DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 04-06-2026.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 2, the term “high-temperature/high-humidity treatment” is understood to mean the temperature and humidity conditions subsequently recited in the claim: “a temperature condition of about 80 to about 90 degrees Celsius” and “a humidity condition of about 80 to about 90 percentages (%)”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1) in view of Xiao ‘827 (US 2021/0107827 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luzzato ‘611 teaches:
forming a sheet of glass (glass article 302)
concentrating sodium ions on surfaces of the sheet of glass by performing a pre-conditioning operation that forms sodium ion excess regions at the surfaces prior to chemical tempering (enhancing the glass, step 204, Fig. 2; immersing in first bath 304, Fig. 3; ¶ [0081]-[0083], [0085])
chemically tempering the sheet of glass after the sodium ion excess regions are formed at the surfaces (chemical strengthening, step 206, Fig. 2; immersing in second bath 308, Fig. 3; ¶ [0081]-[0082], [0084]-[0085]).
Regarding thickness of the sheet of glass, Luzzato '611 describes thicknesses "less than 5 mm" and as low as 0.3 mm (¶ [0074]), but does not clearly envision the scale of thicknesses as claimed. In analogous art of glass strengthening, Xiao '827 suggests chemically tempering a sheet of glass having a thickness of less than 0.05 mm (¶ [0017]), which encompasses the claimed range, as well as examples with thicknesses falling in the claimed range (¶ [0145]), and which are useful for applications including flexible and foldable glasses and cover glasses for electronics (¶ [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Luzzato '611 by utilizing a sheet of glass having a thickness of about 0.01 to about 0.05 mm for the benefit of preparing glass for applications such as flexible and foldable glasses and cover glasses for electronics, as suggested by Xiao '827.
Regarding claim 4, Luzzato ‘611 suggests an additional embodiment in which surfaces of a glass sheet comprise a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and concentrating of ions on the surfaces of the sheet of glass comprises an electric field applying operation in which a negative voltage is applied to the first surface and a positive voltage is applied to the second surface for the benefit of performing preferential ion diffusion of one of the surfaces relative to the other (¶ [0148]-[0152]; Fig. 13) in order to make design the glass to be more reliable, damage resistant, and safer (¶ [0122], [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Luzzato ‘611 by making the concentrating of the sodium ions on the surfaces of the sheet of glass comprise an electric field applying operation in which a negative voltage is applied to a first surface and a positive voltage is applied to a second opposing surface for the benefit of performing preferential ion diffusion of one of the surfaces relative to the other in order to make design the glass to be more reliable, damage resistant, and safer, as suggested by Luzzato ‘611.
Regarding claim 5, Luzzato ‘611 teaches that the concentrating of the sodium ions is performed in a chamber (first bath 304, Fig. 3), and that the concentrating in the first bath is performed at a specific desired temperature range (¶ [0083], [0087]). It is considered that this constitutes a temperature controllable chamber. Luzzato ‘611 also illustrates a similar chamber for the electric field applying operation (bath 1300, Fig. 13), and that an electric field is applied to the sheet of glass within chamber (¶ [0151]). Additionally, Luzzato ‘611 suggests heating in combination with the application of electric field (¶ [0152], heating arrows 1316, Fig. 13). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the combination of the embodiments of Figs. 3 and 13 of Luzzato ‘611 as described above to perform the electric applying operation by applying an electric field to the sheet of glass within a temperature controllable chamber in order to perform the concentrating of the sodium ions in a desired temperature range, as suggested by Luzzato ‘611.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1) and Xiao ‘827 (US 2021/0107827 A1) in view of Aratani ‘814 (US 4,671,814).
Regarding claim 3, Luzzato ‘611 is silent regarding the concentrating of the sodium ions of the surfaces of the sheet of glass comprising heat treatment performed under a temperature condition of about 600 to about 700 degrees Celsius and a time condition of about 4 hours or less. Luzzato ‘611 suggests typical conditions for heat treatment of 350-450°C for 4-8 hours, and notes that the time and temperature affect the level of enhancement (¶ [0083]). In analogous art of glass strengthening, Aratani ‘814 suggests a heat treatment including treating a sheet of glass in a bath of molten sodium salt with temperatures from 350-650°C (which overlaps the claimed range) and times of 0.01-100 hr (which overlaps the claimed range) (column 6, lines 37-68), before a subsequent ion exchange (column 7, lines 12-14). Aratani ‘814 describes that there is an inverse relationship between temperature and time of such treatment, wherein higher temperatures can reduce required treatment times to achieve effective diffusion (column 6, lines 42-68), thus suggesting that both time and temperature are result-effective variables. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Luzzato ‘611 and Xiao ‘827 by optimizing the heat treatment temperature and time, including values in the claimed ranges, for the benefit of optimizing enhancement of the sheet of glass through ion diffusion, as suggested by Aratani ‘814.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1) and Xiao ‘827 (US 2021/0107827 A1) in view of Varshneya ‘407 (US 2015/0166407 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Luzzato ‘611 further suggests a temperature inside the chamber ranges from 350-450°C (¶ [0083]), which overlaps the claimed range, but is silent regarding a magnitude of the applied electric field in the electric field applying operation. In analogous art of glass strengthening, Varshenya ‘407 suggests an electric field applying operation in a molten salt bath with temperatures in the range of 0 to 400 degrees Celsius (¶ [0060]), and a magnitude of the applied electric field ranging from about 100 V/cm to about 2000 V/cm (¶ [0057]) as effective parameters to achieve ion motion and exchange (¶ [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Luzzato ‘611 and Xiao ‘827 by making a temperature inside the chamber in the electric field applying operation range from about 0 to about 400 degrees Celsius and a magnitude of the applied electric field in the electric field applying operation range from about 100 V/cm to about 2000 V/cm as effective parameters to achieve ion motion and exchange, as suggested by Varshneya ‘407.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1) and Xiao ‘827 (US 2021/0107827 A1) in view of Liu ‘221 (CN 110204221 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 7, Luzzato ‘611 is silent regarding in the electric field applying operation, the electric field is applied to the sheet of glass in a silicone oil bath. In analogous art of glass strengthening, Liu ‘221 suggests utilizing a molten salt bath which includes silicone oil (p. 1, lines 45-46; p. 2, lines 24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Luzzato ‘611 by substituting the plain molten salt bath of Luzzato ‘611 used in the electric field applying operation for a silicone oil bath, including molten salt and silicone oil, as suggested by Liu ‘221, as a substitution of molten salt bath compositions used in strengthening glass.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Luzzato ‘611 teaches:
forming a sheet of glass which comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (glass article 302)
performing an operation in a temperature controllable chamber (enhancing the glass, step 204, Fig. 2; immersing in first bath 304, Fig. 3; ¶ [0081]-[0083], [0085] - wherein Luzzato ‘611 teaches that the concentrating in the first bath is performed at a specific desired temperature range, ¶ [0083], [0087], which is considered to constitute a temperature controllable chamber) prior to immersing the sheet of glass in a molten salt tempering bath (chemical strengthening, step 206, Fig. 2; immersing in second bath 308, Fig. 3; ¶ [0081]-[0082], [0084]-[0085]), thereby forming a sodium ion excess region at the first surface (¶ [0081]-[0083], [0085])
chemically tempering the sheet of glass after the sodium ion excess regions are formed at the surfaces (chemical strengthening, step 206, Fig. 2; immersing in second bath 308, Fig. 3; ¶ [0081]-[0082], [0084]-[0085]).
Luzzato ‘611 suggests an additional embodiment in which surfaces of a glass sheet comprise a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and forming an ion excess region on a surface of the sheet of glass comprises an electric field applying operation in which a negative voltage is applied to the first surface and a positive voltage is applied to the second surface for the benefit of performing preferential ion diffusion of one of the surfaces relative to the other (¶ [0148]-[0152]; Fig. 13) in order to make design the glass to be more reliable, damage resistant, and safer (¶ [0122], [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Luzzato ‘611 by performing an electric field applying operation in which a negative voltage is applied to a first surface and a positive voltage is applied to the second surface for the benefit of performing preferential ion diffusion of one of the surfaces relative to the other in order to make design the glass to be more reliable, damage resistant, and safer, as suggested by Luzzato ‘611.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1) in view of Spatscheck ‘317 (DE 3702317 A1 - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 9, Luzzato ‘611 further suggests the electric field applying operation is performed using an electric field applying device, and the electric field applying devices comprises a negative electrode which applies the negative voltage to the first surface (negative electrode 1308, Fig. 13) and a positive electrode which applies the positive voltage to the second surface (positive electrode 1306, Fig. 13). Luzzato ‘611 does not specify the electrodes being plate electrodes. In analogous art of glass ion diffusion, Spatscheck ‘317 suggests applying a negative voltage to a first surface of a sheet of glass with a negative plate electrode and a positive voltage to a second surface of the sheet of glass with a positive plate electrode as an electric field applying device which causes ion diffusion across surfaces of the sheet of glass (electrodes 2-3/12-18, with waveguide substrate 1/6-11 and molten salt 4, Figs. 1-3; ¶ [0001], [0010], [0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Luzzato ‘611 by making the electrodes to be plate electrodes for the benefit of causing ion diffusion across surfaces of the sheet of glass, as suggested by Spatscheck ‘317.
Regarding claim 11, Luzzato ‘611 further suggests supply lines respectively connected to the negative plate electrode and the positive plate electrode (circuit 1310, Fig. 13). Spatscheck ‘317 also suggests supply lines respectively connected to the negative plate electrode and the positive plate electrode (+ and - lines running to electrodes 2-3/12-18, Figs. 1-3). Applicant’s specification suggests that such electric field supply lines also serve as heat supply lines (p. 41 of specification). Additionally, Luzzato ‘611 suggests heating in combination with the application of electric field (¶ [0152], heating arrows 1316, Fig. 13), wherein the mechanism of such heating is interpreted as heat supply lines to supply heat, and which are respectively connected to the negative plate electrode and the positive plate electrode as broadly interpreted.
Regarding claim 12, Spatscheck ‘317 further suggests placing the sheet of glass between the negative plate electrode and the positive plate electrode, wherein each of the negative plate electrode, the positive plate electrode, and the sheet of glass is provided in plural (electrodes 12-18 and waveguide substrates 6-11, Fig. 3), the negative plate electrodes and the positive plate electrodes are arranged alternately, and in the placing of the sheet of glass, the sheets of glass are respective placed between the negative plate electrodes and the positive plate electrodes arranged alternately (Fig. 3) for the benefit of treating multiple sheets of glass simultaneously (¶ [0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Luzzato ‘611 by providing in plural the negative plate electrode, the positive plate electrode, and the sheet of glass, the negative plate electrodes and the positive plate electrodes are arranged alternately, and in the placing of the sheet of glass, the sheets of glass are respective placed between the negative plate electrodes and the positive plate electrodes arranged alternately for the benefit of treating multiple sheets of glass simultaneously, as suggested by Spatscheck ‘317.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Spatscheck ‘317 illustrates that the negative plate electrodes and the positive plate electrodes can be rotated and have dimensions which extend along a horizontal direction during the placing of the glass sheets and along a vertical direction when the electric field is applied after the placing of the glass sheets (Figs. 1-3). Spatscheck ‘317 describes that each of the negative plate electrodes and the positive plate electrodes is capable of movement, e.g., into and out of the crucible 5 (¶ [0010], [0014]; Figs. 1-3), and appear to be movable along horizontal or vertical directions (Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the teachings of Luzzato ‘611 by rotating the negative plate electrodes and positive plate electrodes and making them capable of moving along a horizontal or vertical direction for the benefit of arranging the glass sheets and electrodes for ion diffusion, as suggested by Spatscheck ‘317.
Regarding claim 15, Luzzato ‘611 further suggests the electric field applying operation further comprises placing the sheet of glass between the negative plate electrode and the positive electrode plate, wherein each of the negative plate electrode and the positive plate electrode is provided in singular (¶ [0151]) and the sheet of glass is provided in plural (¶ [0159]- [0162]), and the sheets of glass are arranged parallel to each other (Fig. 15) between the negative plate electrode and the positive plate electrode in the placing of the sheet of glass (sheets 1502 applied to the configuration article 1304 in Fig. 13).
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1) in view of Spatscheck ‘317 (DE 3702317 A1 - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Varshneya ‘407 (US 2015/0166407 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Luzzato ‘611 further suggests an electric field is applied to the sheet of glass within a temperature controllable chamber in the electric field applying operation (first bath 304, Fig. 3/bath 1300 Fig. 13; ¶ [0081]-[0083], [0085], [0148]-[0152]). Luzzato ‘611 is silent regarding a temperature inside the chamber ranging from about 600 to about 700 degrees Celsius, and a magnitude of the applied electric field in the electric field applying operation. In analogous art of glass strengthening, Varshneya ‘407 suggests an electric field applying operation in a molten salt bath with temperatures in the range of 600 to 700 degrees Celsius (¶ [0060]), and a magnitude of the applied electric field ranging from about 100 V/cm to about 2000 V/cm (¶ [0057]) as effective parameters to achieve ion motion and exchange (¶ [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Luzzato ‘611 by making a temperature inside the chamber in the electric field applying operation range from about 600 to about 700 degrees Celsius and a magnitude of the applied electric field in the electric field applying operation range from about 100 V/cm to about 2000 V/cm as effective parameters to achieve ion motion and exchange, as suggested by Varshneya ‘407.
Regarding claim 16, Luzzato ‘611 is silent regarding the waveform of the negative voltage and the positive voltage. In analogous art of glass strengthening, Varshneya ‘407 suggests applying an electric field in a molten salt bath using a DC waveform (¶ [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Luzzato ‘611 by making each of the negative voltage and the positive voltage comprise a DC waveform as a suitable waveform for applying an electric field in a molten salt bath for diffusing ions in a glass sheet, as suggested by Varshneya ‘407.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, the reasons remain the same as stated in the Office action dated 01-07-2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04-06-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized as follows:
Regarding claim 8, Luzzato ‘611 does not teach the claimed steps in Fig. 13.
Response: The rejections still rely on Luzzato ‘611, but the rejection now cites multiple embodiments of Luzzato ‘611 in combination, particularly the multi-step strengthening of Fig. 3 including a sodium ion concentration step followed by a subsequent chemical tempering step, and the electric field applying strengthening of Fig. 13.
Luzzato ‘611 does not teach applying the field in a temperature-controllable chamber or in a silicone oil bath prior to immersion in a molten salt tempering bath.
Response: As described in the rejections above, both the first bath 304 of Fig. 3 and the bath 1300 of Fig. 13 are considered to be temperature-controllable chambers because Luzzato ‘611 discusses controlling the temperature and applying heat for both embodiments. In Fig. 3, the forming of a sodium ion excess region occurs before the glass is immersed in a molten salt tempering bath, second bath 308.
Regarding claim 1, Luzzato ‘611 does not teach a distinct, antecedent pre-conditioning operation that forms sodium ion excess regions at the surfaces prior to chemical tempering.
Response: The rejections now cite a different portion of Luzzato ‘611, specifically the embodiment of Fig. 3, to teach the claimed steps.
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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 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, 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights