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 .
Summary
The Applicants arguments and claim amendments received on 02/13/2026 are entered into the file. Claims 1, 13 and 16 are amended; claims 16-26 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-15 pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1 through 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da et al. (WO 2019/218155, cited on IDS and European Search Report).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 13 and 14, Da et al. teaches a chemically toughened glass article used in mobile electronic devices, wherein the glass has high chemical stability, temperature stability, low gas permeability, flexibility and low thickness (pg. 1).
Da et al. teaches that the preferred thickness of the glass is less than or equal to 100 micrometers (pg. 6), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 20-100 micrometers recited by instant claim 1.
Da et al. teaches various components making up the glass with preferred ranges summarized in the table below, wherein each component provides the glass with the following properties (pg. 15-18):
SiO2 is a major glass network former;
Al2O3 is both a glass network former and glass network modifier;
Alkaline oxides such as Na2O and Li2O are glass work modifiers that can break glass network and form non-bridge oxides inside the glass network, reducing working temperatures of glass and increase CTE of glass;
Alkaline earth metals, including MgO, function as network modifiers and decrease the forming temperature of glass.
Composition
Weight Percent (wt.%)
Molar Mass (g/mol)
Mol
Mol%
SiO2
55-68
60.08
0.915-1.132
51.2-62.2
Al2O3
15-23
101.96
0.147-0.266
9.99-10.22
Na2O
10-20
61.98
0.161-0.322
10.9-14.5
Li2O
0-7
29.88
0-0.234
0-10.5
MgO
1-12
40.31
0.0248-0.297
1.68-13.43
As shown in the above table, the mol % of SiO2, Al2O3, Na2O, Li2O and MgO overlap with the ranges recited by instant claims 1 and 13. Furthermore, the mol % of Al2O3 divided by the sum of Na2O and Li2O overlaps with the boundaries of Relational Expression 1 recited in claims 1 and 13.
The ranges of mol % taught for the components of the glass, the thickness of the glass, and the Relational Expression 1 equation taught by Da et al. overlap with the claimed ranges recited by claims 1 and 13. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mol % of the various components of the glass taught by Da et al. based on the desired properties for the resultant glass, as Da et al. teaches overlapping ranges with the instant claims, and properties of the glass that can be modified by modifying the amounts of each component.
The glass composition is not required to contain ZrO2 or P2O5 given that the claimed ranges recited by claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 include 0 mol%, therefore neither ZrO2 nor P2O5 are a required component of the claimed invention as recited by instant claims 1, 2, 13 and 14.
Regarding claims 3-12, Da et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Dependent claims 3 through 12 claim various properties of the glass composition of the glass article recited in claim 1. As stated in MPEP 2112.01 (II), products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties, therefore, if a prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties the applicant claims are necessarily present. Da et al. teaches a glass article having a thickness within the range claimed and a composition containing the various claimed components having a mol % within the claimed ranges, therefore, the glass composition of Da et al. would inherently comprise the claimed properties recited by dependent claims 3 through 12.
Regarding claim 15, Da et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above, and while Da et al. teaches that K2O can be present in an amount of at most 10wt. %, some preferred embodiments are free of K2O (pg. 16-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not include K2O in the glass composition, as Da et al. teaches that K2O can compromise the chemical toughening performance when provided in too high of amounts, and Li2O and Na2O are more preferred (pg. 16-17).
Claims 1 through 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (WO 2019/242673, cited on IDS and European Search Report).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 13 and 14, Xiao et al. teaches a chemically toughened glass article having no optical orange skin suitable for use in display panels (pg. 1). Xiao et al. teaches that the glass articles have a thickness of at most 70mm, falling within the range of “about 20mm to about 100mm” recited by claim 1.
Xiao et al. teaches various components making up the glass with preferred ranges summarized in the table below, wherein each component provides the glass with the following properties (pg. 12-16):
SiO2 is a major glass network former;
Al2O3 functions as both a glass network former and modifier, and is found to significantly improve the toughening performance of the glass;
Alkaline oxides such as Na2O and Li2O are glass work modifiers that can break glass network and form non-bridge oxides inside the glass network, reducing working temperatures of glass and increase CTE of glass;
Alkaline earth oxides, including MgO, function as network modifiers and decrease the forming temperature of glass.
Composition
Weight Percent (wt.%)
Molar Mass (g/mol)
Mol
Mol%
SiO2
55-76
60.08
0.915-0.124
53.7-79
Al2O3
15-22
101.96
0.147-0.216
9.35-12.7
Na2O
4-20
61.98
0.064-0.322
5.5-13.9
Li2O
0-7
29.88
0-0.234
0-10.1
MgO
1-4
40.31
0.0248-0.298
2.1-12.9
As shown in the above table, the mol % of SiO2, Al2O3, Na2O, Li2O and MgO overlap with the ranges recited by instant claims 1 and 13. Furthermore, the mol % of Al2O3 divided by the sum of Na2O and Li2O overlaps with the boundaries of Relational Expression 1 recited in claims 1 and 13.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mol % of the various components of the glass taught by Xiao et al. et al. based on the desired properties for the resultant glass, as Xiao et al. teaches overlapping ranges with the instant claims, and properties of the glass that can be modified by modifying the amounts of each component.
The glass composition is not required to contain ZrO2 or P2O5 given that the claimed ranges recited by claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 include 0 mol%, therefore neither ZrO2 nor P2O5 are a required component of the claimed invention as recited by instant claims 1, 2, 13 and 14.
Regarding claims 3-12, Xiao et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Dependent claims 3 through 12 claim various properties of the glass composition of the glass article recited in claim 1. As stated in MPEP 2112.01 (II), products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties, therefore, if a prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties the applicant claims are necessarily present. Da et al. teaches a glass article having a thickness within the range claimed and a composition containing the various claimed components having a mol % within the claimed ranges, therefore, the glass composition of Xiao et al. would inherently comprise the claimed properties recited by dependent claims 3 through 12.
Regarding claim 15, Xiao et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above, and while Xiao et al. teaches that K2O can be present in an amount of at most 10wt. %, some preferred embodiments are free of K2O (pg. 14-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not include K2O in the glass composition, as Xiao et al. teaches that K2O can compromise the chemical toughening performance when provided in too high of amounts, and Li2O and Na2O are more preferred (pg. 16-17).
Claims 1 through 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (WO 2018/152845, cited on IDS and European Search Report).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 13 and 14, Xue et al. teaches a thin chemically toughened lithium containing aluminosilicate glass article with low expansion after chemical toughening and a method of making, wherein the glass is used in electronic devices (pg. 1). Xue et al. teaches that the glass article has a preferably thickness less than or equal to 100 micrometers (pg. 9-10).
Xue et al. teaches various components making up the glass with preferred ranges summarized in the table below, wherein each component provides the glass with the following properties (pg. 13-16):
SiO2 is an important major glass network former;
Al2O3 can easily form tetrahedra coordination which can help build up more compact network, resulting in low geometry variation in the glass;
Alkaline oxides such as Na2O and Li2O are glass network to supply sufficient oxygen anions to form the glass network;
Alkaline earth oxides, including MgO, function as network modifiers.
Composition
Mol%
SiO2
63-75
Al2O3
12-18
Na2O
5-15
Li2O
1-8
MgO
0.5-5
As shown in the above table, the mol % of SiO2, Al2O3, Na2O, Li2O and MgO overlap with the ranges recited by instant claims 1 and 13. Furthermore, the mol % of Al2O3 divided by the sum of Na2O and Li2O overlaps with the boundaries of Relational Expression 1 recited in claims 1 and 13.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mol % of the various components of the glass taught by Xue et al. et al. based on the desired properties for the resultant glass, as Xue et al. teaches overlapping ranges with the instant claims, and properties of the glass that can be modified by modifying the amounts of each component.
The glass composition is not required to contain ZrO2 or P2O5 given that the claimed ranges recited by claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 include 0 mol%, therefore neither ZrO2 nor P2O5 are a required component of the claimed invention as recited by instant claims 1, 2, 13 and 14.
Regarding claims 3-12, Xue et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Dependent claims 3 through 12 claim various properties of the glass composition of the glass article recited in claim 1. As stated in MPEP 2112.01 (II), products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties, therefore, if a prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties the applicant claims are necessarily present. Xue et al. teaches a glass article having a thickness within the range claimed and a composition containing the various claimed components having a mol % within the claimed ranges, therefore, the glass composition of Xiao et al. would inherently comprise the claimed properties recited by dependent claims 3 through 12.
Regarding claim 15, Xue et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above, and while Xue et al. teaches that K2O can be present in an amount of at most 10wt. %, some preferred embodiments are free of K2O (pg.15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not include K2O in the glass composition, as Xue et al. teaches that K2O can compromise chemical stability and chemical toughenability (pg. 15).
Claims 1 through 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da et al. (WO 2020/227924, cited on IDS and European Search Report).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 13 and 14, Da et al. teaches a very thin glass panel article with high strength after surface edge modification, wherein the glass panels are used for electronic devices (pg. 1 Ln. 5-17). Da et al. teaches that the glass panel article comprises a thickness of less than 0.4mm, and that the glass panel article is chemically toughened (pg. 9 Ln. 20-pg. 12 Ln. 5).
Da et al. teaches various components making up the glass with preferred ranges summarized in the table below, wherein each component provides the glass with the following properties (pg. 14-18):
SiO2 is a major glass network former;
Al2O3 is both a glass network former and glass network modifier;
Alkaline oxides such as Na2O and Li2O are glass work modifiers that can break glass network and form non-bridge oxides inside the glass network, reducing working temperatures of glass and increase CTE of glass;
Alkaline earth metals, including MgO, function as network modifiers and decrease the forming temperature of glass.
Composition
Weight Percent (wt.%)
Molar Mass (g/mol)
Mol
Mol%
SiO2
57-63
60.08
0.948-1.05
52.4-74
Al2O3
15-22
101.96
0.147-0.215
10.7-11.5
Na2O
4-20
61.98
0.064-0.322
5-16
Li2O
3-5
29.88
1.10-0.167
7.8-8.3
MgO
1-10
56.07
0.025-0.248
1.95-12.3
The ranges of mol % taught for the components of the glass, the thickness of the glass, and the Relational Expression 1 equation taught by Da et al. overlap with the claimed ranges recited by claims 1 and 13. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mol % of the various components of the glass taught by Da et al. based on the desired properties for the resultant glass, as Da et al. teaches overlapping ranges with the instant claims, and properties of the glass that can be modified by modifying the amounts of each component.
The glass composition is not required to contain ZrO2 or P2O5 given that the claimed ranges recited by claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 include 0 mol%, therefore neither ZrO2 nor P2O5 are a required component of the claimed invention as recited by instant claims 1, 2, 13 and 14.
Regarding claims 3-12, Da et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Dependent claims 3 through 12 claim various properties of the glass composition of the glass article recited in claim 1. As stated in MPEP 2112.01 (II), products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties, therefore, if a prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties the applicant claims are necessarily present. Da et al. teaches a glass article having a thickness within the range claimed and a composition containing the various claimed components having a mol % within the claimed ranges, therefore, the glass composition of Da et al. would inherently comprise the claimed properties recited by dependent claims 3 through 12.
Regarding claim 15, Da et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above, and while Da et al. teaches that K2O can be present in an amount of at most 10wt. %, some preferred embodiments are free of K2O (pg. 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not include K2O in the glass composition, as Da et al. teaches that K2O can compromise the chemical toughening performance when provided in too high of amounts (pg. 17).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
In light of the Applicants amendments to the claims, the previous references to Da et al., Xiao et al., Xue et al. and Da et al. applied under 35 USC § 102 are now being applied under 35 USC § 103.
The Applicant argues on pages 7 through 9 that none of the references teach or suggest the newly added range of 0.5 mol% to 5 mol %of MgO, however, this argument is not persuasive. As stated in the above rejections, the reference all teach a glass composition and article, with components in amounts the overlap with the claimed ranges. Therefore, the references Da et al., Xiao et al., Xue et al. and Da et al. are applied under 35 USC § 103.
The Applicants arguments do not address the rejections under 35 USC § 103, and therefore are moot.
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 LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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 POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785