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 .
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration after Non-Final Rejection file 10/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 21-27 remain pending in the application, with Claims 21-27 added, Claim 13 previously withdrawn, and Claims 14-20 cancelled herein.
Applicant' s arguments and Amendments, filed 10/17/2025, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, and Claims except as specifically noted below. Applicant' s arguments with respect to added Claim(s) 21-27 have been considered, but are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims with the additions of Claims 21-27 filed on 10/17/2025.
Claim Rejections Under U.S.C. 103, Pages 11-12, Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 12 (all of which ultimately dependent on Claim 1).
Claim Rejections Under U.S.C. 103, Page 12, Claim 10 (dependent on Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 1 rejection, Applicant argues that,
the rejection is improper in that cycling the glass body of Yang between an upper and lower submerging depth as taught by Sakade would change the principle of the operation of Yang, citing by MPEP 2143.01 (VI) and In re Ratti, 270, F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). As emphasized by the Applicant, Yang states that immersing the glass body into the etchant at this inclination angle allows the glass body to be immersed into the etchant in a smaller depth, that the glass body may oscillate in a direction parallel to the liquid level of the etchant after immersion, and the oscillation of the glass body prevents the etchant from settling and the formed crystals from obscuring each other. Further, that the basic principle of Yang is to etch at a smaller depth and to oscillate in a direction parallel to the liquid level of the etchant, wherein cycling the glass body as taught by Sakade would result in changing the basic principle under which Yang was designed to operate.
To address Applicant arguments, the Examiner replies,
For clarity of record, the Applicant cites Yang [0065] and [0066], where the Examiner cites equivalent Page 7 lines 41-52 that reads slightly differently below:
“Specifically, in the above-mentioned etching step, referring to FIG. 4, the glass body 10 can be adjusted to 30 to 45 degrees (specifically, 30 degrees, 32 degrees, 35 degrees, 38 degrees, 40 degrees, 42 degrees, 45 degrees, etc.) The inclination angle α is immersed in the etching solution, and the inclination angle α is the angle between the glass body 10 and the liquid surface 21 of the etching solution. The glass body is immersed in the etching 45 solution at the inclination angle, so that the depth of the glass body immersed in the etching solution is small, which is convenient for operation, and the amount of the etching solution is small, which is beneficial to save cost, and is also beneficial to the formation of the convex structure. Specifically, in the above etching step, after the glass body is immersed in the etching solution, the glass body is 50 caused to swing in a direction parallel to the liquid level of the etching solution. Through the swing of the glass body, the sedimentation of the etching solution and mutual shielding of the formed crystals can be avoided, so that the etching is more uniform, and the density and uniformity of the formed convex structure can be ensured.”
Yang is not relied upon to teach a specific or relative depth, other than the “glass body is immersed in the etching solution”. Further, the glass body of Yang may oscillate in a direction parallel to the liquid level of the etchant suggests other movement directions are possible. The essence of In re Ratti is that the seal of the primary and secondary references had different requirements (primary = rigidity vs. secondary = resiliency) which would change the basic principle under which the primary reference construction was designed to operate. The basic principle of the method in Yang and Sakade is immersion and oscillation to, and as noted by the Applicant, to prevent the etchant from settling and prevent formed crystals from obscuring each other. Further, Yang uses a smaller depth for cost saving purposes, which does not teach that a greater depth would not provide the same function. The modification by Sakade does not render Yang unsatisfactory for its intended use. Further, nothing in the prior art teaches the proposed modification would have resulted in an inoperable process that would produce a product with undesirable results. MPEP 2143.01 (V), In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244, 117 USPQ2d 1499, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2016). . The rejection of Claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding Claims 2-9, 11 and 12, the Applicant argues Claims 2-9, 11 and 12 should be allowed as Claims 2-9, 11 and 12 depend on Claim 1. As the arguments to Claim 1 are not persuasive, the argument is moot. The rejection of Claims 2-9, 11 and 12 are maintained.
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant argues Claim 10 should be allowed as Claim 10 depends on Claim 1. As the arguments to Claim 1 are not persuasive, the argument is moot. The rejection of Claim 10 is maintained.
Claim Rejections Under U.S.C. 103, Page 12, Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 2 rejection, upon further review, there are new grounds for rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
WO2021036369A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 07/06/2023, English Abstract only) (English language
translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Yang et. al. (herein
“Yang”) and in view of WO2019044757A1 (English language translation of the Description and
provided herewith and referenced herein) by Sakade et. al (herein “Sakade”).
Regarding Claim 1 , Yang teaches:
A method of forming a textured glass article; Page 2, lines 50-52. “ In view of this, the inventor has discovered through research that, by controlling and selecting the properties and morphology of the glass surface, the glass surface can form a flashing protrusion structure…”
the method comprising:
submerging an aluminosilicate glass article in an etchant ; Page 5 line 7, 46, Page 7 line 49, “ the content of alumina in the glass body is greater than 20%”, “Specifically, first, the silicon dioxide in the glass can…”, “Specifically, in the above etching step, after the glass body is immersed in the etching solution…”. The glass contains silicon dioxide and alumina, hence, an aluminosilicate glass.
to an upper submerging depth from a surface of the etchant and at a tilting angle; Page 7 lines 43-45, “The inclination angle α is immersed in the etching solution, and the inclination angle α is the angle between the glass body 10 and the liquid surface 21 of the etching solution. The glass body is immersed in the etching 45 solution at the inclination angle, so that the depth of the glass body immersed in the etching solution is small.” It is understood by the Examiner that immersion to a small depth coincides with an upper submerging depth.
wherein the aluminosilicate glass article comprises.
a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first surface; Page 2 lines 56-57, “a glass body 10 having a first surface 11 and a second surface 12 opposed to each other,”
wherein the tilting angle is a smallest angle between a normal to the first major surface and a vertical; Fig. 4 (original document), Page 7 lines 41-42, “Specifically, in the above-mentioned etching step, referring to FIG. 4, the glass body 10 can be adjusted to 30 to 45 degrees…”
cycling the aluminosilicate glass article in the etchant; Page 7, lines 49-50, “ Specifically, in the above etching step, after the glass body is immersed in the etching solution, the glass body is 50 caused to swing in a direction parallel to the liquid level of the etching solution.”
Yang does not teach holding the aluminosilicate glass article in the etchant for a holding time and a cycling between and upper and lower submerging depth, where the lower submerging depth is deeper than the upper submerging depth, for a cycling time after the holding time.
In the same field of endeavor as etching aluminosilicate glass surfaces, Sakade teaches an upper region US and a lower region LS of the etching tank where the lower region LS is at a lower depth than the upper region US; Fig. 11, Fig. 14, Page 9 lines 32-35. Sakade further teaches a glass plate immersed in etchant at depth where the mid-line of a single glass plate G is at the boundary between the upper region US and lower region LS and is intermittently rotated ; Fig. 12, Page 9 lines 22-26, “When the glass plate G is intermittently rotated, as shown in FIG. 12, after rotating the glass plate G…it is desirable that the operation of temporarily stopping the rotation of the glass plate G…and after rotating the glass plate G again after a predetermined time…”. Sakade cites a possible rotational speed of glass plate G of 10rpm or less; Page 9 line 16, “The rotational speed of the glass plate G is desirably 10 rpm or less, but is not limited to this range…”. Sakade further illustrates a similar submerging in etchant of the glass plate G between the upper region US and lower region LS with multiple glass plates; Fig. 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Sakade into the method of Yang to promote uniform etching, as noted by Sakade , (Page 9 lines 42-48, Page 10 lines 13-17).
Regarding Claim 2 – Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang teaches wherein,
the tilting angle is greater than or equal to 0° and less than or equal to 20°.
Note: incorporated in the rejection of Claim 2 is the part of Claim 1 that cites “wherein the tilting angle is a smallest angle between a normal to the first major surface and a vertical”.
The examiner understands the “the tilting angle is a smallest angle between a normal to the first major surface and a vertical” to be as depicted below in Annotated Fig. 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where angle Ɵ is the smallest angle between a normal to the first major surface and a vertical. The examiner has added to Annotated Fig. 1 an angle of inclination α, which is an angle between the first major surface and the surface of the etch solution. By geometry, angle of inclination α = angle Ɵ, and the angle of inclination α provides the same tilt as the angle Ɵ.
Yang teaches an angle of inclination α from the surface of the etching solution, “Specifically, in the above-mentioned etching step, referring to FIG. 4, the glass body 10 can be adjusted to 30… degrees”, “The inclination angle α is immersed in the etching solution, and the inclination angle α is the angle between the glass body 10 and the liquid surface 21 of the etching solution” (Page 7 lines 41-44). Annotated Fig. 4 illustrates the angle of inclination α.
PNG
media_image2.png
341
569
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ( α )]
For the purposes of clarity, Annotated Fig. 4 will be reverse image below and placed aside Annotated Fig. 1 from above:
PNG
media_image4.png
430
714
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
By geometry, the angle of inclination α of 30 degrees of Yang necessarily creates a titling angle that is 30 degrees, or a smallest angle of 30 degrees between a normal to the first major surface and a vertical in Fig. 4 of Yang. In essence, Yang teaches the tilting angle as a smallest angle of 30 degrees between a normal to the first major surface and a vertical by an equivalent angle of inclination of 30 degrees of the glass referenced from the surface of the etch solution.
While Yang fails to teach a tilting angle is greater than or equal to 0° and less than or equal to 20° ,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the tilting angle since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the tilting angle for the purpose of benefitting the most to the formation of the convex structure, as noted by Yang (Page 7 line 47). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding Claim 3 and 21 – Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang fails to teach
a holding time is greater than 0 s and less than or equal to 600s ( Claim 3)
a holding time is greater than 30 s and less than or equal to 300s ( Claim 21)
Sakade teaches a temporary stopping, or holding, of the rotation of the glass plate; Fig. 12 (original), Page 1, lines 43-49, Page 9 lines 22-26, “When the glass plate G is intermittently rotated, as shown in FIG. 12, after rotating the glass plate G…it is desirable that the operation of temporarily stopping the rotation of the glass plate G…and after rotating the glass plate G again after a predetermined time…”.
Sakade discloses the claimed invention except for a specific holding time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize a holding time for the combination, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the holding time for the purpose of defining the etching process. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 22 - Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang further teaches an etchant temperature of 60°C before etching and then an embodiment of the method that may include performing a temperature reduction on the etching solution where the cooling treatment may cool the etchant to 5-10°C (Page 6 line 57, Page 7 line 1-2, 19), establishing an etchant temperature range of 5°-60°C. Yet Yang fails to teach,
etchant temperature range of 10°C to 30°C ( Claim 4)
etchant temperature range of 12°C to 24°C ( Claim 22)
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Yang’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range in Claim 4 and Claim 21. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 23 - Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang fails to teach,
a cycling conducted at greater than or equal to 1 cycles per minute and less than or equal to 180 cycles per minute (Claim 5)
a cycling conducted at greater than or equal to 2 cycles per minute and less than or equal to 120 cycles per minute (Claim 23)
Sadake teaches cycling conducted at 10rpm or less; Page 9 line 16, “ The rotational speed of the glass plate G is desirably 10 rpm or less, but is not limited to this range…” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Sakade’s angle range that corresponds to the claimed range See MPEP 2144.05. One would be motivated for the purpose of adjusting to various process conditions, such as the size of the glass plate G, as noted by Sadake (Page 9, line 17).
Yang fails to teach,
the cycling at a speed of greater than or equal to 2 cm/s and less than or equal to 28 cm/s. (Claim 5)
the cycling at a speed of greater than or equal to 4 cm/s and less than or equal to 24 cm/s. (Claim 23)
Sadake teaches a cycling speed of 10m/sec or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Sadake’s cycling speed range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. One would have been motivated to choose a particular range to support uniform etching, as noted by Sadake (Page 2, lines 2-3).
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 24 - Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang fails to teach,
the lower submerging depth is greater than or equal to 1 cm and less than or equal to 20 cm
deeper than the upper submerging depth (Claim 6).
the lower submerging depth is greater than or equal to 3 cm and less than or equal to 10 cm
deeper than the upper submerging depth (Claim 24).
Sadake suggests the lower submerging depth is
greater than or equal to 1 cm and less than or equal to 20 cm deeper than the upper submerging depth;
Fig. 14 (original), Page 3, line 29. Figure 14 shows an etching apparatus holding 4 sets of glass plates
where one set of glass plates is entirely within the upper region and another set of glass plates is
entirely within the lower region meaning the depth of the lower region is at least slightly greater than
the vertical dimension of the plate as it is being held. Sadake does not give specific length-width
dimension of the glass plate but does teach a range of usable surface areas from 400mm2 to 25000mm2
(Page 3 lines 25-28) and illustrates the plates as having an approximately square shape (Fig 1, 3).
Sadake’s has particularly preferred surface area ranges, one of which is of 2500mm2 to 25000mm2,
where a square glass plate would have sides approximately between X = 50mm-158mm (5cm-15.8cm)
and between Y = 50mm-158mm (5cm-15.8cm) . It would have been obvious to have the lower
submerging depth be at least slightly more than X deeper than the upper submerging depth based on
the showing that the regions of Sadake can be at least one glass plate deep.
Regarding Claim 7 - Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Yang does cite and aging process for the etching solution before etching treatment where the aging time can be flexibly selected (Page 6 lines 54/59, “Further, before the etching treatment, the etching solution is subjected to an aging treatment in advance”, “the aging treatment time can also be flexibly selected according to actual needs…”), Yang fails to teach prior to submersing the aluminosilicate glass article in the etchant, preparing the etchant and allowing the etchant to settle for a setline time greater than or equal to 10s and less than or equal to 600s. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding Claim 8 - Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang teaches a cycling time greater than or equal to 60 s and less than or equal to 900 s; Page 7 line 54, “ Specifically, the etching time may be 60 to 300 seconds.”
Regarding Claim 9 - Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Yang teaches:
an etchant that comprises greater than or equal to 10 wt.% and less than or equal to 50 wt.% of a salt, the salt comprising ammonium fluoride, ammonium bifluoride, ammonium sulfate, ammonium fluorosilicate, ammonium chloride, or combinations thereof; Page 6, lines 34-36, “10 parts by weight of NH4F…”, where NH4F is (ammonium fluoride) and the Examiner understands “parts by weight” to mean wt. %.
and greater than or equal to 5 wt.% and less than or equal to 50 wt.% of an acid, the acid comprising hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, hexafluorosilicic acid, or combinations thereof; Page 6 lines 34-36, “…10 parts by weight of fluorosilicic acid…”, where fluorosilicic acid is a synonym for hexfluorosilicic acid (per pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/fluosilicic-acid online, Synonyms) and the Examiner understands “parts by weight” to mean wt. %.
Regarding Claim 11 - Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang further teaches an aluminosilicate glass article greater than or equal to 14 wt%A1203; Page 5 line 7, 46, Page 7 line 49, “ Further, calculated by mass percentage, the content of alumina in the glass body is…for example, 20%.”
Regarding Claim 12 and Claim 27 - Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang further teaches, as cited in both Claim 12 and Claim 27:
a plurality of polyhedral surface features extending from a first surface; Page 1 lines 31-34, Page 3, lines 4-9, “…the first surface has a plurality of convex structures…the convex structure is a pointed convex structure…”, “…It should be noted that the above-mentioned pointed convex structure is…among them, the pyramid structure and the pyramid-like structure can be at least one of three (type) pyramids, four (type) pyramids, five (type) pyramids, etc., each side of the pointed protrusion structure of this polyhedron has mirror reflections…”
each of the plurality of polyhedral surface features comprising a base on the first surface, a plurality of facets extending from the first surface wherein the plurality of facets of each polyhedral surface feature converge toward one another; Fig. 1, Fig. 2 (original), Page 4 line 47, “…cut surface of the raised structure appears as a raised shape similar to a diamond…”
a surface feature size at the base greater than or equal to 50um and less than or equal to 500um; Page 4 line 41, 44, “ Specifically, the size of the protrusion structure is….110 micrometers…”
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021036369A1
(as submitted in the IDS dated 07/06/2023, English Abstract only) (English language translation of the
Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Yang et. al. (herein “Yang”) and in view of
JP WO2019044757A1 (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and
referenced herein) by Sakade et. al (herein “Sakade”) and in further view of U.S Patent 4921626 by
Rhodenbaugh (herein “Rhodenbaugh”).
Regarding Claim 10 - Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yang teaches the use of barium sulfate (5 wt.%) as a means to increase viscosity (Page 6, lines 49-52) but does not teach the use of xanthan gum greater than 0 wt.% and less than or equal to 2 wt.%. Sadake references etching solution but does not specify composition. In the same field of endeavor as etching aluminosilicate glass surfaces, Rhodenbaugh teaches the use of xanthan gum as a viscosity control agent; Col 1 lines 30-31 "from about 2%-4% xanthan gum by weight as a viscosity control agent…”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try xanthan gum, since it has held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Further, as xanthan gum is a result-effective variable known to control viscosity, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of xanthan gum in the etchant of the combination, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, One would have been motivated to determine the amount of xanthan gum to add to the etchant for the purpose of controlling viscosity to promote proper etching on the surface of the glass. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021036369A1
(as submitted in the IDS dated 07/06/2023, English Abstract only) (English language translation of the
Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Yang et. al. (herein “Yang”) and in view of
JP WO2019044757A1 (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and
referenced herein) by Sakade et. al (herein “Sakade”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20180282201A1
by Hancock et. al. (herein “Hancock”).
Regarding Claim 25, Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Yang teaches a glass with an alumina (Al2O3) content of 25% (Page 10 line 36), Yang fails to teach specifically an aluminosilicate glass. Sakade further teaches an,
aluminosilicate glass article; Page 12 line 51. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use aluminosilicate glass from the method of Sakade in the method of Yang, as one would be motivated to have silica in the glass composition to have glass that is less brittle and can be reduced to smaller thicknesses, as noted by Sakade (Page 12 lines 59-60).
Sakade fails to teach specific composition components of an aluminosilicate glass. In a similar endeavor of etching glass articles, Hancock teaches the use of an aluminosilicate glass of specific composition in Example 3/Glass 4 ([0097]),
greater than or equal to 56 mol% and less than or equal to 72 mol% SiO2; 63.76 mol% SiO2.
greater than or equal to 14 mol% and less than or equal to 25 mol% Al203; 15.05 mol% Al2O3.
greater than or equal to 6 mol% and less than or equal to 16 mol% Na2O; 9.24 mol% Na2O.
greater than or equal to 1 mol% and less than or equal to 10 mol% Li20; 5.88 mol% Li2O.
greater than or equal to 0 mol% and less than or equal to 3 mol% ZnO; 1.18 mol% ZnO.
and greater than or equal to 0 mol% and less than or equal to 3 mol% P205; 2.47 mol% P2O5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to use the glass composition of Hancock in the process of the combination, as
one would be motivated to do so to support an etching process 1) without hydrofluoric acid wherein the
glass processes without fragmentation (Fig. 2), and 2) provides low weight loss and low haze (<25%)
(Fig. 16, [0077]). Further, provide a glass composition that is ion-exchangeable to provide compressive
stress to the surface of the etched glass article, particular for compositions containing Na+ and Li+
cations ([0078]), as noted by Hancock.
Regarding Claim 26, Yang and Sakade as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Yang teaches a glass with an alumina (Al2O3) content of 25% (Page 10 line 36), Yang fails to teach specifically an aluminosilicate glass. Sakade further teaches an,
aluminosilicate glass article; Page 12 line 51. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use aluminosilicate glass from the method of Sakade in the method of Yang, as one would be motivated to have silica in the glass composition to have glass that is less brittle and can be reduced to smaller thicknesses, as noted by Sakade (Page 12 lines 59-60).
Sakade fails to teach specific composition components of an aluminosilicate glass. In a similar endeavor of etching glass articles, Hancock teaches the use of an aluminosilicate glass of specific composition in Example 3/Glass 4 ([0097]),
greater than or equal to 56 mol% and less than or equal to 72 mol% SiO2; 63.76 mol% SiO2.
greater than or equal to 16 mol% and less than or equal to 28 mol% Al203; 15.05 mol% Al2O3.
greater than or equal to 1 mol% and less than or equal to 8 mol% B203; 2.37 mol% B2O3
greater than or equal to 6 mol% and less than or equal to 16 mol% Na2O; 9.24 mol% Na2O.
greater than or equal to 1 mol% and less than or equal to 10 mol% Li20; 5.88 mol% Li2O.
greater than or equal to 0 mol% and less than or equal to 1 mol% K20; Glass 4 does not contain
K2O (0 mol% K2O) which reads on the claim.
and greater than or equal to 0 mol% and less than or equal to 3 mol% P205; 2.47 mol% P2O5.
greater than or equal to 0 mol% and less than or equal to 1 mol% TiO2. Glass 4 does not contain
TiO2 (0 mol% TiO2) which reads on the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to use the glass composition of Hancock in the process of the combination, as
one would be motivated to do so to support an etching process 1) without hydrofluoric acid wherein the
glass processes without fragmentation (Fig. 2), and 2) provides low weight loss and low haze (<25%)
(Fig. 16, [0077]). Further, provide a glass composition that is ion-exchangeable to provide compressive
stress to the surface of the etched glass article, particular for compositions containing Na+ and Li+
cations ([0078]), as noted by Hancock.
While Hancock teaches 15.05 mol% Al2O3 and does not teach specifically greater than or equal to
16 mol% and less than or equal to 28 mol% Al203, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the
composition of Hancock in the method of the combination since the claimed ranges and the prior art
ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same
properties and further being motivated to do use a commercially available glass, as noted by Hancock
([0070], “Corning Gorilla Glass 4”). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges
and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected
them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ
773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741