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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
However, Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application and filing date thereof to overcome any rejection herein because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on August 13, 2025 is acknowledged. However, in view of Applicants’ traversal, remarks and further review of the claims, the restriction requirement is withdrawn and the Groups are all rejoined and examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 17. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over (USPub20220112119).
Regarding claim 11: ‘119 teaches methods for manufacturing chemically strengthened glass comprising bringing glass into contact with a molten salt composition to perform ion exchange 2 (N) times (see DIOX in Table 6).
Note that the glasses according to ‘119 are lithium-containing (see Tables 1 and 2). As ‘119’s glass overlaps and even meets the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note Tables 1-2 when converted to wt% in ‘119 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude them to have the same glass transition point Tg (MPEP 2112).
The exchange includes a first (N-1)th ion exchange which includes an ion exchange of bringing the glass into contact with a first molten salt composition containing NaNO3 (see DIOX in Table 6), which will necessarily provide for a compressive stress layer containing sodium, and a second (Nth) ion exchange which includes an ion exchange of bringing the glass into contact with a second molten salt composition containing KNO3 and LiNO3 (see DIOX in Table 6). The mass of lithium nitrate used in the second salt is 0.1wt% (see Table 6) and the base composition of the glass can include a total of sodium and lithium being 11.58wt% (for instance, see Ex 1 in Table 2 which converts to a wt% composition having 11.58wt% Li2O and 0wt% Na2O). This provides for a mass ratio falling within the range of claim 11.
The ratio of time of the second (Nth) ion exchange to the sum of the first (N-1)th ion exchange is 0.25 (Table 6).
Regarding claim 12: ‘119 teaches methods for manufacturing chemically strengthened glass comprising bringing glass into contact with a molten salt composition to perform ion exchange 2 (N) times (see DIOX in Table 6). Note that the glasses according to ‘119 are lithium-containing (see Tables 1 and 2).
Specifically, the exchange includes a first (N-1)th ion exchange which includes an ion exchange of bringing the glass into contact with a first molten salt composition containing NaNO3 (see DIOX in Table 6), which will necessarily provide for a compressive stress layer containing sodium, and a second (Nth) ion exchange which includes an ion exchange of bringing the glass into contact with a second molten salt composition containing KNO3 and LiNO3 (see DIOX in Table 6), the temperature of the second molten salt being equal to the temperature of the first (see DIOX in Table 6).
The ratio of time of the second (Nth) ion exchange to the sum of the first (N-1)th ion exchange is 0.25 (Table 6).
Regarding claims 13-14: ‘199 does teach the temperatures used in the first molten salt and second molten salt are both 500oC (see Table 6).
While ‘119 may not explicitly teach the glass transition point of their glass to determine whether or not their taught temperatures meet the requirement recited in claims 13 and 14, the following is noted.
Initially, Applicants disclose that their temperatures used can be 420oC or higher (see Applicants’ publication par 0187) which is met by the 500oC temperatures of ‘199. Further, it was discussed previously that as ‘119’s glass overlaps and even meets the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note Tables 1-2 when converted to wt% in ‘119 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude them to have the same glass transition point Tg (MPEP 2112). Given that both the temperatures used and transition points appear to be the same as Applicants, one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude the claimed requirements to be met.
Regarding claim 16: As discussed above, as ‘119’s glass overlaps and even meets the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note Tables 1-2 when converted to wt% in ‘119 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude them to have the same glass transition point Tg (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 17 and 18: As discussed above, ‘119’s glass overlaps and even meets the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note Tables 1-2 when converted to wt% in ‘119).
Regarding claim 15: ‘119 teaches that their glass can be crystallized glass (see teaching of glass-ceramic in 0148, 0149).
Regarding claim 19 and 20: The content of lithium nitrate in the second molten salt in the 2nd (Nth) ion exchange falls within the range claimed (see DIOX in Table 6) and the mass ratio of potassium ions to lithium ions in this second salt falls within the range claimed (see DIOX in Table 6).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8: ‘119 teaches chemically strengthened glass.
Given that ‘119’s glass overlaps and even meets the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note Tables 1-2 when converted to wt% in ‘119 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication) and as previously laid out above, ‘119 teaches their glass being made by an ion exchange method that meets Applicants’ method, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting features and properties when measured and evaluated similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 6-7, and 9: As discussed above, 119’s glass overlaps and even meets the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note Tables 1-2 when converted to wt% in ‘119) and the glass can be crystallized glass (see teaching of glass-ceramic in 0148, 0149).
Regarding claim 10: As discussed above, as ‘119’s glass overlaps and even meets the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note Tables 1-2 when converted to wt% in ‘119 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude them to have the same glass transition point Tg (MPEP 2112).
2. Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over (USPub20210371332).
Regarding claim 11: ‘332 teaches methods for manufacturing chemically strengthened glass comprising bringing glass into contact with a molten salt composition to perform ion exchange 2 (N) times (see DIOX in Table 2, 0088, 0097-0099).
Note that the glasses according to ‘332 are lithium-containing (see 0025 and Table 1). As ‘332’s glasses overlap the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note 0025 in ‘332 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude them to have the same glass transition point Tg (MPEP 2112).
The exchange includes a first (N-1)th ion exchange which includes an ion exchange of bringing the glass into contact with a first molten salt composition containing NaNO3 (see DIOX in Table 2, 0088, 0097-0099), which will necessarily provide for a compressive stress layer containing sodium, and a second (Nth) ion exchange which includes an ion exchange of bringing the glass into contact with a second molten salt composition containing KNO3 and LiNO3 (see DIOX in Table 2, 0088, 0097-0099). The mass of lithium nitrate used in the second salt can be 0.5wt% (see 0099, Table 2) and the base composition of the glass can include a total of sodium and lithium being 10.8wt% (for instance, Table 1). This provides for a mass ratio falling within the range of claim 11.
The ratio of time of the second (Nth) ion exchange to the sum of the first (N-1)th ion exchange can be within the range claimed (see 0098-0099, Table 2).
Regarding claim 12: ‘332 teaches methods for manufacturing chemically strengthened glass comprising bringing glass into contact with a molten salt composition to perform ion exchange 2 (N) times (see DIOX in Table 2, 0088, 0097-0099).
Note that the glasses according to ‘332 are lithium-containing (see 0025 and Table 1).
The exchange includes a first (N-1)th ion exchange which includes an ion exchange of bringing the glass into contact with a first molten salt composition containing NaNO3 (see DIOX in Table 2, 0088, 0097-0099), which will necessarily provide for a compressive stress layer containing sodium, and a second (Nth) ion exchange which includes an ion exchange of bringing the glass into contact with a second molten salt composition containing KNO3 and LiNO3 see DIOX in Table 2, 0088, 0097-0099).The temperature used in the second bath can equal that of the first (see Table 2).
The ratio of time of the second (Nth) ion exchange to the sum of the first (N-1)th ion exchange can be within the range claimed (see 0098-0099, Table 2).
Regarding claims 13-14: ‘332 does teach the temperatures used in the first molten salt and second molten salt are both 380oC (see Table 2).
While ‘332 may not explicitly teach the glass transition point of their glass to determine whether or not their taught temperatures meet the requirement recited in claims 13 and 14, the following is noted.
Initially, Applicants disclose that their temperatures used can be 380oC or higher (see Applicants’ publication par 0187) which is met by the 380oC temperatures of ‘332. Further, it was discussed previously that as ‘332’s glass overlaps that disclosed by Applicants’ (note 0025 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude them to have the same glass transition point Tg (MPEP 2112). Given that both the temperatures used and transition points appear to be the same as Applicants, one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude the claimed requirements to be met.
Regarding claim 16: As discussed above, as ‘332’s glass overlaps the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note 0025 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude them to have the same glass transition point Tg (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 17 and 18: As discussed above, ‘332’s glass overlaps Applicants’ (0025) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 19 and 20: The content of lithium nitrate in the second molten salt in the 2nd (Nth) ion exchange falls within the range claimed (see Table 2) and the mass ratio of potassium ions to lithium ions in this second salt can fall within the range claimed (see 0099, Table 2).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8: ‘332 teaches chemically strengthened glass.
Given that ‘332’s glass overlaps that disclosed by Applicants’ (note 0025 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication) and as previously laid out above, ‘332 teaches their glass being made by an ion exchange method that meets Applicants’ method, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting features and properties when measured and evaluated similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 6-7: As discussed above, 332’s glass overlaps the glass disclosed by Applicants’ (note 0025) (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 10: As discussed above, as ‘332’s glass overlaps Applicants’ (note 0025 compared to the wt% composition disclosed in par 0098-0105 and 0111-0126 of Applicants publication), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude them to have the same glass transition point Tg (MPEP 2112).
Other Reference Cited and deemed relevant
USPub20220041493
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784