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 .
Note
Applicant’s response filed on 11/13/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-10 are amended, claim 14 is canceled, claims 15-20 are added and claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending.
Previous claim objection and formal rejection under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and comments.
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 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da et al. (US 2021/0078899 A1).
Claim 1: Da teaches a glass article 1 has a thickness t, a first surface 2, a second surface 3 and at least one edge 4 connecting the first surface 2 and the second surfaces 3 (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and [0058]). The glass article 1 meets the claimed substrate, the thickness t meets the claimed substrate thickness, the first surface 2 meets the claimed first major surface, the second surface 3 meets the claimed second major surface and the edge 4 meets the claimed outer peripheral surface. Da teaches at the connection between the first surface 2 and the edge 4, there is a chamfer 5 with a chamfer width A and a chamfer height B (Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and [0058]). The chamfer 5 meets the claimed first peripheral surface, the chamfer width A meets the claimed first width and the chamfer height B meets the claimed first depth. Da teaches at the connection between the second surface 3 and the edge 4, there is another chamfer 5′ with a chamfer width A′ and a chamfer height B′ (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and [0058]). The chamfer 5′ meets the claimed second peripheral surface, the chamfer width A′ meets the claimed second width and the chamfer height B′ meets the claimed second depth.
In Table 3, Da teaches the glass thickness t is 50 µm, chamber height B is 12 µm, and from these values a ratio of the chamfer height B to the glass thickness t is calculated to be 0.24 (Ex. 4) which is within the claimed range of about 0.1 to 0.35.
In Table 3, Da teaches the glass thickness t is 40 µm, chamber height B is 13 µm, and from these values a ratio of the chamfer height B to the glass thickness t is calculated to be 0.32 (Ex. 9) which is within the claimed range of about 0.1 to 0.35.
In Table 3, Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.0 (Ex. 4) which is within the claimed range of about 0.3 to about 1.6.
In Table 3, Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.3 (Ex. 9) which is within the claimed range of about 0.3 to about 1.6.
In Table 3, Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is 4.1 (Ex. 4) which within the claimed range of about 2 to about 8.
In Table 3, Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is 4.1 (Ex. 9) which within the claimed range of about 2 to about 8.
Da does not expressly teach the claimed median edge strength value; and the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference of Da teaches all of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a median edge strength would implicitly be achieved by a composite with all the claimed components physical dimensions. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Claim 2: In Table 3, Da teaches the glass thickness t is 50 µm, chamber height B is 12 µm, and from these values a ratio of the chamfer height B to the glass thickness t is calculated to be 0.24 (Ex. 4) which is within the claimed range of 0.2 to about 0.4.
In Table 3, Da teaches the glass thickness t is 40 µm, chamber height B is 13 µm, and from these values a ratio of the chamfer height B to the glass thickness t is calculated to be 0.32 (Ex. 9) which is within the claimed range of 0.2 to about 0.4.
In Table 3, Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.0 (Ex. 4) which is within the claimed range of about 1 to about 1.55.
In Table 3, Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.3 (Ex. 9) which is within the claimed range of about 1 to about 1.55.
Claim 3: Da teaches the glass article 1 has a substrate thickness t of at least 5 µm and equal to or less than 35 µm [0026] which overlaps with the claimed range of about 25 µm to about 35 µm. Da teaches the chamfer height B can be 12 µm (Ex. 4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of about 4 µm to about 12 µm. Da teaches the chamfer width A can be 49 µm (Ex. 4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of about 30 µm to about 50 µm. Da teaches the chamfer is nearly symmetric on both sides with a smaller than 10% difference [0058]; therefore, it is interpreted that the chamfer height B’ can be 12 µm (Ex. 4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of about 4 µm to about 12 µm, and the chamfer width A’ can be 49 µm (Ex.4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of about 30 µm to about 50 µm.
Claim 4: Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.0 (Ex. 4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of about 1 to 1.6. Da also teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.3 (Ex. 9, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of about 1 to 1.6.
Claim 5: Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is 4.1 (Ex. 4, Table 3) which within the claimed range of about 4 to 8. Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is 4.1 (Ex. 9, Table 3) which within the claimed range of about 4 to 8.
Claim 6: Da teaches the glass article 1 has a substrate thickness t of equal to or less than 400 µm [0026] which overlaps with the claimed range of about 35 µm or more (see also examples 4 and 9 of Da). Da teaches the chamfer height B can be 10-42 µm (Table 3) which overlaps with the claimed range of about 14 µm to about 24 µm (see also examples 4 and 9 of Da). Da teaches the chamfer width A can be 33-170 µm (Table 3) which overlaps with the claimed range of about 40 µm to about 60 µm (see also examples 4 and 9 of Da). Da teaches the chamfer is nearly symmetric on both sides with a smaller than 10% difference [0058]; therefore, it is interpreted that the chamfer height B’ can be 10-42 µm (Table 3) which overlaps with the claimed range of about 14 µm to about 24 µm (see also examples 4 and 9 of Da). It is also interpreted that the chamfer width A’ can be 33-170 µm (Table 3) which overlaps with the claimed range of about 40 µm to about 60 µm (see also examples 4 and 9 of Da).
Claim 7: Da teaches the glass article 1 has a substrate thickness t of at least 5 µm and equal to or less than 210 µm [0026] which overlaps with the claimed range of about 50 µm or about 200 µm (see also examples 4 and 9 of Da).
Claim 8: Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.0 (Ex. 4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 1.0 to 1.55. Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.3 (Ex. 9, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 1.0 to 1.55.
Claim 9: Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is 2-10 [0058] which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to about 4.
Claim 10: Da teaches the glass thickness t is 50 µm, chamber height B is 12 µm, and from these values a ratio of the chamfer height B to the glass thickness t is calculated to be 0.24 (Ex. 4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 0.18 to 0.34. Da teaches the glass thickness t is 40 µm, chamber height B is 13 µm, and from these values a ratio of the chamfer height B to the glass thickness t is calculated to be 0.32 (Ex. 9, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 0.18 to 0.34.
Claim 11: Da teaches the glass article 1 can be made of a glass material or a ceramic material [0045].
Claim 12: Da teaches there is a compressive stress region extending from the first surface 2 to a first depth in the glass article, wherein the region is defined by a compressive stress (CS) of at least 100 MPa at the first surface 2 [0058] which overlaps with the claimed range of about 400 Mega Pascals or more (see also example 4 of Da). Da teaches there is compressive stress region extending from the second surface 3 to a second depth in the glass article, wherein the region is defined by a compressive stress (CS) of at least 100 MPa at the second surface 3 [0058] which overlaps with the claimed range of about 400 Mega Pascals or more (see also example 4 of Da).
Claim 13: Da teaches a bending strength (BS) of the glass article 1 is greater than 700 MPa [0033]. The bending strength (BS) meets the claimed two-point bend test and overlaps with the claimed range of about 1000 MegaPascals or more (see also example 4 of Da).
Claim 15: Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.0 (Ex. 4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 1.55. Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.3 (Ex. 9, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 1.55.
Claim 16: Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.0 (Ex. 4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 0.53 to 1.55. Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to the glass thickness t is 1.3 (Ex. 9, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 0.53 to 1.55.
Claim 17: Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is 4.1 (Ex. 4, Table 3) which within the claimed range of 2.5 to 5.2. Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is 4.1 (Ex. 9, Table 3) which within the claimed range of 2.5 to 5.2.
Claim 18: Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is 4.1 (Ex. 4, Table 3) which within the claimed range of 2.58 to 5.18. Da teaches a ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is 4.1 (Ex. 9, Table 3) which within the claimed range of 2.58 to 5.18.
Claim 19: Da teaches the glass thickness t is 50 µm, chamber height B is 12 µm, and from these values a ratio of the chamfer height B to the glass thickness t is calculated to be 0.24 (Ex. 4, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 0.18 to 0.34. Da teaches the glass thickness t is 40 µm, chamber height B is 13 µm, and from these values a ratio of the chamfer height B to the glass thickness t is calculated to be 0.32 (Ex. 9, Table 3) which is within the claimed range of 0.18 to 0.34.
Claim 20: Da does not teach the size of the chamfer height B ranges from about 4 µm to 9 µm. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the size of the chamfer height B, and the motivation would be to control the strength and toughness of the glass around the edge area. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Response to Arguments
The claimed ratio of first width/chamfer width A to substrate thickness/substrate thickness t is taught in the examples of Da (see at least examples 4 and 9). The claimed ratio of first width/chamfer width A to first depth/chamfer height B is taught in the examples of Da (see at least examples 4 and 9). The size of the first depth/chamfer height B is taught in the examples of Da (see at least examples 4 and 9). The thickness of the substrate thickness/substrate thickness t is taught in the examples of Da (see at least examples 4 and 9). From the chamfer height B and the substrate thickness t, the claimed ratio of first depth/chamfer height B to substrate thickness/substrate thickness t is calculated to be 0.24 and 0.32 (see at least examples 4 and 9 of Da).
With respect to the claimed median edge strength, since the material of the substrate of Da is glass [0045] which is similar to the claimed substrate; and the dimensions of the first depth/chamfer height B, first width/chamfer width A, substrate thickness/substrate thickness t, ratio of first depth/chamfer height B, ratio of first width/chamfer width A and ratio of first width/chamfer width A to first depth/chamfer height B are substantially identical to the dimensions of Da (see at least examples 4 and 9) the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the median edge strength would implicitly be achieved by a composite with all the claimed components physical dimensions.
With respect to claim 3, the claimed substrate thickness is taught in [0026] of Da. The invention of the Da is not limited to the examples.
With respect to claim 9, the claimed ratio of the chamfer width A to chamfer height B is taught in [0058] of Da. The invention of the Da is not limited to the examples.
With respect to claim 20, the claimed first depth/chamfer height B size ranging from about 4 µm to 9 µm is not expressly taught in Da. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the size of the first depth/chamfer height B, and the motivation would be to control the strength and toughness of the glass around the edge area.
For the above reasons claims 1-13 stand rejected and claims 15-20 are included in the prior art rejection above.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
February 19, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights