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 .
The amendments filed 5/11/26 overcome the rejections set forth in the office action mailed 2/9/26. New grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendments, are set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brix (U.S. Pat. No. 9,096,460).
In the table in column 2, Brix discloses a lithium aluminosilicate glass comprising 60 to 70 mol% of SiO2, 10 to 13 mol% of Al2O3, 8.2 to less than 10 mol% of Na2O, 9.6 to 11.6 mol% of Li2O, 0.0 to 0.5 mol% of P2O5, 1.3 to 2.6 mol% of ZrO2, 0.0 to 0.7 mol% K2O, all within or overlapping the ranges recited in claim 13. The total amount of Na2O, K2O, and Li2O ranges from 17.8 to 22.3 mol%, overlapping the range recited in claim 13. Brix does not disclose MgO as a required component and in column 6 line 29 Brix discloses that the glass should be free of MgO, as recited in claim 13. The ratio of Al2O3 to R2O ranges from 0.45 (10/22.3) to 0.73 (13/17.8), overlapping the range recited in claim 13. In column 3 lines 38-40 Brix discloses that the glass has a glass transition temperature of less than 540° C, encompassing the range recited in claim 13.
The difference between Brix and claim 13 is that some of the ranges of Brix overlap or encompass the claimed ranges rather than fall within them. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “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);” "[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).
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that paragraph 45 on page 9 of the specification sets forth an expansive definition of “about”, where it represents “an acceptable range of deviation for the particular value as determined by one of ordinary skill in the art”, such as +/- 30% of the stated value. The Al2O3 concentration recited in claims 4 and 16 is therefore interpreted as having an upper bound of at least 8.2 mol%, the Li2O concentration is interpreted as having a lower bound of 13.1 mol%, and the (Al2O3):(R’2O) ratio is interpreted as having an upper bound of at least 0.34. While the ranges of Brix for these components are still outside these ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). In particular, it is noted that paragraphs 95, 97, and 106 on pages 22-23 and 26 of the specification indicate that the ranges of Brix for Al2O3, Li2O, and (Al2O3):(R’2O) ratio are sufficient for producing a glass having the same properties as the glass of claims 4 and 16. Claims 4 and 16 are therefore also rendered obvious by Brix.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0068725) in view of Brix.
In paragraphs 7-19 Park discloses a display device comprising a display panel and a cover window on the display panel. In paragraph 51 Park discloses that the cover window which is flexible and may be a glass film. Park discloses in paragraph 51 that the glass film has a thickness of less than 100 µm in the bending region. A cover window is a glass article, as recited in claim 1, and the thickness of the glass film of Park encompasses the range recited in claim 1. In paragraph 48 Park discloses that the display panel comprises pixels, as recited in claim 18, and the cover window disposed on the display panel corresponds to the cover window of claim 18. In paragraphs 48-51 Park discloses that the device also comprises an anti-reflective layer and an optically clear adhesive layer between the display panel and cover window, where the optically clear adhesive meets the limitations of the optically clear coupling layer of claim 18. Park does not specifically disclose that the glass film has the claimed composition and properties,
The discussion of Brix in paragraph 3 above is incorporated here by reference. Brix, as discussed above, discloses a glass composition meeting the limitations of claims 1 and 4. In column 3 lines 24-27 Brix discloses that the glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 80 to 90 x 10-7 K-1, overlapping the range recited in claim 5. In column 6 lines 52-53 Brix discloses that the glass can have a density of less than 2.50 g/cm3, overlapping the range recited in claim 7. In column 2 lines 55-57 Brix discloses that the glass has an elastic modulus of at least 82 GPa, overlapping the range recited in claim 8. Additionally, since the glass of Brix comprises all the elements of the claimed glass in amounts within, overlapping, or encompassing the claimed ranges, it will possess the properties recited in claims 9-12 in ranges at least overlapping or encompassing the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “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);” "[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).
The use of the glass of Brix as the glass film (cover window) in the display device of Park therefore meets the limitations of claims 1, 5, 7-12, and 18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the glass of Brix as the glass film (cover window) in the display device of Park, as Brix teaches in column 7 lines 52-53 that the glass is useful as a display for mobile communication devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly applied Brix reference teaches a glass composition having the claimed composition and glass transition temperature.
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 JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights