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 1/28/26 overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in the office action mailed 10/28/25 relative to the current claim set (filed 1/9/23) in the co-pending 18/094,966 application. The amendments do not overcome the rejections set forth under 35 USC 103 in the office action mailed 10/28/25, which are maintained below. The discussion of the rejections has been updated as necessitated by the amendments, and also to provide additional discussion of how claim 8 is rendered obvious by the cited references.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0009462).
In paragraphs 11-21 Murayama discloses a glass composition comprising 55 to 70 mol% of SiO2, 10 to 25 mol% of Al2O3, 1 to 20 mol% of Li2O, 0 to 5 mol% of ZrO2, all overlapping or encompassing the ranges recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 51 Murayama discloses that the SiO2 is preferably present in an amount of 61 to 68 mol%, within the range recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 73 Murayama discloses that ZrO2 is typically present in an amount of 1 mol% or higher, leading to a range within the range recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 60 Murayama discloses that the glass comprises 1 to 10 mol%, especially preferably 4 to 5 mol%, of Na2O, within or overlapping the range recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 62 Murayama discloses that MgO can be present but is not essential, therefore indicating that the composition can be free of MgO, as recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 76 Murayama discloses that P2O5 is preferably present in an amount of 0.5 to 6% by weight, overlapping the range recited in claim 1. In paragraph 61 Murayama discloses that K2O can be present in an amount of 0.5 to 10 mol%, overlapping the ranges recited in amended claims 1 and 13 and encompassing the values recited in claims 4 and 16. The total amount of Na2O, Li2O, and K2O in the composition of Murayama ranges from 2.5 to 40 mol%, encompassing the ranges recited in amended claims 1 and 13. The concentration ranges discussed above lead to a ratio of Al2O to R2O (Li2O+Na2O) overlapping the range recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 134 Murayama discloses that the glass is especially useful as a cover glass, which is a glass article as recited in claim 1. In paragraph 132 Murayama discloses that the glass can have a thickness in ranges overlapping or encompassing the range recited in claim 1, noting that 0.1 mm is equivalent to 100 micrometers.
In paragraph 102 Murayama discloses that the coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass is still more preferably 76 x10-7/° C or higher and most preferably 84 x 10-7/° C or lower, within the range recited in claim 5, noting that a degree C is equivalent to a degree K. In paragraph 93 Murayama discloses that the glass has a glass transition temperature in a range overlapping the range recited in claim 6. In paragraph 99 Murayama discloses that the density of the glass is preferably 2.4 g/cm3 or higher and still more preferably 2.6 g/cm3 or less, meeting the limitations of claim 7. In paragraph 98 Murayama discloses that the Young’s modulus of the glass, which is an elastic modulus, preferably ranges from 80 to 110 GPa, overlapping the range recited in claim 8.
The difference between Murayama and the currently presented claims is that some of the ranges of Murayama overlap or encompass the claimed ranges rather than falling 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). Claims 1, 5-7, 13, and 17 are therefore rendered obvious by Murayama. Additionally, since the cover glass of Murayama comprises all the elements of the claimed glass article in concentrations within, overlapping, or encompassing the claimed ranges, and has a thickness overlapping or encompassing the claimed range, it will possess the properties recited in claims 8-12 in ranges at least overlapping or encompassing the claimed ranges, rendering those claims obvious as well.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paek (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0136069) in view of Murayama.
In paragraph 2, Paek discloses an electronic device comprising a flexible display apparatus. In paragraph 187 Paek discloses that the electronic device can comprise a display module and a cover window, and in paragraph 194 Paek discloses that the display module can be bonded to the cover window using a module bonding member which can be an optically clear adhesive or optically clear resin, meeting the limitations of the optically clear coupling layer of claim 18. In paragraph 208 Paek discloses that the display module comprises a flexible display panel, and in paragraph 166 Paek discloses that the flexible display panel comprises a pixel array portion, meeting the limitations of the display panel comprising a plurality of pixels of claim 18. Paek does not disclose a cover window having the specific composition and properties of claim 18.
The discussion of Murayama in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference. Murayama discloses a glass article useful as a cover glass (cover window) for a display device and meeting the compositional and thickness limitations of claim 18.In paragraph 134 Murayama discloses that the cover glass can be used in various electronic devices also disclosed in paragraph 238 of Paek. The use of the cover glass of Murayama as the cover glass in the electronic device of Paek therefore meets the limitations of claim 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cover glass of Murayama as the cover glass in the electronic device of Paek, since Murayama discloses in paragraph 28 that the glass is less apt to be devitrified and has a large value of surface compressive strength and a large depth of compressive-stress layer.
Claims 1, 4-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama ‘066 (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0235066).
In paragraphs 9-19 Murayama ‘066 discloses a glass composition comprising 45 to 75 mol% of SiO2, 1 to 30 mol% of Al2O3, 1 to 20 mol% of Li2O, 0 to 5 mol% of ZrO2, all overlapping or encompassing the ranges recited in claims 1 and 13 and the values recited in claims 4 and 16. In paragraph 51 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the SiO2 is even more preferably present in an amount of 60 mol% or more, leading to a range matching the range recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 82 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the Li2O content is typically 10 mol% or higher, leading to a range within the range recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 98 Murayama ‘066 discloses that ZrO2 is typically present in an amount of 1 mol% or higher, leading to a range within the range recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 86 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the glass comprises 1 to 10 mol%, even more preferably 3 to 6 mol%, of Na2O, within or encompassing the range recited in claims 1 and 13 and the values recited in claims 4 and 16. In paragraph 91 Murayama ‘066 discloses that MgO can be present but is not essential, therefore indicating that the composition can be free of MgO, as recited in claims 1 and 13. In paragraph 102 Murayama ‘066 discloses that P2O5 is preferably present in an amount of 0.5 to 6% by weight, overlapping the range recited in claim 1. In paragraph 87 Murayama ‘066 discloses that when K2O is present it is preferably present in an amount of 0.5 to 10 mol%, overlapping the range recited in amended claims 1 and 13 and encompassing the values recited in claims 4 and 16. The concentration ranges discussed above lead to a total Na2O, Li2O, and K2O concentration of 2.5 to 40 mol%, or 13.5 to 26 mol% if the narrower ranges are used, both encompassing the ranges recited in amended claims 1 and 13. The concentration ranges also lead to a ratio of Al2O to R2O (Li2O+Na2O) overlapping the range recited in claims 1 and 13, and a ratio of Al2O to R’2O (Li2O+Na2O+K2O) overlapping the ranges recited in claims 4 and 16. In paragraph 153 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the glass is especially useful as a cover glass, which is a glass article as recited in claim 1. In paragraph 151 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the glass can have a thickness in ranges overlapping or encompassing the range recited in claim 1, noting that 0.1 mm is equivalent to 100 micrometers.
In paragraph 115 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass is still more preferably 76 x10-7/° C or higher and most preferably 84 x 10-7/° C or lower, within the range recited in claim 5, noting that a degree C is equivalent to a degree K. In paragraph 116 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the glass has a glass transition temperature in a range overlapping the range recited in claim 6. In paragraph 112 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the density of the glass is preferably 2.4 g/cm3 or higher and still more preferably 2.6 g/cm3 or less, meeting the limitations of claim 7. In paragraph 111 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the Young’s modulus of the glass, which is an elastic modulus, preferably ranges from 80 to 110 GPa, overlapping the range recited in claim 8.
The difference between Murayama ‘066 and the currently presented claims is that some of the ranges of Murayama ‘066 overlap or encompass the claimed ranges rather than falling 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). Claims 1, 4-7, 13, and 16 are therefore rendered obvious by Murayama ‘066. Additionally, since the cover glass of Murayama ‘066 comprises all the elements of the claimed glass article in concentrations within, overlapping, or encompassing the claimed ranges, and has a thickness overlapping or encompassing the claimed range, it will possess the properties recited in claims 8-12 in ranges at least overlapping or encompassing the claimed ranges, rendering those claims obvious as well.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paek (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2020/0136069) in view of Murayama ‘066.
In paragraph 2, Paek discloses an electronic device comprising a flexible display apparatus. In paragraph 187 Paek discloses that the electronic device can comprise a display module and a cover window, and in paragraph 194 Paek discloses that the display module can be bonded to the cover window using a module bonding member which can be an optically clear adhesive or optically clear resin, meeting the limitations of the optically clear coupling layer of claim 18. In paragraph 208 Paek discloses that the display module comprises a flexible display panel, and in paragraph 166 Paek discloses that the flexible display panel comprises a pixel array portion, meeting the limitations of the display panel comprising a plurality of pixels of claim 18. Paek does not disclose a cover window having the specific composition and properties of claim 18.
The discussion of Murayama ‘066 in paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference. Murayama ‘066 discloses a glass article useful as a cover glass (cover window) for a display device and meeting the compositional and thickness limitations of claim 18. In paragraph 153 Murayama ‘066 discloses that the cover glass can be used in various electronic devices also disclosed in paragraph 238 of Paek. The use of the cover glass of Murayama ‘066 as the cover glass in the electronic device of Paek therefore meets the limitations of claim 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cover glass of Murayama ‘066 as the cover glass in the electronic device of Paek, since Murayama ‘066 discloses in paragraph 28 that the glass is less apt to be devitrified and has a large value of surface compressive strength and a large depth of compressive-stress layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Murayama and Murayama ‘066 do not teach glass compositions having the total concentration of Li2O, Na2O, and K2O, within the ranges recited in the amended claims, pointing to the examples supplied in the Murayama and Murayama ‘066 references. However, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123. As discussed in the above rejections, both the Murayama and Murayama ‘066 references disclose concentration for Li2O, Na2O, and K2O that lead to a total concentration range for those components encompassing the ranges recited in the amended claims. Applicant’s argument on this point is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the claimed subject matter results in unexpectedly beneficial properties, pointing to the data provided in Tables 1-2 of the specification. The data provided by applicant contains a single inventive example (Example 1), and three comparative examples (Examples 2-4).
In order to demonstrate evidence of unexpected results sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, applicant must provide a comparison with the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e). In this case, all the comparative examples provided by applicant contain MgO, which is excluded from the claimed compositions, and are free of Li2O and ZrO2, which are required components in the claimed compositions. Murayama and Murayama ‘066, in contrast, comprise Li2O as a required component, especially preferably in an amount of 9 mol% or higher, and preferably contain ZrO2 (paragraph 73 of Murayama and paragraph 98 of Murayama ‘066). Murayama and Murayama ‘066 also indicate that MgO is an optional component, as discussed in the above rejections. Both Murayama and Murayama ‘066 are therefore closer prior art than the comparative example supplied by applicant. Applicant has therefore not met the requirement of a comparison with the closest prior art.
In order to successfully overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, applicant also must demonstrate unexpectedly superior results commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP 716.02(d). Applicant’s sole inventive example uses a specific glass composition having specific amounts of each component, while claims independent claims 1 and 13 recite broader concentration ranges, and the open-ended “comprising” language also allows for the inclusion of other unrecited components. The inventive examples would not allow one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that superior results would be maintained across the full scope of the claims. Claims 4 and 16 recite more specific compositions more reflective of the inventive example, but even there the “about” language implies broader concentration ranges which have not been exemplified by applicant. Applicant has therefore also not met the requirement of demonstrated superior results commensurate in scope with the claims.
Conclusion
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