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 11/06/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are currently pending.
Claims 6-7 and 11-12 have been withdrawn.
Claim 21 has been amended.
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 1-5, 8-10, 13-17, and 19-21 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 claims 1-5, 8-10, 13-17, and 19-21, the phrase "-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claims includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, it is just interpreted to sheet glass article.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2013/0128434 A1) in view of in view of Murayama et al. (US 2019/0194057 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-5, 8-10, 14-16 and 19, Yamamoto teaches a chemical strengthened colored glass (Abstract; Paragraph 0043) that can have a thickness of 5 mm or less (Paragraph 0011), which overlaps the claimed ranges recited in Claim 1 and 14.
Yamamoto teaches the composition comprises 0.1005 to 9 mol% of a color-imparting component, such as CoO, Fe2O3 and/or TiO2 (Claim 4 and 9 of Yamamoto; Table 7). Yamamoto teaches Fe2O3 can range from 0 to 6 mol%, Co3O4, which converts to CoO, can range from 0 to 6 mol%, and TiO2 can range from 0.005 to 1 mol%. These ranges overlap the ranges recited in Claims 1, 8-10.
Yamamoto teaches SiO2 can range from 55 to 80 mol%, Al2O3 can range from 3 to 16%, B2O3 can range from 0 to 12 mol%, Li2O can range from 1 to 15 mol%, Na2O can range from 5 to 16 mol%, K2O can range from 0 to 4 mol%, MgO can range from 0 to 15 mol%, ZrO2 can range from 0 to 1 mol%. (Paragraph 0014-0016, 0059-0064, 0075-0076, 0098).
Yamamoto does teach the possible inclusion of P2O5, but does not teach molar range for P2O5.
Murayama teaches a colored chemically toughened glass comprising SiO2 Al2O3, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, MgO, P2O5, and ZrO2. (Paragraph 0173-0196, 0199). Murayama teaches glasses can include from 0.5 to 4 mol of P2O5. (Paragraph 0180). Murayama teaches this mol weight enhances ion exchange performance and chipping resistance. (Paragraph 0180). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed amount of P2O5 in the glass of Yamamoto.
These component ranges overlap the claimed ranges. 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 Yamamoto and Murayama 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 Yamamoto would also have the same light and IR transmittance as the claimed invention, as the claimed glass and glass of Yamamoto 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, Yamamoto teaches the glass can be ion exchanged, which imparts a compressive stress to the glass to strengthen the glass. (Paragraph 0022). Yamamoto does not specifically teach the compressive stress at the surface, compressive stress 30 microns, and the depth of the compressive layer.
Murayama teaches a colored chemical strengthened glass (Abstract; Paragraph 0199) having a thickness of 2 mm or less (Paragraph 0160), where the DOL is 100 microns or more. (Paragraph 0162). This overlaps the claimed range of DOL to thickness ratio. Murayama teaches the compressive stress at the surface is 300 MPa or more (Paragraph 0074). This overlaps the claimed range. Murayama teaches the Cs90 is 25 MPa or more. (Paragraph 0010). This allows the Cs30 range of Murayama to 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)
Murayama teaches arrangement for the stress and DOL ensure the glass will have suppressed fragmentation when fractured and makes the glass safer. (Paragraph 0044). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the DOL and compressive to the claimed range in Yamamoto for a safer glass.
Regarding Claim 17, Yamamoto teaches the glass can be used as a housing that covers the rear of a mobile phone. (Paragraph 0005-0008).
Regarding Claim 20, Yamamoto teaches a chemical strengthened colored glass (Abstract; Paragraph 0043) that can have a thickness of 5 mm or less (Paragraph 0011), which overlaps the claimed ranges.
Yamamoto teaches the composition comprises 0.1005 to 9 mol% of a color-imparting component, such as CoO, Fe2O3 and/or TiO2 (Claim 4 and 9 of Yamamoto; Table 7). Yamamoto teaches Fe2O3 can range from 0 to 6 mol%, Co3O4, which converts to CoO, can range from 0 to 6 mol%, and TiO2 can range from 0.005 to 1 mol%. These ranges overlap the ranges.
Yamamoto teaches SiO2 can range from 55 to 80 mol%, Al2O3 can range from 3 to 16%, B2O3 can range from 0 to 12 mol%, Li2O can range from 1 to 15 mol%, Na2O can range from 5 to 16 mol%, K2O can range from 0 to 4 mol%, MgO can range from 0 to 15 mol%, ZrO2 can range from 0 to 1 mol%. (Paragraph 0014-0016, 0059-0064, 0075-0076, 0098).
Yamamoto does teach the possible inclusion of P2O5, but does not teach molar range for P2O5.
Murayama teaches a colored chemically toughened glass comprising SiO2 Al2O3, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, MgO, P2O5, and ZrO2. (Paragraph 0173-0196, 0199). Murayama teaches glasses can include from 0.5 to 4 mol of P2O5. (Paragraph 0180). Murayama teaches this mol weight enhances ion exchange performance and chipping resistance. (Paragraph 0180). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed amount of P2O5 in the glass of Yamamoto.
These component ranges overlap the claimed ranges. 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)
Yamamoto teaches the glass can be ion exchanged, which imparts a compressive stress to the glass to strengthen the glass. (Paragraph 0022). Yamamoto does not specifically teach the compressive stress at the surface, compressive stress 30 microns, and the depth of the compressive layer.
Murayama teaches a colored chemical strengthened glass (Abstract; Paragraph 0199) having a thickness of 2 mm or less (Paragraph 0160), where the DOL is 100 microns or more. (Paragraph 0162). This overlaps the claimed range of DOL to thickness ratio. Murayama teaches the compressive stress at the surface is 300 MPa or more (Paragraph 0074). This overlaps the claimed range. Murayama teaches the Cs90 is 25 MPa or more. (Paragraph 0010). This allows the Cs30 range of Murayama to 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)
Murayama teaches arrangement for the stress and DOL ensure the glass will have suppressed fragmentation when fractured and makes the glass safer. (Paragraph 0044). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the DOL and compressive to the claimed range in Yamamoto for a safer glass.
With regard to the light transmittance and IR transmittance recited in claim 20, as Yamamoto and Murayama 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 Yamamoto would also have the same light and IR transmittance as the claimed invention, as the claimed glass and glass of Yamamoto 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).
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 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).
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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Yamamoto only teaches on example that contains the P2O5. This argument is found unpersuasive, as the rejection of Yamamoto and Murayama is used to reject the claimed composition. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues unexpected results due to the formula recited in Claim 2. Applicant has not provided explained this unexpected result with data to overcome the 103 rejections under obviousness.
Applicant argues that Murayama does not teach the claimed compressive stress. This argument is found unpersuasive. Murayama teaches the compressive stress at the surface, where the compressive stress is the highest, is at least 300 MPa. (Paragraph 0074). Murayama then teaches the compressive stress at a depth of 90 microns is 25 MPa or more. (Paragraph 0010). It is well known in the art that compressive stress formed through ion-exchange decreases as you go towards the center of the glass sheet. Therefore, Murayama teaches the compressive stress at the surface is 300 MPa and a depth of 90 microns, the compressive stress is 25 MPa or more. Therefore, this establishes the range of the compressive stress at 30 micron can be at least 25 MPa or greater, as 90 micron depth has this range.
Applicant argues the values in Figure 14 and Table 2 of Murayama does not teach the claimed composition. This argument is found unpersuasive. The rejection of Yamamoto and Murayama is used to reject the claimed composition and compressive stress. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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