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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments filed 04/08/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-17 and 19-23 are currently pending.
Claims 6-7 and 11-12 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 22-23 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.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites “at least one color-imparting component in an amount of at least 0.1 mol% and at most 5 mol%” and then recites TiO2 and Fe2O3 with mol%. It would be uncertain to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim requires a color-imparting component outside of TiO2 and Fe2O3 or TiO2 and Fe2O3 qualify as the color-imparting component. Thus, the claim rendered indefinite.
For purposes of examination, is interpreted that TiO2 and Fe2O3 qualify as color-imparting components and only need to total 0.1 to 5 mol%.
Claim 23 is also rejected, due to its dependency on Claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1-5, 8-10, 13-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imakita et al. (US 2020/0039876 A1) in view of Kondo et al. (US 2011/0071012 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-5, 8-10, 14-16 and 19, Imakita teaches a chemically toughenable glass sheet having a thickness of 0.3 to 2 mm. (Abstract; Paragraph 0010, 0116). This overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 4 mm.
Imakita teaches the composition of the glass sheet comprises 50 to 80% of SiO2, 4 to 30% of Al2O3, 0 to 15% of B2O3, 0 to 15% of P2O5, 0 to 20% of MgO, 0 to 10% of TiO2, 0 to 10% of ZrO2, 3 to 20% of Li2O, 0 to 20% of Na2O, and 0 to 20% of K2O, on mole percentage. (Paragraph 0066-0069). These ranges overlap 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Imakita also teaches formula for the compressive stress throughout the thickness of the glass. (Paragraph 0020-0027). This teaches a compressive stress range at a depth of 30 microns that 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Imakita teaches 7 mol% or less of coloring-imparting components, where the coloring-imparting components can comprise Fe2O3. Imakita teaches the glass can also include Co3O4, which changes into CoO in glass. (Paragraph 0107-0108).
Imakita does not specifically teach the amount of Fe2O3 and Co3O4 present in the glass composition.
Kondo teaches a chemically toughenable colored glass (Abstract; Paragraph 0092), where the ratio of Co3O4/Fe2O3 is 0.01 to 0.5. (Paragraph 0021). Kondo teaches this ratio of Co3O4 and Fe2O3 ensures a better glass by reducing bubbles and defoaming the glass. (Paragraph 0050-0054). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add Fe2O3 and Co3O4 in the claimed ratio to the glass composition of Imakita to avoid bubbles and ensure a better-quality glass. This ratio taught by Kondo and molecular range taught by Imakita for the color-imparting components create a composition range for CoO and Fe2O3 that overlap 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
With regard to the light transmittance and IR transmittance recited in Claims 1, 5, and 8, as Imakita and Kondo teach the overlapping composition range for the glass, then it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art that the composition of Imakita and Kondo would also have the same light and IR transmittance as the claimed invention, as the claimed glass and glass of Imakita and Kondo would inherently have the same properties. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. (MPEP §2112).
Regarding Claim 13, Imakita teaches the glass can have a surface compressive stress of 600 to 1300 MPa. (Paragraph 0053-0054). This overlaps the claimed range. Imakita teaches the depth of compressive stress is 70 microns or more (Paragraph 0056) and the thickness is 2 mm or less. (Paragraph 0115). This creates a DoCL that 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 17, Imakita teaches this glass can be used for housings, which would include the rear, of electronic mobile devices and TV. (Paragraph 0133)
Regarding Claim 20, Imakita teaches a chemically toughenable glass sheet having a thickness of 0.3 to 2 mm. (Abstract; Paragraph 0010, 0116). This overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 4 mm.
Imakita teaches the composition of the glass sheet comprises 50 to 80% of SiO2, 4 to 30% of Al2O3, 0 to 15% of B2O3, 0 to 15% of P2O5, 0 to 20% of MgO, 0 to 10% of TiO2, 0 to 10% of ZrO2, 3 to 20% of Li2O, 0 to 20% of Na2O, and 0 to 20% of K2O, on mole percentage. (Paragraph 0066-0069). These ranges overlap 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Imakita teaches 7 mol% or less of coloring-imparting components, where the coloring-imparting components can comprise Fe2O3. Imakita teaches the glass can also include Co3O4, which changes into CoO in glass. (Paragraph 0107-0108).
Imakita teaches the glass can have a surface compressive stress of 600 to 1300 MPa. (Paragraph 0053-0054). This overlaps the claimed range. Imakita teaches the depth of compressive stress is 70 microns or more (Paragraph 0056) and the thickness is 2 mm or less. (Paragraph 0115). This creates a DoCL that 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Imakita also teaches formula for the compressive stress throughout the thickness of the glass. (Paragraph 0020-0027). This teaches a compressive stress range at a depth of 30 microns that 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Imakita does not specifically teach the amount of Fe2O3 and Co3O4 present in the glass composition.
Kondo teaches a chemically toughenable colored glass (Abstract; Paragraph 0092), where the ratio of Co3O4/Fe2O3 is 0.01 to 0.5. (Paragraph 0021). Kondo teaches this ratio of Co3O4 and Fe2O3 ensures a better glass by reducing bubbles and defoaming the glass. (Paragraph 0050-0054). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add Fe2O3 and Co3O4 in the claimed ratio to the glass composition of Imakita to avoid bubbles and ensure a better quality glass. This ratio taught by Kondo and molecular range taught by Imakita for the color-imparting components create a composition range for CoO and Fe2O3 that overlap 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
With regard to the light transmittance and IR transmittance recited in Claim 20 as Imakita and Kondo teach the overlapping composition range for the glass, then it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art that the composition of Imakita and Kondo would also have the same light and IR transmittance as the claimed invention, as the claimed glass and glass of Imakita and Kondo would inherently have the same properties. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. (MPEP §2112).
Regarding Claim 21, Imakita teaches a chemically toughenable glass sheet having a thickness of 0.3 to 2 mm. (Abstract; Paragraph 0010, 0116). This overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 4 mm.
Imakita teaches the composition of the glass sheet comprises 50 to 80% of SiO2, 4 to 30% of Al2O3, 0 to 15% of B2O3, 0 to 15% of P2O5, 0 to 20% of MgO, 0 to 10% of TiO2, 0 to 10% of ZrO2, 3 to 20% of Li2O, 0 to 20% of Na2O, and 0 to 20% of K2O, on mole percentage. (Paragraph 0066-0069). These ranges overlap 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Imakita teaches 7 mol% or less of coloring-imparting components, where the coloring-imparting components can comprise Fe2O3. Imakita teaches the glass can also include Co3O4, which changes into CoO in glass. (Paragraph 0107-0108).
Imakita does not specifically teach the amount of Fe2O3 and Co3O4 present in the glass composition.
Kondo teaches a chemically toughenable colored glass (Abstract; Paragraph 0092), where the ratio of Co3O4/Fe2O3 is 0.01 to 0.5. (Paragraph 0021). Kondo teaches this ratio of Co3O4 and Fe2O3 ensures a better glass by reducing bubbles and defoaming the glass. (Paragraph 0050-0054). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add Fe2O3 and Co3O4 in the claimed ratio to the glass composition of Imakita to avoid bubbles and ensure a better quality glass. This ratio taught by Kondo and molecular range taught by Imakita for the color-imparting components create a composition range for CoO and Fe2O3 that overlap 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
With regard to the light transmittance and IR transmittance recited in Claims 21 as Imakita and Kondo teach the overlapping composition range for the glass, then it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art that the composition of Imakita and Kondo would also have the same light and IR transmittance as the claimed invention, as the claimed glass and glass of Imakita and Kondo would inherently have the same properties. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. (MPEP §2112).
Regarding Claim 22-23, Imakita teaches a chemically toughenable glass sheet having a thickness of 0.3 to 2 mm. (Abstract; Paragraph 0010, 0116). This overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 4 mm.
Imakita teaches the composition of the glass sheet comprises 50 to 80% of SiO2, 4 to 30% of Al2O3, 0 to 15% of B2O3, 0 to 15% of P2O5, 0 to 20% of MgO, 0 to 10% of TiO2, 0 to 10% of ZrO2, 3 to 20% of Li2O, 0 to 20% of Na2O, and 0 to 20% of K2O, on mole percentage. (Paragraph 0066-0069). These ranges overlap 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Imakita teaches the glass can have a surface compressive stress of 600 to 1300 MPa. (Paragraph 0053-0054). This overlaps the claimed range. Imakita teaches the depth of compressive stress is 70 microns or more (Paragraph 0056) and the thickness is 2 mm or less. (Paragraph 0115). This creates a DoCL that 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Imakita also teaches formula for the compressive stress throughout the thickness of the glass. (Paragraph 0020-0027). This teaches a compressive stress range at a depth of 30 microns that 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Imakita teaches 7 mol% or less of coloring-imparting components, where the coloring-imparting components can comprise Fe2O3. Imakita teaches the glass can also include Co3O4, which changes into CoO in glass. (Paragraph 0107-0108).
Imakita does not specifically teach the amount of Fe2O3 and Co3O4 present in the glass composition.
Kondo teaches a chemically toughenable colored glass (Abstract; Paragraph 0092), where the ratio of Co3O4/Fe2O3 is 0.01 to 0.5. (Paragraph 0021). Kondo teaches this ratio of Co3O4 and Fe2O3 ensures a better glass by reducing bubbles and defoaming the glass. (Paragraph 0050-0054). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add Fe2O3 and Co3O4 in the claimed ratio to the glass composition of Imakita to avoid bubbles and ensure a better quality glass. This ratio taught by Kondo and molecular range taught by Imakita for the color-imparting components create a composition range for CoO and Fe2O3 that overlap 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
With regard to the light transmittance and IR transmittance recited in Claim 22 as Imakita and Kondo teach the overlapping composition range for the glass, then it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art that the composition of Imakita and Kondo would also have the same light and IR transmittance as the claimed invention, as the claimed glass and glass of Imakita and Kondo would inherently have the same properties. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. (MPEP §2112).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112 rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues Imakita does not teach the narrower ranges for TiO2, P2O5, Fe2O3, or (Al2O3 +B2O3) – (Li2O +Na2O+K2O). This argument is found unpersuasive, as Imakita and Kondo teach overlapping ranges for all the components in the glass composition, the compressive stress, and thicknesses (Paragraph 0066-0069). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). One of ordinary skill in the art would select within the ranges provided.
Applicant argues that Imakita does not teach Cs30 range. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Imakita’s Formula 1 details a range for Cs at various depths, including CS30. (Claim 1 of Imakita). For example, setting a glass with a thickness of 500 micron, A1 to 650 MPa, A2 to 180 MPa, B1 to 5 microns, B2 to 60 microns, C to -30 MPa, would yield a Cs30 of 51 MPa. Another example, setting a glass with a thickness of 500 microns, A1 to 800 MPa, A2 to 456 MPa, B1 to 5 microns, B2 to 120 microns, C to -30 MPa, would yield a Cs30 of 300 MPa. Thus, Imakita teaches a formula for CS30 that overlaps the claimed range.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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 on (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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights