RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Amendments to the claims, filed on October 13, 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record in the office action mailed July 11, 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in filed October 13, 2025.
REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gu et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0349241).
Regarding Applicant’s claims 1, 10 and 16, Gu discloses an electronic device that comprises a housing, a display positioned within the housing and a cover glass disposed over the display and attached to the housing (para. [0085] and figure 24).
Gu further discloses the method of forming the cover glass (figure 22) comprising (1) providing a glass sheet (ref. #60, para. [0063]), (2) depositing a first hard coat layer on the glass sheet (ref. #20’), (3) depositing a first gradient layer (ref. #30’) on the first hard coat layer, (4) depositing a second hard coat layer (ref. #20) on the first gradient layer and (5) depositing a second gradient layer (ref. #10) disposed on the second hard coat layer.
The first hard coat layer (silicon nitride, para. [0049]) has a hardness greater than a hardness of the glass sheet, since silicon nitride has a greater hardness than glass.
The first gradient has a composition that transitions from a first composition at the first hard coat layer to a second composition at a top surface of the first gradient layer (para. [0049] and figure 3). The first composition (SiO0.2N0.8, para. [0049]) is predominantly a composition of the first hard coat layer (SiO0Nx, para. [0049]) and the second composition (SiO0.7N0.3, para. [0049]) is different than the first composition. The second gradient layer disposed on the second hard coat layer and having a composition that transitions from a third composition at the second hard coat layer to a fourth composition at a top surface of the first gradient layer (para. [0049] and figure 3). The third composition (SiO0.2N0.8, para. [0049]) is predominantly a composition of the second hard coat layer (SiO0Nx, para. [0049]) and the fourth composition (SiO0.7N0.3, para. [0049]) is different than the third composition.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 2, 11 and 17, Gu discloses the second composition is predominantly SiO2 (SiO0.7N0.3, para. [0049]).
Regarding Applicant’s claims 5, 6, 14, 15 and 20, Gu discloses the method of forming the cover glass (figure 22) comprises depositing a third gradient layer between the glass sheet and the first hard coat layer (ref. #10’). The third gradient layer transitions from a composition that is predominantly SiO2 (SiO0.7N0.3, para. [0049]) at the glass sheet to a composition that is predominantly SiON (SiO0.2N0.8, para. [0049]) at the first hard coat layer.
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 3, 4, 7, 8 12, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0349241) in view of Bellman et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0011225).
Gu is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Applicant’s claims 3, 4, 12, 14, 18 and 19, Gu further discloses the first gradient layer transitions from the first composition that is predominantly SiON (SiO0.2N0.8, para. [0049]) at the first hard coat layer to the second composition that is predominantly SiO2 (SiO0.7N0.3, para. [0049]) at the top surface.
Gu fails to disclose the first hard coat layer comprises SiON.
Bellman teaches an electronic device (4100) that comprises a housing (4102), a display (4110) positioned within the housing, and a cover glass (4112) disposed over the display and attached to the housing (para. [0142] and figures 43A and 43B).
Bellman further discloses the method of forming the cover glass (figure 25) comprising (1) providing a glass sheet (substrate, para. [0061], [0090], [0123] and [0125]), (2) depositing a first gradient layer (lower gradient layer, ref. # 170, para. [0090]), (3) depositing a hard coat layer (scratch-resistant layer, ref. #150, para. [0090]) and (4) depositing a second gradient layer (upper gradient layer, ref. #160, para. [0090]).
Bellman discloses that the hard coat layer can be dielectric materials, such as SiNx or SiON (para. [0090]).
Therefore, since Bellman discloses silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride were art-recognized equivalents for dielectric layers at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the silicon oxynitride for the silicon nitride of the hard layer. MPEP 2144.06 II
Regarding Applicant’s claims 7 and 8, Gu also fails to disclose an exterior layer of SiN.
Bellman further discloses the cover glass further comprises an exterior layer disposed on the top surface of the gradient layer, since Bellman an optional top most air-side layer of an additional coating (ref. #140, figure 6, para. [0079]). The additional coating is Si3N4 and easy to clean (para. [0079] and [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add an exterior layer of Si3N4 as taught by Bellman to Gu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as an exterior layer of Si3N4 in order to improve the easy of cleaning the cover glass.
The exterior layer is deemed to have a hardness that is greater than the gradient layer, because Si3N4 exhibits high hardness values than SiON.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0349241) in view of Koch, III et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2014/0377522).
Gu is relied upon as described above.
Gu fails to disclose the glass sheet comprises SiO2.
Koch teaches a scratch-resistant article/cover article used to protect critical devices within electronic products, to provide a user interface for input and/or display, and/or many other functions. Such products include mobile devices, such as smart phones, mp 3 players and computer tablets. Cover articles also include architectural articles, transportation articles (e.g., articles used in automotive applications, trains, aircraft, sea craft, etc.), appliance articles, or any article that requires some transparency, scratch-resistance, abrasion resistance or a combination thereof (para [0003]).
The article comprises at least a substrate and a gradient layer (figure 4 and 4a). The substrate comprises a glass composition that comprises SiO2, such glass compositions may be characterized as ion exchangeable (para. [0017]). This allows that glass substrate to be strengthened to form a strengthened glass substrate (para. [0011]-[0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the glass composition of Koch as the glass substrate in Gu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the strengthened glass substrate of Koch to improve the strength of the cover glass of Gu.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed October 13, 2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record in the office action mailed July 11, 2025 have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
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 Alicia Chevalier whose telephone number is (571)272-1490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 - 5:00.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788 01/09/2026