DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected, and claims 1-9 and 16-18 are examined on merits herein.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 1-9 and 16-18 in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that no evidence of record showing that the claimed product can be made by a process differing from that of the instant claims, and that there would not be a serious burden in examination of both inventions in one prosecution. This is not found persuasive because there has been a sufficient showing that a differing method can be used to arrive at the instantly claimed glass. It has been indicated that the method of producing the glass can differ in terms of heat treatment parameters. As a practical matter, the Office is not able to furnish experimental evidence that tests whether or not any other method can be used to arrive at a glass with the features of the instant product claims. As such, rhetoric and reasoning must be used. The requirements for restriction in this regard have been met. Further, as shown below, the applied prior art does teach a glass meeting each limitation of the instant claims, and this glass is produced by methods differing from those of the instant process claims. Here to is a showing that the requirements for proper restriction are met in this case. Applicant’s assertion that examination of both inventions in one prosecution would not be burdensome is not persuasive because doing so would necessitate a simultaneous search and consideration of disparate limitation and prior art types, as well as in different classification places. This being a burdensome process, the further requirement for restriction has been met.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2023, 05/30/2023, and 08/27/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 16-18 are 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 1 recites that the slope of a K2O concentration is “-1.9 %/µm or more.” From this language it is unclear if the limitation is intended to mean that the slope has an absolute value of 1.9 or more, indicating that values less than -1.9 are covered (-2.0 %/µm, etc), and the limitation is intended to mean that the slope has a minimum steepness of -1.9. Alternatively, it the claim language may mean that “or more” indicates than any slope value having a numerical value greater than -1.9 is covered, such that values such as -1.0 %/µm, or positive slope values (+1.0 %/µm, etc) are covered. This limitation is further unclear because the claim recites that the specified slope occurs at “a depth of 1 to 3 µm” – it is ambiguous if this slope is calculated by dividing the difference between the K2O concentration at 1 µm and 3 µm and then dividing by the depth difference (2 µm in this limitation), or if the limitation is meant to mean that at some point between 1 µm and 3 µm there is a slope of -1.9 or more. If the former, it is unclear how this would apply to concentration curves such that there is an inflection point in this range. In these situations, dividing the rise over the run for the two depths of the claim limitation would not represent a single, actually existing slope. The limitation and equivalent limitations found in dependent claims are necessarily interpreted as covering any glass having a concentration/depth plot wherein the recited slope occurs at any point within the recited range.
Similarly, the limitation of claim 1 pertaining to the slope at a depth of 5 to 10 µm is unclear for reasons substantially the same as those discussed above. It is not clear if the -0.001 slope value maximum is meant to indicate an absolute value (±0.001 covered), or if the value need be negative, and it is also unclear if the slope limitation can be present at any point in the 5-10 µm range, or if it is meant to be measured or averaged across the entire range.
Claim 2 contains two limitations to Na2O concentration slopes at different depth ranges, and these limitations are indefinite for both of the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1, pertaining to absolute or numerical slope values, and the nature of slope measurement across the range, or at some point within the range.
The claims 3 and 4 limitations to slope ratio is similarly indefinite because the nature of the slopes is unclear, as it is not specified if the slope is measured across the entirety of the depth range, or if it can exist at some point within said range.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it recites a concentration at “a center”, but the wording of the claim renders unclear if this is actually referring to the mathematical midpoint in the thickness, or if it can be some other “a center.”
Claim 16 is indefinite because the claim recites that the specified slope occurs at “a depth of 1 to 3 µm” – it is ambiguous if this slope is calculated by dividing the difference between the K2O concentration at 1 µm and 3 µm and then dividing by the depth difference (2 µm in this limitation), or if the limitation is meant to mean that at some point between 1 µm and 3 µm there is a slope of -1.9 to 0.0. If the former, it is unclear how this would apply to concentration curves such that there is an inflection point in this range. In these situations, dividing the rise over the run for the two depths of the claim limitation would not represent a single, actually existing slope.
Claims 17-18 are indefinite because, as above, they contain limitations involving slopes recited as being at depth ranges, and it is unclear if the slope is measured point to point, or if at any point within the range a slope with the claimed value exists, then the limitation is met.
Claims 6-9 are also rejected under USC 112 as depending from indefinite claim 1 and therefore containing the indefinite limitations thereof.
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 1-9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrews et al (US 2019/0389764 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Andrews et al teaches a lithium containing glass that is chemically strengthened and subject to a reverse ion exchange process (see Abstract). The resultant glass exhibits a K2O concentration profile that meets the slope limitations of the instant claims (see Fig. 17). The concentration drop from 1 µm to 3 µm is from approximately 5.6 mol% to approximately 3.2 mol%, so the slope from 1-3 µm is -1.2 %/µm. The slope from 5-10 µm is negative, and thus less than -0.001 %/µm. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the Andrews et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Andrews et al teaches an embodiment wherein the Na2O concentration has a negative slope of less than -0.001 %/µm in the range 20-50 µm (see Fig. 13). This is a depth within the range 10-50 µm. The slope from 50-80 µm (the end of the x-axis extent) is calculated from a drop of approximately 12.8 mol% to 12.6 mol% over these 30 µm, and thus the slope is greater than -0.012 %/µm. This is a depth within the range 50-90 µm.
Regarding claim 3, the slope within the range 5-10 µm varies such that there exist within said range slopes with sufficiently low values to produce a value of the slope within this range by the slope within the range 1-3 µm that falls below 0.10.
Regarding claim 4, the slope from values within the range 10-50 µm and that from values within the range 50-90 µm is approximately equivalent in the aforementioned Fig. 13, and thus the ratio of these two values is approximately 1.
Regarding claim 5, the K2O concentration at depth 25 µm in the aforementioned Fig. 17 diagram is approximately 0.1-0.2%, and the value minimizes to 0%. This can be assumed to be the center value, and thus the difference between a value at 15-25 µm and the center value falls below the threshold of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Andrews et al teaches a potassium DOL of greater than 5 µm (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, the Andrews et al strengthened glass is a lithia-containing glass.
Regarding claims 8-9, the Andrews et al glass composition meets each limitation of the instant claims (see paragraph 0165).
Regarding claim 16, Andrews et al teaches a lithium containing glass that is chemically strengthened and subject to a reverse ion exchange process (see Abstract). The resultant glass exhibits a K2O concentration profile that meets the slope limitations of the instant claims (see Fig. 17). The concentration drop from 1 µm to 3 µm is from approximately 5.6 mol% to approximately 3.2 mol%, so the slope from 1-3 µm is -1.2 %/µm. The slope from 5-10 µm is negative, and thus less than -0.001 %/µm. Each limitation of claim 16 is therefore met by the Andrews et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 17, Andrews et al teaches a slope of -1.2 %/µm.
Regarding claim 18, Andrews et al teaches a glass embodiment wherein, in the K2O concentration versus depth plot, there exists in the depth range of 5-10 µm a slop in the range of -0.200 %/µm to -0.001 %/µm (see Fig. 17).
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
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
NSW27 February 2026