DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-22 are pending in the application. Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected and claims 1-17 are examined on merits herein.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that examples are not provided of processes differing from that of the process claims that could be used to produce the claimed product. This is not found persuasive because the strengthened glass of the instant product claims 1-17 is not shown to be necessarily produced only from a process covered by the process claims, and thus processes falling outside of the claim 18-22 coverage could be used to produce glasses meeting each limitation of said instant product claims. For instance, there is no thickness limitation for the glass sheet in the independent product claim, but there is a thickness minimum and maximum for the glasses treated by the instant process claims. The product claimed glass could have a thickness of less than 1.4 mm or more than 7 mm; forming the required stress profile having the features of the product claims would be produced by a differing heat treatment from that having the parameters laid out in the instant process claims. For a thinner glass this could be accomplished by a treatment time of less than 10 hours due to the lesser infusion distance from each side. Similarly, diffusion would still occur at temperatures less than 430 °C, and thus a process using such a temperature and therefore not falling within the coverage of the instant process claims could lead to a glass still meeting the limitations of the product claims. Finally, glasses having different compositions would react differently to chemical strengthening. Because of this, and because there are no specific compositional parameters in the product claim limitations, a process differing from that of the instant process claims in terms of treating a non-lithium aluminosilicate glass, or using a different time and temperature, could still lead to a glass meeting the stress profile limitations of the instant claim. As such, there is a showing that the product and process claims are distinct from one another per MPEP 806.
Contrary to the assertion by applicant, examining both inventions simultaneous would be a burdensome process because it would necessitate a search and consideration in disparate places in the art and of documents related primarily to two different types of teachings in terms of being drawn to either glasses and their properties, or processes and their parameters.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2023 and 08/05/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are drawn to a strengthened glass having a compressive stress profile such that the integrated stress from a depth of 400 µm to the zero stress point (ICS (≥400)) is relatively high in comparison to the integrated stress from the surface to said zero stress point. This is seemingly the defining feature of the claimed glass, in that the compressive stress at high depths of 400 µm and greater has a higher value than is commonly found, leading to better resistance to i.e. stone strikes on vehicle-mounted sensor covers. However, the instant Specification is not sufficiently specific as to how glasses having stress profiles with the unique ICS (≥400)/ICS value of the instant claim 1 are actually produced.
The state of the prior art is such that it is known that variables of molten salt concentration/content, treatment temperature, and treatment time can alter the ion diffusion and thus the resultant stress profile and properties. However, this knowledge would not, in combination with what is disclosed instantly, enable one of ordinary skill in the art to purposely form glasses having the properties of the instant claims. The Specification discloses exemplary embodiments wherein starting glasses having the same composition are subject to chemical strengthening treatments using the same starting molten salt mixtures and treated at the same temperatures (see Table 1, examples 6, 7, 8). However, treating for 48 hours or 200 hours leads to unacceptable results (wherein the ICS (≥400)/ICS value is not at least 0.13), whereas treating for 144 hours, a time period falling between the aforementioned 48 and 200 hours, leads to a ICS (≥400)/ICS value that does meet the claimed value of at least 0.13. A further example wherein the ratio does not have a value of at least 0.13 is taught (Table 1 example 10), but this glass is treated for a time and temperature that is disclosed elsewhere in the Specification as leading to the desired ICS (≥400)/ICS value (paragraph 0098). There is no indication as to how these seemingly disparate results could be used to guide one consulting the instant disclosure to a treated glass actually having the stress profile properties of the instant claim. It is not shown that the treatment conditions are predictable enough in leading to expected results such that the level of experimentation in actually achieving the desired results would not be undue.
It remains unclear, then, what specific parameters can actually lead to glasses strengthened such that the stress profile features of the instant claims are present, and because this is not clear from the instant Specification, claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are not enabled. Claims 1-17 are thus rejected under USC 112(a).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 is drawn to a glass, and contains further limitations only indicating that the glass is “being used” for an intended application. It is unclear from these limitations if what is being claimed is a glass sheet capable of use in the sensor application of the claim, or if the claim is meant to be drawn to an on-vehicle sensor per se. Because of this ambiguity, the metes and bounds of claim 17 are unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akiba et al (US 2020/0132521 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Akiba et al teaches a protective member comprised of a chemically strengthened glass (see Abstract). Embodiments are taught wherein the depth of the compressive stress layer is greater than 400 µm, with values of 541 µm and 550 µm exemplified (see Table 2). These chemically strengthened glasses are prepared by immersion in 100 wt% NaNO3 solutions at 450 °C for 48 hours (ibid.). The thickness of the strengthened glass sheets is 3.2 mm. The stress profile claimed instantly by the ICS (≥400)/ICS property is disclosed in the instant Specification to be produced by subjecting glass sheets having thicknesses in a range encompassing 3.2 mm to a chemical tempering step wherein ion exchange is carried out using the same sodium nitrate molten salt, at the same temperature, for a time period of greater than 10 hours. A time of 48 hours is specifically mentioned. Thus, Akiba et al teaches an equivalently thick glass sheet that is treated by a process meeting each factor disclosed as leading to the stress profile of the instant claim 1. The resultant Akiba et al sheet would therefore inherently have a compressive stress at 400 µm depth such that the ICS value at said depth would be 0.13 or greater relative to the ICS in total. Treating an equivalent glass in a process having equivalent parameters cannot be interpreted as leading to any result other than a chemically strengthened stress profile that is also equivalent to that of claim 1. Each limitation of the claim is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Akiba et al teaches an equivalent glass sheet that is chemically strengthened using the same conditions as those disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a glass with the stress profile of the instant claims. As such, said Akiba et al glass would inherently have an equivalent stress profile, the integral stress from 400 µm to the zero point being 9200 MPa·µm or greater. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Akiba et al teaches an equivalent glass sheet that is chemically strengthened using the same conditions as those disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a glass with the stress profile of the instant claims, with a DOL of 541 µm or 550 µm. As such, said Akiba et al glass would inherently have an equivalent stress profile, and the depth at 50 MPa compressive stress would be at least 400 µm.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Akiba et al teaches an equivalent glass sheet that is chemically strengthened using the same conditions as those disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a glass with the stress profile of the instant claims. As such, said Akiba et al glass would inherently have an equivalent stress profile, and said profile would have a negative maximum slop at some position deeper than 50 µm -0.50 MPa/µm or greater.
Regarding claim 5, Akiba et al teaches an embodiment wherein the depth of compressive stress layer is 550 µm and the thickness is 3.2 mm. This results in a DOC/t value of 0.172.
Regarding claim 6, Akiba et al does not teach the tensile stress of the chemically strengthened glasses. However, because, as shown above, the glass sheet of Akiba et al is of equivalent thickness and is treated equivalently to that of the instant claims, the resulting stress profile would inherently also be equivalent. The resultant CTmax is thus also equivalent as resultant from the treatment, and would be 40 MP or more.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Akiba et al teaches an equivalent glass sheet that is chemically strengthened using the same conditions as those disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a glass with the stress profile of the instant claims. As such, said Akiba et al glass would inherently have an equivalent stress profile, and said profile would have a negative maximum slop at some position from 0-20 µm of -10 MPa/µm or less.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Akiba et al teaches an equivalent glass sheet that is chemically strengthened using the same conditions as those disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a glass with the stress profile of the instant claims, which would inherently have a local maximum compressive stress value of at least 50 MPa.
Regarding claim 10, the equivalent Akiba et al glass with a stress profile inherently being the same as that of the equivalently treated glasses disclosed instantly would thus also have its local maximum at a position in the range of 0.05t to 0.13t.
Regarding claim 11, because, as discussed above, Akiba et al teaches an equivalent glass sheet that is chemically strengthened using the same conditions as those disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to a glass with the stress profile of the instant claims, the Akiba et al glass would inherently also have an equivalent stress profile. This profile would be one in which ms>md, and the further limitations of claim 11 are therefore met by the Akiba et al teachings.
Regarding claim 12, the equivalently treated Akiba et al sheet would inherently have a compressive stress at 400 µm depth that is also equivalent to that of the instant claims. Said stress would therefore result in a relative ratio value CS400/CS0 of at least 0.1. Treating an equivalent glass in a process having equivalent parameters cannot be interpreted as leading to any result other than a chemically strengthened stress profile that is also equivalent to that of claim 12. Each limitation of the claim is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated.
Regarding claim 14, the equivalently treated Akiba et al sheet would inherently have a compressive stress at 400 µm depth that is also equivalent to that of the instant claims. Said stress would therefore result in a relative ratio value CS400/CS0 of at least 0.32. Treating an equivalent glass in a process having equivalent parameters cannot be interpreted as leading to any result other than a chemically strengthened stress profile that is also equivalent to that of claim 14. Each limitation of the claim is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated.
Regarding claim 15, Akiba et al mentions evaluation based on ISO 20567-1 but does not further specify how crack resistance evaluation of exemplary embodiments is carried out. However, it is indicated that said crack resistance is satisfactory, and as discussed above, Akiba et al teaches a glass sheet that is equivalent to that of the instant claims. The crack generation rate evaluated according to ISO 20567-1 Test Method B would thus be 10% or less.
Regarding claim 16, Akiba et al teaches a glass sheet thickness of 3.2 mm.
Regarding claim 17, Akiba et al teaches that the inventive strengthened glass sheet is used for a vehicle mounted sensor.
Conclusion
12. Claims 1-17 are rejected. Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW24 February 2026