass having a lower dielectric constant and/or loss tangent compared to some glasses which include only a single RO species (paragraph [0046] & [0063]). Furthermore, increasing the amount of SiO2 can decrease the loss tangent at frequences of 10 GHz or higher (paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Boek et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the content of SiO2, MgO, and other RO species through routine experimentation in order to achieve a dielectric loss tangent at 10 GHz or higher of 0.01 or less. 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).
Claim(s) 7 – 9 & 13 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (‘371), Keller, & Boek et al., as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Li et al. (WO 2019/022035 A1)*.
Claim(s) 7 – 9 & 13 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (‘962), Keller, & Boek et al., as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Li et al. (WO 2019/022035 A1)*.
*US 2020/0207660 A1 cited as an English language equivalent
With regard to claim 7, Dejneka et al. teach a chemically strengthened glass sheet formed of the glass composition, but do not teach the chemically strengthened glass has a compressive stress at the surface (CS0) of 300 MPa or more.
With regard to claims 8 & 13, Dejneka et al. teach a chemically strengthened glass sheet formed of the glass composition that has a thickness of 500 µm (Col. 10, Lines 40 – 42 & Col. 17, Lines 25 – 26), which is more than 300 µm. However, Dejneka et al. fail to teach the chemically strengthened glass has a compressive stress value CS50 at a depth of 50 µm from a glass surface of 75 MPa or more.
With regard to claims 9 & 14 – 16, Dejneka et al. do not teach a DOL of at least 80 µm.
Li et al. teach a crystallized glass comprising a compressive stress layer with a surface compressive stress (CS0) of at least 600 MPa (paragraphs [0013], [0035], & [0047]), a compressive stress depth (DOL) of 80 µm or more for providing scratch resistance (paragraph [0048]) and a value CS50 at a depth of 50 µm from a glass surface of about 170 MPa (Fig. 1), which is more than 75 MPa. The high compressive stress is generated for enhancing the chemical strengthening effect when ions in precipitated crystal of the glass are substituted by larger ions owing to an ion exchange treatment for the chemical strengthening (paragraph [0071]). The enhanced chemical strengthening results in a glass article comprising a Vickers hardness of 720 or more (paragraphs [0061] – [0062]) and resistance to cracking by deformation such as bending (paragraph [0042]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Li et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a glass article of high hardness by forming a compressive stress layer of at least 80 µm depth, a surface compressive stress of at least 600 MPa, a compressive stress value CS50 of about 170 MPa at a depth of 50 µm by forming a glass ceramic (crystallized glass) and substituting larger ions into the precipitated crystal of a glass during an ion exchange treatment for improved crack resistance and hardness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “The objection of Claim 6 is respectfully traversed as Claim 6 has been amended for clarity as suggested by the Examiner. Withdrawal of the objection is requested” (Remarks, Pg. 7).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 6, the objection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “When combining Dejneka ‘371, Dejneka ‘962 and Keller, these prior art references differ from the present claims which recite that a dielectric loss tangent is 0.015 or less at 20°C and 10 GHz.
“None of Dejneka ‘371, Dejneka ‘962, Keller, and Li discloses or suggests a dielectric loss tangent is 0.015 or less at 20°C and 10 GHz. Therefore, the present claims are unobvious over any combination of these references” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the amendments of independent claims 1, 3 – 4, & 6, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the teachings of Boek et al. (US 2020/0231490 A1).
Applicant argues, “Furthermore, Dejneka ‘371 teaches ultraviolet (UV) and near-infrared (NIR) absorbing alkali glass ceramics containing silicates and WO3 and/or MoO3, and it must contain tungsten or molybdenum. In contrast, the present application describes a cover glass with excellent radio wave transparency, and none of the examples of this application contain WO3 and/or MoO3. Therefore, when starting from Dejneka ‘371, there is no motivation for a person skilled in the art to form a glass composition without WO3 and MoO3. Thus, the present claims are further distinguished from Dejneka ‘371” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s claims do not preclude the presence of tungsten or molybdenum. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., free of tungsten and/or molybdenum) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781