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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al. (US20190161387, hereinafter referred to as Nomura).
Regarding claim 1, Nomura discloses a glass sheet, comprising as a glass composition, in terms of mol%, 60% to 75% of SiO2 (see Nomura at [0045], disclosing SiO2: 50%-75%, which overlaps with the claimed range), In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Nomura further discloses 12.1% to 16% of Al2O3 (see Nomura [0046], disclosing Al2O3: 6%-16%, which overlaps with the claimed range), 1% to 7% BaO (see Nomura at [0051], disclosing BaO: 0%-9.5% which overlaps with the claimed range), 0.01% to less than 1.0% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O (see Nomura at [0043], disclosing the content of alkali metal oxides is preferably 0%-0.1%. Here, the alkali metal oxides include Li2O, Na2O, and K2O. Examiner notes this range overlaps with the claimed range), 0% to 5% of ZnO (see Nomura at [0068], disclosing the glass substrate preferably contains substantially no ZnO, which is within the claimed range), 0.01% to less than 0.06% of Na2O (see Nomura at [0043], disclosing the content of alkali metal oxides is preferably 0%-0.1%. Here, the alkali metal oxides include Li2O, Na2O, and K2O. Examiner notes this range overlaps with the claimed range), 0.001% to 0.015% of Fe2O3 (see Nomura at [0062], disclosing Fe2O3 is even more preferably 0.004 mol% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range), 0% P2O5 (see Nomura at [0066], disclosing the glass substrate according to one embodiment of the invention may contain … P2O5. Examiner notes the phrase “may contain” qualifies P2O5 as an optional component, and an optional component would be similarly obvious to exclude, which is within the claimed range) and 0.1% to less than 1.0% of B2O3 (see Nomura at [0054], disclosing B2O3 is … preferably 6% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range).
While Nomura teaches melting conditions including β-OH … can be suitably regulated (see Nomura at [0115]), Nomura does not explicitly disclose a β-OH value of less than 0.20/mm. β-OH is a function of the composition of the glass as evidenced by the instant specification at [0030] disclosing a relationship between the content of B2O3 and a β-OH value, at [0060] disclosing SO3 is a component which reduces the β-OH value, and at [0061] disclosing Cl is a component which reduces the β-OH value. Nomura discloses a B2O3 content substantially identical to the instantly claimed B2O3 content as detailed in the rejection above. Nomura further discloses SO3 or SnO2 can be used as a refining agent (see Nomura at [0116]). Nomura further discloses a refining agent such as SnO2, SO3, Cl, and F (see Nomura at [0065]). Therefore, it would be obvious to use SO3 and/or Cl as a refining agent for the glass of Nomura. The instant specification further discloses combustion heating with a burner is liable to entail an increase in β-OH value because a large amount of water is mixed in the molten glass. In view of the foregoing, the method of producing a glass sheet of the present invention has a feature of comprising heating the glass batch through application of a current with a heating electrode, to thereby control the β-OH value of the glass sheet to less than 0.20/mm (see the instant specification at [0073]). Nomura discloses raw materials were ... in an electric furnace so as to be melted (see Nomura at [0137]). Therefore, because the B2O3, SO3, and Cl content is obvious in view of Nomura, and because Nomura discloses melting in an electric furnace, the glass of Nomura would inherently possess the claimed β-OH value of less than 0.20/mm. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
While Nomura does not explicitly disclose a liquidus viscosity of 104.8 poise or more because Nomura is silent as to the liquidus viscosity of the glass, Examiner notes the liquidus viscosity of a glass is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as evidenced by the instant specification at [0043] which recites when the content of SiO2 is too large, a viscosity at high temperature increases, again at [0047] which recites MgO is a component which reduces the viscosity at high temperature, additionally at [0048] which recites CaO is a component which reduces the viscosity at high temperature, further at [0049] which recites SrO is a component which increases the devitrification resistance, and is also a component which reduces the viscosity at high temperature, again at [0056] which recites TiO2 is a component which reduces the viscosity at high temperature, and more so at [0062] which recites SnO2 is a component which … reduces the viscosity at high temperature. As such, because the composition of Nomura is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed composition as detailed in the rejections above and below, the glass of Nomura would inherently possess the claimed liquidus viscosity.
While Nomura discloses a low thermal shrinkage property may be applied (see Nomura at [0083]), Nomura does not explicitly disclose a thermal shrinkage ratio of 20 ppm or less when increased in temperature from normal temperature at a rate of 5°C/min, kept at a temperature of 500°C for 1 hour, and decreased in temperature at a rate of 5°C/min. However, the thermal shrinkage is a function of the Li2O+Na2O+K2O, the B2O3 content, and the β-OH value (see the instant specification at [0017]). The Li2O+Na2O+K2O, the B2O3 content, and the β-OH of Nomura is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed Li2O+Na2O+K2O, the B2O3 content, and the β-OH values as detailed by the rejection above. Therefore, the glass of Nomura would inherently possess the claimed thermal shrinkage ratio of 20 ppm or less. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Nomura discloses the glass sheet has a content of B2O3 of from 0.1 mol% to less than 1.0 mol% in the glass composition (see Nomura at [0054], disclosing B2O3 is … preferably 6% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range)
While Nomura teaches melting conditions including β-OH … can be suitably regulated (see Nomura at [0115]), Nomura does not explicitly disclose a β-OH value of less than 0.15/mm. β-OH is a function of the composition of the glass as evidenced by the instant specification at [0030] disclosing a relationship between the content of B2O3 and a β-OH value, at [0060] disclosing SO3 is a component which reduces the β-OH value, and at [0061] disclosing Cl is a component which reduces the β-OH value. Nomura discloses a B2O3 content substantially identical to the instantly claimed B2O3 content as detailed in the rejection above. Nomura further discloses SO3 or SnO2 can be used as a refining agent (see Nomura at [0116]). Nomura further discloses a refining agent such as SnO2, SO3, Cl, and F (see Nomura at [0065]). Therefore, it would be obvious to use SO3 and/or Cl as a refining agent for the glass of Nomura. The instant specification further discloses combustion heating with a burner is liable to entail an increase in β-OH value because a large amount of water is mixed in the molten glass. In view of the foregoing, the method of producing a glass sheet of the present invention has a feature of comprising heating the glass batch through application of a current with a heating electrode, to thereby control the β-OH value of the glass sheet to less than 0.20/mm (see the instant specification at [0073]). Nomura discloses raw materials were ... in an electric furnace so as to be melted (see Nomura at [0137]). Therefore, because the B2O3, SO3, and Cl content is obvious in view of Nomura, and because Nomura discloses melting in an electric furnace, the glass of Nomura would inherently possess the claimed β-OH value of less than 0.15/mm.
Regarding claim 3, Nomura discloses the glass sheet has a thickness of from 0.03 mm to 0.6 mm (see Nomura at [0103], disclosing a thickness of 0.5 mm), and comprises as a glass composition, in terms of mol%, 60% to 75% of SiO2 (see Nomura at [0045], disclosing SiO2: 50%-75%, which overlaps with the claimed range), 12.1% to 16% of Al2O3 (see Nomura [0046], disclosing Al2O3: 6%-16%, which overlaps with the claimed range), 0.1% to less than 1.0% of B2O3 (see Nomura at [0054], disclosing B2O3 is … preferably 6% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range), 0.01% to less than 1.0% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O (see Nomura at [0043], disclosing the content of alkali metal oxides is preferably 0%-0.1%. Here, the alkali metal oxides include Li2O, Na2O, and K2O. Examiner notes this range overlaps with the claimed range), 1% to 7% of MgO (see Nomura at [0055] disclosing MgO is preferably 9% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.), 2% to 7% of CaO (see Nomura at [0056], disclosing CaO is preferably 7% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range), 0% to 5% of SrO (see Nomura at [0057], disclosing SrO is preferably 6% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range), 0% to 7% of BaO (see Nomura at [0058], disclosing BaO is preferably 3% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range), 0% to 5% of ZnO (see Nomura at [0068], disclosing the glass substrate preferably contains substantially no ZnO, which is within the claimed range), 0% to less than 0.050% of As2O3 (see Nomura at [0068], disclosing the glass substrate … contains substantially neither As2O3 nor Sb2O3, which is within the claimed range), 0% to less than 0.050% of Sb2O3 (see Nomura at [0068], disclosing the glass substrate … contains substantially neither As2O3 nor Sb2O3, which is within the claimed range), 0.01% to less than 0.06% of Na2O (see Nomura at [0043], disclosing the content of alkali metal oxides is preferably 0%-0.1%. Here, the alkali metal oxides include Li2O, Na2O, and K2O. Examiner notes this range overlaps with the claimed range), 0% P2O5 (see Nomura at [0066], disclosing the glass substrate according to one embodiment of the invention may contain … P2O5. Examiner notes the phrase “may contain” qualifies P2O5 as an optional component, and an optional component would be similarly obvious to exclude, which is within the claimed range),
and 0.001% to 0.015% of Fe2O3 (see Nomura at [0062], disclosing Fe2O3 is even more preferably 0.004 mol% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Nomura discloses the glass sheet has a content of Fe2O3 of 10 ppm or more and less than 100 ppm on a molar basis in the glass composition (see Nomura at [0062], disclosing Fe2O3 is even more preferably 0.004 mol% or less, which corresponds to 40 molppm Fe2O3 or less which overlaps with the claimed range,).
Regarding claim 6, Nomura discloses the glass sheet has a strain point of 710°C or more (see Nomura at [0082], disclosing the strain temperature is … more preferably 720°C or more).
Regarding claim 7, while Nomura does not disclose the liquidus temperature of 1,300°C or less, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as evidenced by the instant specification at [0044] which recites when the content of Al2O3 is too large, the devitrified crystal, such as mullite or anorthite, precipitates, and the liquidus temperature is liable to be increased, at [0048] which recites when the content of CaO is too large, a thermal expansion coefficient is increased, and the liquidus temperature of an anorthite crystal is liable to be increased, and at [0050] which recites when the content of BaO is too small, the liquidus temperature is increased. The composition of the glass of Nomura is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed composition as detailed by the rejections above and below. Therefore, the glass of Nomura would inherently possess the claimed liquidus temperature of 1,300°C or less.
Regarding claim 8, while Nomura discloses the viscosity of the glass substrate reaches 102 dPa·s (also referred to as T2) is preferably 1,800° C. or less (see Nomura at [0089]) and the viscosity of the glass substrate reaches 104 dPa·s (also referred to as T4) is preferably 1,350° C. or less (see Nomura at [0090]), Nomura does not explicitly disclose the glass sheet has a temperature at a viscosity of 102.5 dPa-s of 1,680°C or less. However, this property is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and the composition of the glass of Nomura is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed composition as detailed by the rejections above and below. Therefore, the glass of Nomura would inherently possess the claimed temperature at a viscosity of 102.5 dPa-s of 1,680°C or less.
Regarding claim 10, Nomura discloses the glass sheet is used as a substrate of an OLED device (see Nomura at [0080], disclosing a bottom-emission OLED display device).
Regarding claim 14, Nomura discloses the glass sheet has a thickness of from 0.03 mm to 0.6 mm (see Nomura at [0103], disclosing the glass substrate has a thickness of 0.5 mm), and comprises as a glass composition, in terms of mol%, 60% to 75% of SiO2 (see Nomura at [0045], disclosing SiO2: 50%-75%, which overlaps with the claimed range), 12.1% to 16% of Al2O3 (see Nomura [0046], disclosing Al2O3: 6%-16%, which overlaps with the claimed range),
0.1% to less than 1.0% of B2O3 (see Nomura at [0054], disclosing B2O3 is … preferably 6% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range).
0.01% to less than 1.0% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O (see Nomura at [0043], disclosing the content of alkali metal oxides is preferably 0%-0.1%. Here, the alkali metal oxides include Li2O, Na2O, and K2O. Examiner notes this range overlaps with the claimed range), 1% to 7% of MgO (see Nomura at [0048] disclosing MgO 0%-15%, which overlaps with the claimed range, 2% to 7% of CaO (see Nomura at [0056], disclosing CaO is … especially preferably 7% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range), 0% to 5% of SrO (see Nomura at [0057], disclosing SrO is … even more preferably 3% or less, which is within the claimed range), 1% to 7% of BaO (see Nomura at [0051], disclosing BaO: 0%-9.5% which overlaps with the claimed range), 0% to 5% of ZnO (see Nomura at [0068], disclosing the glass substrate preferably contains substantially no ZnO, which is within the claimed range), 0% to less than 0.050% of As2O3 (see Nomura at [0068], disclosing the glass substrate ... preferably contains substantially neither As2O3 nor Sb2O3), 0% to less than 0.050% of Sb2O3 (see Nomura at [0068], disclosing the glass substrate ... preferably contains substantially neither As2O3 nor Sb2O3),
0.01% to less than 0.06% of Na2O (see Nomura at [0043], disclosing the content of alkali metal oxides is preferably 0%-0.1%. Here, the alkali metal oxides include Li2O, Na2O, and K2O. Examiner notes this range overlaps with the claimed range), 0% P2O5 (see Nomura at [0066], disclosing the glass substrate according to one embodiment of the invention may contain … P2O5. Examiner notes the phrase “may contain” qualifies P2O5 as an optional component, and an optional component would be similarly obvious to exclude, which is within the claimed range) and 0.001% to 0.015% of Fe2O3 (see Nomura at [0062], disclosing Fe2O3 is even more preferably 0.004 mol% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walther et al. (US20170183255, hereinafter referred to as Walther).
Regarding claim 9, while Nomura is directed towards laminating a glass substrate and a silicon wafer on each other (see Nomura at [0005], Nomura does not disclose the method for forming the glass substrate. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date would naturally look to the prior art to determine an appropriate method to form the glass substrate.
Walther is directed towards coated chemically strengthened flexible thin glass (See Walther at the Title). Walther discloses the glass can be used for displays (see Walther at [0003]), which is similar to Nomura at [0006] disclosing a glass substrate suitable for a display device. Walther discloses the glass can be produced by a downdraw method (see Walther at [0007]). Examiner notes a downdraw production method corresponds to a glass sheet with a formed joined surface on a center portion in a thickness direction per [0019] of the instant specification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Nomura to produce the glass with a downdraw method as disclosed by Walther with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing the glass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At the fourth to last paragraph of page 4 from the Remarks, Applicant argues that Nomura discloses a glass substrate preferably has its BaO content at 0.5 mol% or less, which is outside of the claimed range of 1-7 mol% BaO, and thus claim 1 avoids Nomura as prior art. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes the “preferably 0.5% or less” quotation of Nomura comes from [0058] of Nomura, which also recites “When the content of BaO is 9.5% or less, the glass is hardly devitrified. The content of BaO is preferably 3% or less, more preferably 2% or less, and especially preferably 0.5% or less”. Examiner notes these additional ranges overlap with the claimed range as noted in the rejections above, and thus form the basis of a prima facie obviousness rejection. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123(II)).
At the third to last paragraph of page 4 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Nomura fails to discuss the liquidus viscosity of the examples of its glass substrates, and therefore, Nomura necessarily fails to disclose or suggest a glass having a liquidus viscosity of 104.8 poise or more. While Examiner agrees that Nomura does not explicitly disclose the claimed liquidus viscosity because Nomura is silent as to liquidus viscosity, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above conclusion because liquidus viscosity is a function of the composition of the glass as evidenced above. Because the composition of Nomura is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed glass, the glass of Nomura would inherently possess the claimed liquidus viscosity as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
At the last paragraph of page 4, Applicant argues that the examples of the glass substrate of Nomura are indirectly heated in an electric furnace, and not heated by passing electric current directly through molten glass. Examiner notes this is not relevant to the instant question of patentability as, even if taken as correct, the glass of Nomura would still possess the claimed β-OH values because the glass is not heated in a combustion furnace per [0073] of the instant specification.
As such, the arguments presented are not found persuasive and all claims stand rejected over Nomura or Nomura in view of Walther as detailed 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (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 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731