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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 35 USC 112 rejection is withdrawn.
Present claim 1 requires:
in the immersing the mother glass substrate in the first ion exchange salt solution and the primarily heating the mother glass substrate, a first region extending to a first depth from the first surface and a second region extending to a second depth greater than the first depth from the second surface of the mother glass substrate are converted to include the first ion,
wherein, in the immersing the mother glass substrate in the second ion exchange salt solution and the secondarily heating the mother glass substrate, the first region and the second region of the mother glass substrate are converted to include the second ion, and
wherein a first compressive stress on the first surface is smaller than a second compressive stress on the second surface.
Applicant indicates that [0069] indicates that the surfaces have compressive stresses substantially equal to one another, which allows support that one surface has a higher compressive stress.
Applicant does not indicate support for the new amendment,
wherein the first compressive stress or the second compressive stress increases and then decreases from the first surface to the first depth or from the second surface to the second depth.
However Examiner points to Fig.8 and paragraphs [0108]-[0110] as support. And the previous 112 rejection is withdrawn.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuksenkova et al. (WO 2015164556) as cited in (US 20170036954).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Kuksenkova discloses a method of making a glass substrate comprising;
Preparing a mother glass substrate ([0007]-[0008]) which may be curved thus undergoing a curving step [0032],
Immersing the glass in a potassium nitrate salt bath and heating in the salt bath at 380-460 deg. Celsius, the first ion of potassium [0007]
Immersing in a second salt bath, second ion exchange salt bath, comprising a second ion of silver and or poisoning ions of sodium different from the first ion of potassium and
Secondarily heating in in the second bath of 300-400 degrees Celsius for 5 minutes to 18 hours [0007]-[0012].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious
Regarding the limitation of present claim 1:
in the immersing the mother glass substrate in the first ion exchange salt solution and the primarily heating the mother glass substrate, a first region extending to a first depth from the first surface and a second region extending to a second depth greater than the first depth from the second surface of the mother glass substrate are converted to include the first ion,
wherein, in the immersing the mother glass substrate in the second ion exchange salt solution and the secondarily heating the mother glass substrate, the first region and the second region of the mother glass substrate are converted to include the second ion, and
wherein a first compressive stress on the first surface is smaller than a second compressive stress on the second surface.
wherein the first compressive stress or the second compressive stress increases and then decreases from the first surface to the first depth or from the second surface to the second depth.
MPEP 2112.01 states 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).
In the present invention, Kuksenkova discloses a method overlapping with the claimed method and thus a skilled artisan readily expects that the glass substrate of Kuksenkova produces a glass article with compressive stresses on each surface relative to one another as claim 1 presently indicates.
Alternatively, [0032] Kuksenkova discloses the glass may be curved, sharply bent and [0045] indicates steps of physical or chemical etching of the glass substrate at any step, thus it would be obvious any etching or polishing And etching a compressive stressed region may yield that portion to have a smaller compressive stress.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5 have been considered but are not persuasive.
MPEP 2112.01 states:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
MPEP 716.02 states unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims and evidence must be provided for support.
Therefore the present claims do not provide any unexpected properties that would not be anticipated from prior art Kuksenkova.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant does not indicate any claimed method step that is not taught by the prior art. Applicant’s remarks also fail to show the claimed properties are unexpected results commensurate is scope with the claim steps in the specification, test results an affidavit or declaration.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Examiner has reviewed the specification and cannot find any allowable subject matter that overcome the currently cited prior art.
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 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741