DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (2012/0216570) in view of Click et al. (9,624,128) and Apte et al. (WO 95/26940). Regarding claims 1, 16, and 19, Abramov discloses a method comprising preparing a glass substrate including alkali ions, providing a strengthening material on a surface of the glass substrate, and strengthening the surface of the glass substrate, wherein the strengthening the glass surface includes irradiating the strengthening material disposed on the glass substrate with high-frequency waves (i.e. microwaves, [0020]), and the strengthening material includes a salt including ion exchange target ions, which are ion-exchangeable with the alkali ions in the glass substrate, and a high frequency reactive material, such as SiC, ([0021], [0025]). Abramov teaches SiC is a microwave susceptor that promotes heating of the area covered with the strengthening material, but doesn’t specify other microwave susceptors. Click teaches applying a coating to a glass container that comprises a microwave susceptor to provide selective heating of the respective region of the glass container (col. 1 lines 52-59, col. 3 lines 9-11, 52-57, 65-67, col. 4 lines 1-5). Click teaches the microwave susceptor includes a material that couples well with microwave energy, such as aluminum, nickel, copper, SiC, and mixtures or alloys thereof (col. 3 lines 31-42). Although Click doesn’t specify compounds for the susceptor materials, it is common for the materials to exist in stable oxide forms. For example, Apte teaches preferred microwave susceptor material are ceramics materials, such as alumina and zirconia (page 5 lines 13-17). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed other microwave susceptor materials, such as alumina (Al2O3), as it predictably provides for successful heating of the strengthening material, needed for the ion exchange of the alkali ions in the glass substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Abramov further teaches the strengthening the surface of the glass substrate further comprises ion-exchanging the alkali ions (Na+ or Li+) and the ion exchange target ions (K+) with each other.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Abramov teaches the irradiating the strengthening material with high-frequency waves comprises generating, by the high-frequency reactive material, heat in response to the high-frequency waves ([0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Abramov teaches the strengthening material is a paste ([0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Abramov teaches the steps of providing the strengthening material and the strengthening the surface of the glass substrate are each performed in a non-immersion manner ([0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Abramov teaches removing the strengthened material from the glass substrate, the surface of which is strengthened ([0021]).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (2012/0216570), Click et al. (9,624,128) and Apte et al. (WO 95/26940) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Saha et al. (2007/0023971). Abramov teaches the high-frequency reactive material comprises a ceramic, such as SiC ([0025]). Apte further teaches combining the susceptor materials, such as alumina and silicon carbide (page 5 lines 3-6, 18-19). Saha teaches combining two microwave susceptor materials together such as silicon carbide and zirconia ([0041]). Saha explain the silicon carbide directly couples to the microwave energy at room temperature and immediately provide for heating, whereas the zirconia serves to further increase the temperature by absorbing heat from the silicon carbide material and acts as a secondary susceptor ([0079]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a combination of susceptors, such as SiC and ZrO2, to provide heating for the strengthening material and promote ion exchange of the alkali ions.
Claims 7-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (2012/0216570), Click et al. (9,624,128) and Apte et al. (WO 95/26940) as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Sridharan et al. (2014/0261975). Abramov doesn’t specify any other components for the high-frequency reactive material. Sridharan teaches a paste applied to a glass substrate for sealing, wherein the paste is especially formulated for selective and controlled absorption of microwave energy to heat the paste ([0006]-[0008], [0027]-[0028]). Sridharan further teaches incorporating a microwave coupling additive, such as SiC into the paste to enhance coupling with microwave energy ([0020], [0033]), as well as an epoxy to effect the heating and flowing of the paste ([0043]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated an epoxy in the high frequency reactive material of Abramov, as it would further assist in the heating of the strengthening material, as taught by Sridharan.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (2012/0216570), Click et al. (9,624,128) and Apte et al. (WO 95/26940) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balcom et al. (2015/0218045) and Li et al. (2019/0218134). Abramov is silent regarding using conductive heating during the strengthening step. Balcom similarly teaches a method for strengthening a glass substrate, the method comprising preparing a glass substrate including alkali ions, providing a strengthening material on a surface of the glass substrate, and strengthening the surface of the glass substrate, wherein the strengthening the glass surface includes irradiating the strengthening material disposed on the glass substrate with high-frequency waves (i.e. microwaves, [0045]). Balcom teaches other heat sources for facilitating the strengthening process includes conductive heating ([0047]). Li also teaches a method for strengthening a glass substrate, the method comprising irradiating the glass substrate with microwaves while being exposed to a strengthening material ([0040]). Li further teaches conductive heating is provided to the glass substrate by being immersed in a heated molten salt bath ([0035]). Thus, it is suggested to provide both conductive heating and microwave heating to the glass substrate during strengthening. Li teaches this allows for optimized strengthening treatment and shorten treatment period ([0047],[0054]-[0055]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided conductive heating in addition to microwave heating in the process of Abramov, for an improved strengthening treatment with a shorter treatment period.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramov et al. (2012/0216570), Click et al. (9,624,128) and Apte et al. (WO 95/26940) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LaCourse et al. (4,872,896) and Hawtof et al. (2009/0100872). As mentioned, Abramov teaches a paste comprising a microwave susceptor, but doesn’t specify an additional high frequency susceptor. Like Abramov, LaCourse teaches a method for strengthening a glass substrate comprising preparing a glass substrate including alkali ions, providing a coating of strengthening material on a surface of the glass substrate, and irradiating the strengthening material with microwave energy to perform ion exchange between the glass substrate and the strengthening material (abstract). LaCourse teaches different aspects of applying the microwave energy and the coating on the glass substrate, including a coating comprising a salt including ion exchangeable target ions (col. 7 lines 5-14), a coating of glaze frit including a microwave susceptor and ions (col. 7 line 67 to col. 8 line 16), and a coating comprising a microwave susceptor for heating the glass substrate (col. 7 lines 57-66). LaCourse essentially teaches coatings comprising a microwave susceptor can be used to heat a layer underneath the coating. Hawtof teaches applying a electromagnetic radiation susceptor layer onto a glass layer that is already sensitive to electromagnetic radiation, so as to absorb electromagnetic radiation and thereby produce heat and augment the heating of the glass layer in contact therewith ([0027]). Thus, although microwave energy is not embodied, one skill in the art would gather from Hawtof layers comprising a susceptor can be used to enhance heating of the layers in contact with the susceptor layer. Abramov teaches the strength value increases with increasing temperature during the strengthening process ([0024]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated a high-frequency susceptor directly on (which is considered adjacent to) the strengthening material of Abramov, so as to further enhance and augment the heating of the strengthening material and effect more efficient ion exchange of the ions. In providing the modification to Abramov, the strengthening would naturally include irradiating the susceptor with the high frequency waves, simultaneously with irradiating the strengthening material disposed on the glass substrate, wherein the high frequency susceptor generates heat in response to the high frequency waves.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to suggest the combination of placing a strengthening material comprising a salt with ion exchangeable target ions and a high frequency reactive material on a glass substrate, a high-frequency susceptor directly on the strengthening material, and a heat-loss preventing material directly on the high-frequency susceptor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 14, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 16 and 19 under Abramov have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Click and Apte.
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 QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights