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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claim(s) 1-6,8-21 are pending. Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended and Claim(s) 21 is/are newly added and Claim(s) 10-21 is/are withdrawn in the response filed 10/31/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20190248702 referred to as Lee ‘702 herein after.
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘702 discloses method of manufacturing a window [0042], the method comprising:
preparing a first preliminary glass substrate that does not contain Li+ ions and contains Na+ ions [0106];
providing a first strengthening molten salt to the first preliminary glass substrate to form a second preliminary glass substrate [0108];
providing heat to the second preliminary glass substrate at a temperature of 500 degrees in Celsius (°C) for a period of about 3 hours to form a third preliminary glass substrate [0109];
Lee ‘702 discloses heating after ion-exchange for stress-relieving to allow the potassium-ions to diffuse inside and compression depth to increase [0109].
and providing a second strengthening molten salt to the third preliminary glass substrate to form a window [0110].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature of heating to the second preliminary glass substrate to achieve the desired amount of stress-relief/softening of the glass as motivated to accomplish the desired increase of compression depth.
Upon optimization of the heat treating step to diffuse the potassium ions into the compression depth a skilled artisan would expect it to be obvious to achieve the compressive stress of about 742 MPa and a DOL of 84-100 microns.
MPEP 2112.01 indicates that where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product
Regarding claim 2, the first strengthening molten salt comprises NaNO3 and of KNO3 [0108]
Regarding claims 5-6, the first strengthening molten salt is provided at a temperature of about 500 0C for a period of about 3-8 hours [0108] and the second strengthening molten salt is provided at a temperature of about 380 to 420 0C for a period of about 1 hour to 2 hours [0110]
Regarding claim 8, the preliminary glass has potassium and magnesium ions [0106]
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20100028607) and further in view of Bookbinder et al. (US 20180251400).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method of manufacturing a window (at least claim 9), the method comprising:
preparing a first preliminary ion exchangeable glass substrate such as alkali aluminosilicate glass which contains sodium ions and does not Lithium ions [0024]-[0025]
providing a first strengthening molten salt [0026], [0032] to the first preliminary glass substrate to form a second preliminary glass substrate,
annealing between chemical strengthening steps [0028] considered to form a third preliminary glass substrate
providing a second strengthening molten salt to the third preliminary glass substrate to form a window [0029].
Lee fails to disclose the temperature and time of the annealing.
In an analogous art of two chemical strengthening steps with annealing after the first Bookbinder discloses heat treating at a temperature of 450 degrees Celsius for about 4 hours [0160] resulting in a deeper compressive stress layer [0159]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the time and temperature of annealing to achieve a deeper compressive stress layer.
MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious and a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize within the disclosed ranges.
Upon optimization of the heat treating step to diffuse the potassium ions into the compression depth a skilled artisan would expect it to be obvious to achieve the compressive stress of about 742 MPa and a DOL of 84-100 microns.
MPEP 2112.01 indicates that where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Lee states the first strengthening molten salt comprises NaNO3 and KNO3 [0032] at a temperature of 380-450 deg. Celsius [0026] and glass may be submitted to strengthening at 412 deg. Celsius for 270 minutes [0032]
Regarding claim 3, Lee suggests a dilution of the potassium nitrate with sodium nitrate up to 10% the first strengthening molten salt, NaNO3 is provided in an amount of about 20 to 40 percentages by weight (wt%), and the at least one of KNO3, KCl, or K2S04 is provided in an amount of about 60 to 80 wt%.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180297892) referred to as Lee ‘892 herein after
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘892 discloses a method of manufacturing a window (at least claim [0004], [0036]), the method comprising:
preparing a first preliminary ion exchangeable glass substrate (100) such as sodium aluminosilicate glass which contains sodium ions and does not need Lithium ions (at least claim 57),
providing a first strengthening (S100) of ion-exchange (at least [0092]) with molten salt [0101]-[0102], to the first preliminary glass substrate to form a second preliminary glass substrate,
annealing between chemical strengthening steps [0028] considered to form a third preliminary glass substrate
providing a second strengthening molten salt to the third preliminary glass substrate to form a window (at least Claim 1, S300 [0091]).
Lee ‘892 discloses a stress relieving operation S200
performing a heat treatment or a salt treatment on the initial window member to which the first reinforcement operation is performed, thereby decreasing the first surface compressive stress to a second surface compressive stress and thereby changing the first depth of compression to a second depth of compression different from the first depth of compression
[0110]-[0111] Fig 5D-5E of a heat treatment of about 500 deg. Celsius or above [0115]. Lee ‘892 discloses an example of stress relief heat treating at a temperature of 530 deg. Celsius for about 120 minutes however fails to state a time of the stress relief heating within 3 to 7 hours.
Lee ‘892 discloses heating for stress-relieving to allow the potassium-ions to diffuse inside and compression depth to increase
Lee ‘892 states:
[0115] For example, the stress relief operation S200 may include a heat treatment operation. The heat treatment operation may be performed at a temperature of about 500° C. or above. As the temperature increases, a time during which the first window member 100-S1 is exposed to a heat source may be shortened.
In the present instance, Lee ’892 discloses a stress relief example of 2 hours at 530 deg. Celsius and states As the temperature increases, a time during which the first window member 100-S1 is exposed to a heat source may be shortened.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature and time of heating to the second preliminary glass substrate to achieve the desired amount of stress-relief/softening of the glass and allow the time for the potassium ions to diffuse within the glass as motivated to accomplish the desired increase of compression depth.
MPEP 2144.04 states [W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."
In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. However, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions
Upon optimization of the heat treating step to diffuse the potassium ions into the compression depth a skilled artisan would expect it to be obvious to achieve the compressive stress of about 742 MPa and a DOL of 84-100 microns.
MPEP 2112.01 indicates that where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product
Regarding claims 2 and 4-5, Lee ‘892 states the first strengthening molten salt comprises NaNO3 and KNO3 [0101]-[0102], at a temperature of 500-580 deg. Celsius [0109], for about 4 hours [0143]
Regarding claim 3, Lee suggests a dilution of the potassium nitrate with sodium nitrate up to 10% the first strengthening molten salt, NaNO3 is provided in an amount of about 20 to 40 percentages by weight (wt%), and the at least one of KNO3, KCl, or K2S04 is provided in an amount of about 60 to 80 wt%.
Regarding claim 4, Lee ‘892 4discloses the second strengthening molten salt contains at least one of KNO3. [0150]
Regarding claim 6, Lee ‘892 discloses the second strengthening molten salt is provided at a temperature of about 420 0C [0150], for a period of about 2 hours [0242], Table 1).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious and a skilled artisan would be further motivated to optimize the time and temperature of the reinforcement operation as motivated to optimize the compressive stress of the window [0241], [0252]-[0253].
Regarding claim 8 The method of claim 1, wherein the first preliminary glass substrate is alkali aluminosilicate glass thus comprises at least one of K+ ions (claim 57).
Claim(s) 3 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180297892) as applied above and further in view of Kanehera et al. (US 20230082423)
Regarding claim 3, Lee ‘892 discloses a molten salt bath to yield potassium ions via melting potassium nitrate. Lee ‘892 does not recite potassium chloride, potassium sulphate as potassium sources.
In an analogous art of ion exchange chemical strengthening of glass Kanehera discloses suitable molten salt to provide potassium ions include potassium chloride, potassium sulfate, potassium nitrate [0235] for a magnesium alkali alumino silicate glass [0202].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one or combinations of known potassium molten salt for another with the predictable result of a potassium ion source for chemical strengthening.
Claim(s) 8 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180297892) referred to as Lee ‘892 herein after as applied above and as evidenced by Allan et al. (US 8561429)
Regarding claim 8 The method of claim 1, wherein the first preliminary glass substrate is alkali aluminosilicate glass thus comprises at least one of K+ ions or Mg2+ ions as evidenced by (Col 6; lines 13-25).
Claim(s) 9 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180297892) as applied above and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 20200017406).
Regarding claim 9, Lee ‘892 does not specifically discuss a forming a printing layer in the window.
In an analogous art of a method of manufacturing a window (at least [0014], [0067]), with chemical strengthening Wilson discloses the article to be masked to enhance or suppress ion exchange [0079]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a printing layer, or masking, as motivated to enhance or suppress ion exchange.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to indicate the properties of the produced window comprises a compressive stress layer having a compressive stress of about 742 megapascals (MPa) or less as measured through a method of ASTM C770-16, and the compressive stress layer has a thickness of about 84 to 100 micrometers(m).
Applicant points to Fig 12, Table 1 and [00121] and [00123] indicate that the properties of claim 1 result directly from the heat treatment of claim 1 of providing heat to the second preliminary glass substrate at a temperature of about 400 to 480 degrees in Celsius (°C) for a period of about 3 to 7 hours.
It is valid that none of the prior art relied upon explicitly states the these temperature and time ranges for heating however; Examiner maintains it has been established by the prior art to provide a heat treatment between two ion exchange steps on lithium-free glass to allow the exchanged ions to migrate into the heated, relaxed/higher viscosity glass.
Upon optimization of the heat treating step to diffuse the potassium ions into the compression depth a skilled artisan would expect it to be obvious to achieve the compressive stress of about 742 MPa and a DOL of 84-100 microns.
MPEP 2112.01 indicates that where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product
The sections of the present specification depict a property achieved by a heating step but do not indicate any specific starting glass composition or two ion exchanging steps and thus are not commensurate in scope with claim 1 and cannot show unexpected results. The office does not have the means to show that the same methods of Lee ‘702, Lee ‘607 and Bookbinder, Lee ‘892 with an optimized heated step would not yield the newly claimed properties. It remains that the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art with the obvious modifications products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
Should Applicant believe that any lithium free glass with sodium ions and two ion exchange steps of any temperature, time, or composition, with the claimed heating step will always yield the claimed properties an affidavit should overcome the obviousness rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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 Hindelang can be reached at (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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741