DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species D (claims 1-2, 6, and 9-11) in the reply filed on Aug. 11, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 3-5, 7-8, and 12-16 have been withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed Dec. 3, 2025 is sufficient for the Examiner to withdraw the objection to the abstract of the disclosure and the objection to PGPUB paragraphs [0005] and [0006].
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1 and 9, the preamble recites a method of producing a portable electronic device cover glass. The Examiner interprets the use of the glass recited in the preamble as “intended use”, and is broadly interpreting the term “glass”.
In lines 6-7 of claim 1, Applicant recites “said surface is provided with a roughness that simulates a surface of paper in terms of reading and writing experience”. Since there is no “standard” of roughness that simulates a surface of paper in terms of reading and writing experience, the Examiner interprets that any type of roughness will meet the limitations of the claim as long as all other claim limitations are met, such as the claimed mean spacing of profile elements, Rms in the range of 131 micrometers to 190 micrometers.
In claims 6 and 11, line 2, Applicant references “the glass preform”, the Examiner interprets “the glass preform” as referencing “the portable electronic device cover glass preform”.
Claim Objections
The amendment to the claims filed Dec. 3, 2025 is sufficient for the Examiner to withdraw the objection to claims 1 and 9
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The amendment to the claims filed Dec. 3, 2025 is sufficient for the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of claims 1-2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected in the prior art rejection dated Sept. 3, 2025 have been considered, but are moot due to new grounds of rejection, with a new reference Nippon (JP5874803B2), necessitated by the amendment filed Dec. 3, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nippon (JP5874803B2).
Regarding claims 1-2, Nippon ([0001]) discloses a method for manufacturing a touch panel glass mounted on portable terminals (corresponding to a portable electronic device cover glass). Nippon ([0008]) discloses the method includes a surface roughening step of the glass surface and ([0070]) discloses the glass substrate for the touch panel (corresponding to a portable electronic device cover glass preform) having a thickness of 0.5 mm or less. These disclosures by Nippon provide for a step of providing a portable electronic device cover glass preform with a thickness having a maximum thickness within Applicants claimed range of 600 micrometers, as claimed in claim 1, and overlapping maximum thickness range of 10 micrometers to 600 micrometers, as claimed in claim 2.
As discussed above, Nippon discloses a surface roughening step (corresponding to texturing a surface) of the glass preform. Additionally, Nippon ([0029]) teaches surface roughness having an interval of unevenness (corresponding to profile elements) and teaches if the surface roughness is larger than 150 microns it becomes difficult to smoothly slide the glass surface with a finger or the like. While Nippon fails to explicitly state this interval is a mean spacing, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a mean spacing of 150 microns or less would also be included, and therefore, the range taught by Nippon would include a mean spacing of unevenness (i.e. profile elements), Rms of 150 microns or less, which within Applicant’s claimed range of 131 micrometers to 190 micrometers, as claimed. Nippon fails to explicitly state the roughness (i.e. texturing) provides a roughness that simulates a surface of paper in terms of reading and writing experience. However, as stated in the claim interpretation section above, since Nippon provides for texturing (i.e. roughness) and provides for obviousness of the mean spacing of the profile elements, Rms range, that overlaps Applicant’s claimed range, the roughness disclosed by Nippon provides for the claimed roughness that simulates a surface of paper in terms of reading and writing experience.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Nippon ([0032]) discloses the texturing (i.e. roughening) step comprises sandblasting (corresponding to media blasting). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Nippon wherein the texturing of the surface of the glass preform comprising texturing of the glass preform through media blasting (i.e. sandblasting).
Regarding claims 9-10, Nippon ([0001]) discloses a method for manufacturing a touch panel glass mounted on portable terminals (corresponding to a portable electronic device cover glass). Nippon ([0008]) discloses the method includes a surface roughening step of the glass surface and ([0070]) discloses the glass substrate for the touch panel (corresponding to a portable electronic device cover glass preform) having a thickness of 0.5 mm (500 microns) or less. These disclosures by Nippon provide for a step of providing a portable electronic device cover glass preform with a thickness having a maximum thickness within Applicants claimed range of 600 micrometers, as claimed in claim 1, and overlapping maximum thickness range of 10 micrometers to 600 micrometers, as claimed in claim 10.
As discussed above, Nippon discloses a surface roughening step (corresponding to texturing a surface) of the glass preform. Additionally, Nippon ([0023]) discloses the surface roughening step to provides for a surface roughness Ra (corresponding to mean roughness, Ra) including a range of 500 (0.5 8000 angstroms (0.8 microns) and 16000 angstroms (1.6 microns) or less. Accordingly, Nippon teaches a range significantly overlapping Applicant’s claimed range of 0.8 microns to 1.5 microns.
Nippon ([0029]) also teaches surface roughness having an interval of unevenness (corresponding to profile elements) and teaches if the surface roughness is larger than 150 microns it becomes difficult to smoothly slide the glass surface with a finger or the like. While Nippon fails to explicitly state this interval is a mean spacing, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a mean spacing of 150 microns or less would also be included, and therefore, the range taught by Nippon would include a mean spacing of unevenness (i.e. profile elements), Rms of 150 microns or less, which within Applicant’s claimed range of 131 micrometers to 190 micrometers, as claimed.
Additionally, Nippon ([0027]) teaches a height (corresponding to peak height) of the unevenness affects the operation feeling of the glass surface and coefficient of friction. Nippon teaches the surface roughness range of Rp (i.e. profile peak height) of 20,000 angstroms (2 microns) or more and 50,000 angstroms (5 microns) or 40,000 angstroms (4 microns) or less. While Nippon fails to explicitly state Rp is an average profile peak height, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, an average profile peak height in the range of 2 microns to 4 microns or 5 microns would also be included, and therefore, the range taught by Nippon would include an average profile peak height in the range of 2 microns to 4 microns or 5 microns, which encompasses and/or overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 3.3 microns to 4.6 microns.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the rejection of claim 9 above, Nippon ([0032]) discloses the texturing (i.e. roughening) step comprises sandblasting (corresponding to media blasting). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the method of Nippon wherein the texturing of the surface of the glass preform comprising texturing of the glass preform through media blasting (i.e. sandblasting).
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 LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-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, Alison Hindenlang 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741