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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 requires more than one depth of compressions with first and second stress profiles however does not require them to be in specific locations on the glass substrate or relative to any portion recited in claim 1.
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) 1-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (JP 2016145968) as cited in the machine translation provided herein.
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses manufacturing a glass-based article comprising
Exposing a glass-based substrate (101) with a first thickness of a first thin section (113) and a second thickness of a thick portion (117) (page 6 of the translation, Fig 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
204
1126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hasegawa discloses exposing the glass based substrate to a bath comprising alkali metal ion, necessarily for some period of time (page 6 of the translation paragraph 4- Page 7 paragraph 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
730
1106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The alkalis are exchanged in the surface thus somewhere there is a “non-zero” concentration where the alkalis from the salt are not exchanged in both thickness sections and the alkali metal ions from the bath reach a thickness center of the second section (117) at a depth of layer.
Hasegawa discloses a single ion exchange on page 7.
Hasegawa discloses central tension is preferably 200 MPa or less overall. The central tension of the thin portion (13/113) is larger than the CT of the thick portion (17/117) (page 7 of the translation paragraph 4) and is approximately calculated as:
CT = (CS × DOL) / (t−2 × DOL)
Hasegawa discloses the thick portion (17/117) being basically 0.4 mm or less and a thickness of the thin portion (13/113) being 0.01mm or more) (page 4; paragraph 4)
Hasegawa discloses the compressive stress is 300 MPa or more (page 7; paragraph 2).
Hasegawa discloses all of the limitation of claim 1 and overlapping ranges of the compressive stress. in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 6, using the ranges of thickness of (sections (117/17) and (13/113) and central tensions and the calculation recited above in the rejection of claim 1 Hasegawa suggests
a depth of compression=114 microns and
another depth of compression=28.6 microns
(.15* thickness of 113)=.15*400 microns or less= 60 microns or less
(.15* thickness 117)=.15*100 microns or greater= 15 microns or more
(.075* thickness of 113)=.075*400 microns or less= 30 microns or less
(.075* thickness 117)=.075*100 microns or greater= 7.5 microns or more
Which disclose depths of compressions calculated by at least some of the ranges suggested known by Hasegawa.
Regarding claims 8-9, MPEP 2112.01 recites: 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). 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. See also Titanium Metals Corp. V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
All of the features of the method of claim 1 of the present invention are taught thus a skilled artisan should expect the product produced by the disclosed method of Hasegawa to have the same properties of claims 8-9.
Regarding claim 10, Hasegawa disclose alkali-aluminosilicate (page 9 of the machine translation provided)
Regarding claim 11, Hasegawa discloses a lithium alkali-aluminosilicate (page 9 at least paragraph 6 of the machine translation provided)
Regarding claim 12, Hasegawa discloses the salt may comprise potassium alkali ions (see citations in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Hasegawa discloses section (13/113) having a thickness of .4mm or less and (17/117) having a thickness .1mm or more thus overlapping the ranges of h1 and h2 taught by claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Hasegawa discloses section (13/113) having a thickness of .4 mm or less and (17/117) having a thickness .1 mm or more. thus the section (17/117) being .1mm or more is between at least the range .05*(.4mm) of .02 to .96(.4mm) of .384
Regarding claim 15, Hasegawa discloses section (13/113) having a thickness of 400 microns or less and (17/117) having a thickness 100 microns or more thus 100 microns is less than 400 microns by 100 microns or more.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Hasegawa discloses alkali ions of potassium, sodium or combinations thereof (page 6 of the translation paragraph 4- Page 7 paragraph 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
282
1115
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, at least the first composition of glass taught by Hasegawa on page 9 overlaps the claimed composition of claim 20.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (JP 2016145968) as cited in the machine translation provided as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kryzak (US 20170015584).
Regarding claim 17-18, Ozeki discloses at least 70% potassium alkali ions however fails to recite other alkali ions that may be included in the strengthening bath. In an analogous art of strengthening thin cover glass (title), [0008] Kryzak et al. discloses exchanging sodium and/or lithium ions with larger ions of potassium, rubidium, cesium for strengthening [0110] or silver, copper, cesium, or zinc as motivated to provide compressive stress and/or antimicrobial properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, 8-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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