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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 11-17-2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11-17-2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification includes references to “silicon oil bath” on pages 5 and 39. Each instance should read --silicone oil bath--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “silicon oil bath” should be --silicone oil bath--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 1304 with surfaces 1302 and 1314, Fig. 13; ¶ [0151])
performing 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 (¶ [0151])
chemically tempering the glass sheet (¶ [0148]-[0151]).
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 and 4-5 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
concentrating sodium ions on surfaces of the sheet of glass
chemically tempering the sheet of glass having the sodium ions concentrated on the surfaces of the sheet of glass.
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 further teaches the surfaces of the sheet of glass comprise a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and the concentrating of the sodium ions on the surfaces of the glass sheet 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 (¶ [0148]-[0151]; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 5, Luzzato ‘611 further teaches in the electric field applying operation, an electric field is applied to the sheet of glass within a temperature controllable chamber (¶ [0148]-[0151]; Fig. 13).
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) 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 teaches 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 method 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 teaches 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 heating 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 teaches 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)
Regarding claim 10, Luzzato ‘611 further teaches an electric field is applied to the sheet of glass within a temperature controllable chamber in the electric field applying operation (¶ [0148]-[0151]; Fig. 13). 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, Varshenya ‘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 and Xiao ‘827 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 method 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 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 does not fairly teach or suggest concentrating of sodium ions under the claimed temperature, humidity, and time conditions. US 2020/0140329 A1 (Suehara), US 2014/0144492 A1 (Sakamoto), US 3,912,481 (Bartholomew), and TW 201736310 A (Fujiwara) suggest treating glass with water vapor/humidity, but the temperatures, times, and humidity are either not sufficiently specified or fall outside of the claimed ranges, and are not specific to concentrating of sodium ions. Sakamoto actually suggests that water vapor contact would lower sodium concentration in surfaces of a sheet of glass (¶ [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3,218,220, US 4,913,717, US 3,632,321 - strengthening glass articles using applied electric field
US 2013/0224492 A1, US 2010/0009154, A1, US 2020/0109079 A1, US 2018/0105471 A1, US 2010/0028607 A1, US 2017/0355640 A1, US 2016/0326050 A1, US 2021/0078899 A1, US 2011/0273383 A1, US 2018/0132371 A1 - equivalents of documents cited on IDS
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