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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08-17-2026 has been entered.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toussaint ‘472 (US 3,843,472) in view of Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1) and Liu ‘221 (CN 110204221 A - English language translation provided previously and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 8, Toussaint ‘472 teaches:
forming a sheet of glass which comprises a first surface, a second surface opposite the first surface, and a first side surface between the first surface and the second surface (“piece of sheet glass”, column 9, line 33; “a smooth flat edge face normal to the main faces of the sheet”, column 9, lines 59-61)
chamfering the sheet of glass to have a first chamfer surface between the first side surface and the first surface, and a second chamfer surface between the first side surface and the second surface (column 9, lines 59-73; Fig. 2)
heating the sheet of glass using a healing solution containing fluorine ions (column 5, lines 37-42)
performing an electric field applying operation prior to immersing the sheet of glass in a molten salt tempering bath, thereby forming an ion excess region at the first surface, and chemically tempering the sheet of glass (column 6, lines 47-48; column 6, line 58-column 7, line 16 - wherein the “two stages” of tempering, which Toussaint ‘472 states can include application of electric field, correspond to the claimed electric field applying operation step and the chemically tempering step).
Toussaint ‘472 does not explicitly describe that the electric field applying operation is carried out by applying a negative voltage to the first surface and a positive voltage to the second surface. However, Toussaint ‘472 does make clear that the purpose of applying an electric field is to promote ion diffusion (column 7, lines 8-10). Toussaint ‘472 is silent regarding forming specifically a sodium ion excess region at the first surface. However, Toussaint ‘427 states that the any kind of glass can be used in the disclosed method (column 6, lines 53-57), and that the ions exchanged are preferably alkali metal ions (column 7, lines 14-15), wherein sodium is an alkali ion. In analogous art of chemical tempering of glass sheets, Luzzato ‘611 suggests performing an electric field applying operation in which a negative voltage is applied to a first surface of a sheet of glass and a positive voltage is applied to a second surface for the benefit of performing preferential ion diffusion of one of the surfaces relative to the other, such that an ion excess region is formed at the first surface (¶ [0148]-[0152]; Fig. 13), in order to make design the glass to be more reliable, damage resistant, and safer (¶ [0122], [0126]). Luzzato ‘611 also suggests utilizing alumina silicate glass or soda lime glass, and diffusing sodium ions such that a sodium ion excess region is formed in the glass for glass strengthening (¶ [0080]-[0083]). Toussaint ‘427 also suggests soda lime glass, as well as borosilicate and alumina-rich glass (column 6, lines 53-57). Thus 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 Toussaint ‘472 by carrying out the electric field applying operation by applying a negative voltage to the first surface and a positive voltage to the second surface, as suggested by Luzzato ‘611, as a known manner of applying an electric field to a glass sheet and for the benefit of performing preferential ion diffusion of one of the surfaces relative to the other, such that an ion excess region is formed at the first surface, in order to make design the glass to be more reliable, damage resistant, and safer. Further, 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 forming a sodium ion excess region at the first surface, as suggested by Luzzato ‘611, as a known alkali metal ion for diffusing into common sheet glass compositions for glass strengthening.
Toussaint ‘472 is silent regarding 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), which is considered to be a silicone oil bath. Toussaint ‘472 also describes using a molten salt bath (column 6, lines 58-61). 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 Toussaint ‘472 by substituting the plain molten salt bath of Toussaint ‘472 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 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toussaint ‘472 (US 3,843,472), Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1), and Liu ‘221 (CN 110204221 A - English language translation provided previously and referenced herein) in view of Spatscheck ‘317 (DE 3702317 A1 - English language translation provided previously and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 9, Toussaint ‘472 and Luzzato ‘611 suggest the electric field applying operation as described above. 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 Toussaint ‘472 and 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, Toussaint ‘472 and Luzzato ‘611 suggest the electric field applying operation as described above. 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 teachings of Toussaint ‘472 and 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 Toussaint ‘472 and 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).
Regarding claim 16, Toussaint ‘472 further teaches the voltages comprise direct current or alternating current (column 7, lines 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention this teaching to each of the negative voltage and the positive voltage in the combination of teachings of Toussaint ‘472 and Luzzato ‘611 as known waveforms for applying voltages in the ion strengthening of glass sheets.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toussaint ‘472 (US 3,843,472), Luzzato ‘611 (US 2019/0023611 A1), Liu ‘221 (CN 110204221 A - English language translation provided previously and referenced herein), and Spatscheck ‘317 (DE 3702317 A1 - English language translation provided previously and referenced herein) in view of Varshneya ‘407 (US 2015/0166407 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Toussaint ‘472 is silent regarding applying an electric field to the sheet of glass within a temperature controllable chamber in the electric field applying operation, and regarding the specific temperature and electric field. 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]). 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 Toussaint ‘472 and 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are 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 with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Toussaint ‘472 is now provided as a primary reference.
Conclusion
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