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 .
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) and Hashimoto et al. (US 20120270016).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Kuksenkova discloses a method of making a glass substrate particularly suited for surfaces of electronic devices [0003] comprising;
Preparing a mother glass substrate ([0007]-[0008])
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
Kuksenkova states The glass substrate can adopt a variety of physical forms. That is, from a cross-sectional perspective, the substrate can be flat or planar, or it can be curved and/or sharply-bent [0032] and broadly states chemical etching and shaping the glass to be strengthened [0045]-[0046] but fails to state
The limitation of claim 1 of concavely curving a portion of the first surface toward a second surface and another portion being planar.
In an analogous art of chemically strengthening a glass substrate for an electronic device (Abstract, [0038], [0089]) Hashimoto discloses etching to form a recess (2, 2a) [0088]-[0092], Fig 5 or 9 for the purpose of aesthetic decoration and/or operation buttons [0085].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kuksenkova with a recess as motivated to provide a an aesthetic decoration or placement for an operation button.
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.
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.
Applicant argues the Kuksenkova does not disclose curving through etching thus concavely curving a portion of the first surface toward a second surface and another portion being planar. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as required by the amendments filed 04/29/2026
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights