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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (US 2018/0186685).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9, Murayama discloses a chemically strengthened containing, in mole percentage on an oxide basis, 50 to 80% of SiO2, 1 to 30% of Al2O3, 0 to 6% of B2O3, 0 to 6% of P2O5, 0 to 20% of Li2O, 0 to 8% of Na2O, 0 to 10% of K2O, 0 to 20% of MgO, 0 to 20% of CaO, 0 to 20% of SrO, 0 to 15% of BaO, 0 to 10% of ZnO, 0 to 5% of TiO2, and 0 to 8% of ZrO2 [0033]. Note that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed parameters M, D, E and S, given the reference renders obvious the claimed composition, the reference is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed parameters. For example, based on the composition disclosed by Murayama, the reference renders obvious at least Applicant’s example 1 of Table 1, which has the claimed parameters.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, while the reference renders obvious the claimed composition (see above discussion), it does not specially disclose the compressive stress properties when the glass is subjected to the claimed strengthening. Given the glass of Murayama renders obvious the claimed glass in terms of composition, however, it is expected the disclosed and claimed glasses will have similar properties when subjected to the same chemical strengthening, see above discussion. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties; see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claims 6-8, while the reference renders obvious the claimed composition (see above discussion), it does not specially disclose the claimed properties. Given the glass of Murayama renders obvious the claimed glass in terms of composition, however, it is expected the disclosed and claimed glasses will have similar properties, see above discussion. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties; see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 10, Murayama discloses a chemically strengthened glass containing, in mole percentage on an oxide basis, 50 to 80% of SiO2, 1 to 30% of Al2O3, 0 to 6% of B2O3, 0 to 6% of P2O5, 0 to 20% of Li2O, 0 to 8% of Na2O, 0 to 10% of K2O, 0 to 20% of MgO, 0 to 20% of CaO, 0 to 20% of SrO, 0 to 15% of BaO, 0 to 10% of ZnO, 0 to 5% of TiO2, and 0 to 8% of ZrO2 [0033]. Note that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”; see MPEP 2144.05 I. While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed Na2O concentration profile, it is expected the disclosed glass will have a maximum Na2O concentration at a depth of 1 micron or greater than the surface given the similar method of chemical strengthening between the disclosed and claimed glasses [0251]; see Applicant’s specification page 4 and MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the reference discloses the claimed compressive and tensile stresses, see Fig. 14.
Regarding claim 13, the reference discloses the compressive stress is 2000 MPa or less, which overlaps the claimed range [0073]; see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges.
Regarding claims 14-17, while the reference renders obvious the claimed composition (see above discussion), it does not specially disclose the claimed properties. Given the glass of Murayama renders obvious the claimed glass in terms of composition, however, it is expected the disclosed and claimed glasses will have similar properties, see above discussion. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties; see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 18, while the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed parameter S, given the reference renders obvious the claimed composition, the reference is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed parameter S. For example, based on the composition disclosed by Murayama, the reference renders obvious at least Applicant’s example 1 of Table 1, which has the claimed parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm EST.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights