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 .
Priority
Note that Applicant cannot rely upon the filing date of the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome any rejection herein because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because line 13 recites “CaO and SrO are not both 0mol%”. Note that this language insinuates that one of them can be 0mol% as long as both are not 0mol%. However, given that the last two lines of the claim require resulting phases of both Ca5(PO4)3F and Sr5(PO4)3F, CaO and SrO both have to be present for these phases to result and as such, neither can be 0mol%.
The Examiner suggests changing the language to “CaO and SrO are both not 0mol%” or alternatively, “CaO and SrO are both greater than 0mol%”.
Claims 2-3 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1 above.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by Coon (UPub20220402809).
Regarding claim 4: Coon teaches microcrystalline glasses (abstract, Examples) which can have a microcrystalline phase comprising both F-apatite (fluorapatite; Ca5(PO4)3F) and lithium disilicate (Li2Si2O5) (see for instance the crystal phases listed for Examples 23, 25 and 35 in Table 2 as well as note par 0157 and 0183 where Coon discusses including both lithium disilicate as well as apatite and discusses, said apatite can be fluorapatite).
While Coon may not provide an explicit example showing the additional presence of Sr5(PO4)3F as now required by the claim, the following is noted.
Initially, Coon teaches that their glass can comprise the following in mol%,
SiO2
52-70 (abstract, 0006) or even 56-66 or even 56-62 (0134)
Li2O
14-35 (abstract, 0006) or even 20-30 or 23-29 (0136)
CaO
0.1-15 (abstract, 0006) or even 1-10 or 3-8 (0143)
ZrO2
0.5-10 (abstract, 0006)
P2O5
0.5-5 (abstract, 0006), 1-3 or even 1-2.5 (0152)
Al2O3
0-7 (0012), 1-5 or even 1-3 (0154)
Li2O+Na2O+K2O
14-40 (0015) or even 20-30 (0141) or 24-30 (0141)
CaO+SrO+BaO+MgO+ZnO
0.1-15 (0017) and even 1-15 (0149)
F-
0-5 (0020), or even 0.5-3 (0157)
Na2O
0-5 (0021) or even 0-3 (0138)
K2O
0-5 (0021) or even 0-3 (0139)
SrO
0-6 (0022) or even 1-6 or 3-6 (0146)
BaO
0-6 (0022) or even 0-5 or 1-5 (0147)
MgO
0-6 or even 0-4 (0144)
ZnO
0-5 or even 0-3 (0145)
Mn2O3, CuO, FeO is not mentioned
i.e. 0 for each Mn2O3, CuO and FeO
which provides for substantial overlap with the compositions used by Applicants’ (see Applicants’ claims 1-3 and 10-12).
Also note that Applicants disclose that their microcrystallization of the mother glasses is done at a temperature of 400-800oC for 30-600min (0.1-10hr) (specification par 0016, 0058) and the chemically strengthening can be a one step process of using KNO3 at 400-500oC for 4-7hrs (spec par 0066). Similarly, Coon also micro crystallizes their mother glasses at temperatures between 400-800oC for durations falling within that disclosed by Applicants (see Table 2 and also note 0175-078) and teaches that the chemically strengthening of their glasses can be a one step process of using KNO3 at 400-500oC for 2-6hrs (see 0168). Given the similarities between Coon and Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same phases to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 5: The microcrystalline glasses according to Coon have fracture toughness as claimed (see 0025, 0048, 0162 where Coon explicitly states that glasses according to their invention have a toughness as claimed). Additionally, given the similarities between Coon and Applicants as asserted above, one skilled in the art would expect the same properties (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 6: Given the similarities between Coon and Applicants as asserted above, one skilled in the art would expect the same ball drop height to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 7 and 24: The microcrystalline glass can be made to comprise nano microcrystalline particles which can have an average particle size as claimed (see 0184 where they allow for ranges including 50-100nm, etc. as well as note sizes such as 30-50nm discussed in par 0198).
The microcrystalline glass can have the above nano microcrystalline particles occupy greater than 50% of the glass (see 0182, 0184).
Additionally, given the similarities between Coon and Applicants as asserted above, one skilled in the art would expect the same features to result (MPEP 2112).
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) 1-3, 10-12, 14-17, 21-23, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coon (UPub20220402809).
Regarding claims 1-3, 10-12: As discussed above, Coon teaches microcrystalline glasses (abstract, Examples) as well as chemically strengthened glasses obtained by performing microcrystallization and chemical strengthening on mother glass (0168, 0175-0178).
Coon’s mother glass can comprise the following in mol%,
SiO2
52-70 (abstract, 0006) or even 56-66 or even 56-62 (0134)
Li2O
14-35 (abstract, 0006) or even 20-30 or 23-29 (0136)
CaO
0.1-15 (abstract, 0006) or even 1-10 or 3-8 (0143)
ZrO2
0.5-10 (abstract, 0006)
P2O5
0.5-5 (abstract, 0006), 1-3 or even 1-2.5 (0152)
Al2O3
0-7 (0012), 1-5 or even 1-3 (0154)
Li2O+Na2O+K2O
14-40 (0015) or even 20-30 (0141) or 24-30 (0141)
CaO+SrO+BaO+MgO+ZnO
0.1-15 (0017) and even 1-15 (0149)
F-
0-5 (0020), or even 0.5-3 (0157)
Na2O
0-5 (0021) or even 0-3 (0138)
K2O
0-5 (0021) or even 0-3 (0139)
SrO
0-6 (0022) or even 1-6 or 3-6 (0146)
BaO
0-6 (0022) or even 0-5 or 1-5 (0147)
MgO
0-6 or even 0-4 (0144)
ZnO
0-5 or even 0-3 (0145)
Mn2O3, CuO, FeO is not mentioned
i.e. 0 for each Mn2O3, CuO and FeO
which overlap with the compositions recited in claims 1-3 and 10-12 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding the microcrystalline phase limitations in claims 1 and 10, Coon does teach their microcrystalline glass having a microcrystalline phase comprising both F-apatite (fluorapatite; Ca5(PO4)3F) and lithium disilicate (Li2Si2O5) (see for instance the crystal phases listed for Examples 23, 25 and 35 in Table 2 as well as note par 0157 and 0183 where Coon discusses including both lithium disilicate as well as apatite and discusses, said apatite can be fluorapatite) but Coon just does not provide an explicit example showing the additional presence of Sr5(PO4)3F as now required by the claim. However, the following is noted.
Initially, Coon’s above composition overlaps with that of Applicants claims.
Also note that Applicants disclose that their microcrystallization of the mother glasses is done at a temperature of 400-800oC for 30-600min (0.1-10hr) (specification par 0016, 0058) and the chemically strengthening can be a one step process of using KNO3 at 400-500oC for 4-7hrs (spec par 0066). Similarly, Coon also micro crystallizes their mother glasses at temperatures between 400-800oC for durations falling within that disclosed by Applicants (see Table 2 and also note 0175-078) and teaches that the chemically strengthening of their glasses can be a one step process of using KNO3 at 400-500oC for 2-6hrs (see 0168). Given the similarities between Coon and Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same phases to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the transmittance properties recited in claim 1, note for the record that the language of the limitation that the transmittance of the glass is 88% or more “at” a wavelength of 400nm~1000nm only requires the glass to have a transmittance of 88% or more at some wavelength within the recited range; it does not actually require a transmittance of 88% or more over the entirety of the range.
In the instant case, given the similarities between Coon and Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same optical properties to result (MPEP 2112).
Alternatively, it is noted for the record that as mentioned above, Coon does desire for their glasses to be transparent (see title) and Coon does disclose that “transparent” means the glass has a transmittance of ≥85% at 400-800nm (0105) which overlaps that claimed providing for a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14 and 15: Coon’s glass has a surface compressive stress layer (0169) which is an ion exchange layer (see 0167-0169).
Regarding claim 16: As noted above, given the similarities between Coon and Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties to result (MPEP 2112).
Alternatively, it is also noted for the record that Coon does teach that their glasses can be made to have a surface stress in a range overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05) (0171).
Regarding claim 17: Given the similarities between Coon and Applicants discussed above, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same surface stress to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 21-23: Coon does teach that housings of an electronic device, display screens of an electronic device as well as the electronic device itself comprising the housing can comprise their chemically strengthened microcrystalline glass.
Regarding claim 25 and 26: The chemically strengthened microcrystalline glass can be made to comprise nano microcrystalline particles which can have an average particle size as claimed (see 0184 where they allow for ranges including 50-100nm, etc. as well as note sizes such as 30-50nm discussed in par 0198).
The chemically strengthened microcrystalline glass can have the above nano microcrystalline particles occupy greater than 50% of the glass (see 0182, 0184).
Additionally, given the similarities between Coon and Applicants as asserted above, one skilled in the art would expect the same features to result (MPEP 2112).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 20, 25 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784