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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-2, 5-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross et al. (US20190161390, hereinafter referred to as Gross).
Regarding claim 1, Gross discloses a tempered glass sheet (see Gross at [0018], disclosing ion exchangeable glasses. Examiner notes ion exchanged glasses are tempered glasses) comprising as glass composition in mol% from 40 to 80% of SiO2 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 63.64 mol% SiO2), from 15 to 25% of Al2O3 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 15.39 mol% Al2O3), from 0 to 6% of B2O3 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.95 mol% B2O3), from 0 to 25% of Li2O (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 8.10 mol% Li2O), from 5 to 17% of Na2O (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 7.30 mol% Na2O), from 0 to 1% of K2O (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% K2O), from 0 to 1% of MgO (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO), from 0 to 10% of ZnO (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZnO), from 0 to 15% of P2O5 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.58 mol% P2O5), and from 0 to 1% of SnO2 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.05 mol% SnO2), and a compressive stress layer on a surface, the tempered glass sheet having a compressive stress value on an outermost surface of the compressive stress layer of 200 MPa or higher (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a compressive stress (CS) of 570 MPa) and having a value represented by [Li2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O]-[Al2O3]-[B2O3]-[P2O5] that is from -6 mol% to 6 mol% (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 8.10 mol% Li2O, 7.30 mol% Na2O, 0% K2O, 15.39 mol% Al2O3, 1.95 mol% B2O3, 3.58 mol% P2O5, for a value of [Li2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O]-[Al2O3]-[B2O3]-[P2O5] of (8.1)+(7.1)+(0)-(15.39)-(1.95)-(3.58)= -5.72).
While Gross does not explicitly disclose a bending strain of 1.5 x 10-4 or less because Gross does not disclose the bending strain of the glass, the bending strain of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification. The instant specification at [0032] states the bending strain is dependent upon Al2O3 concentration, [0033] states the bending strain is dependent upon the B2O3 concentration, [0034] states the bending strain is dependent upon the alkali metal oxide content, and [0040] states the bending strain is reduced by P2O5 content. Gross discloses a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed by the rejection of claim 4 below, and therefore the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed bending strain. 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, Gross discloses the compressive stress value on the outermost surface of the compressive stress layer is from 500 to 1200 MPa (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a compressive stress (CS) of 570 MPa).
Regarding claim 5, Gross discloses a stress depth of the compressive stress layer is from 10 to 30% of a sheet thickness (see Gross at [0010], disclosing the compressive stress layer has a depth of compression that is from greater than or equal to 0.15t to less than or equal to 0.25t where t is the sheet thickness. Examiner notes this corresponds to 15-25%, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 6, while Gross does not explicitly disclose a softening point of 950°C or lower because Gross does not explicitly disclose the softening point, the softening point of the glass is a function of the thermal processability of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0054]. Examiner notes thermal processability refers to the ease at which a composition can be made to melt. Examiner notes this property is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0031], which states too high a content of SiO2 may likely reduce the meltability, at [0034] stating alkali metal oxides increase the meltability, at [0038] stating MgO increases the meltability, at [0040] which states P2O5 increases the meltability, at [0044] stating CaO increases the meltability, at [0045] stating SrO and BaO increase the meltability. As such, because the composition disclosed by Gross is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed composition as detailed by the rejections above, this property would be inherently present.
Regarding claim 7, Gross not disclose a temperature at a high-temperature viscosity of 102.5 dPa-s is lower than 1650°C because Gross does not disclose a temperature at a high-temperature viscosity of 102.5 dPa-s. However, this property is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0033] stating B2O3 reduces the viscosity, [0034] stating alkali metal oxides reduce the high-temperature viscosity, [0038] stating MgO reduces the high-temperature viscosity, [0039] stating that ZnO reduces the high-temperature viscosity, [0040] stating the P2O5 reduces the high-temperature viscosity, [0044] stating the CaO reduces the high-temperature viscosity, [0045] stating the SrO and BaO reduce the high-temperature viscosity, [0047] stating the TiO2 reduces the high-temperature viscosity, and [0048] stating that ZrO2 reduces the high-temperature viscosity. As such, because the composition disclosed by Gross is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed composition as detailed by the rejections above, this property would be inherently present.
Regarding claim 9, Gross discloses further comprising an overflow-joining surface in a central portion in a sheet thickness direction (see Gross at [0053], disclosing the glass article may be characterized as ... down-drawable and, in particular, fusion-formable or slot-drawable (i.e., formed by a down draw process such as a fusion draw process or a slot draw process). Examiner notes this corresponds to an overflow-joining surface in a central portion in a sheet thickness direction).
Regarding claim 10, Gross discloses a cover member (see Gross at [0002], disclosing a cover glass for electronic devices).
While Gross discloses display covers (see Gross at [0003]), Gross does not explicitly disclose a foldable display. However, this limitation does not patentably distinguish the claimed glass over Gross because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (see MPPEP 2114(II)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114(II)). In the instant case, Gross teaches all the structural limitations of the claim as detailed in the rejections of claims 10 and 1, and therefore meets the claimed limitation.
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) 3, 8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross.
Regarding claim 3, while Gross does not explicitly disclose a sheet thickness of 100 µm or less because Gross does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the glass sheet, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts to make the glass sheet of any thickness as desired because changes in size and shape are obvious per MPEP 2144.04, which states where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 8, while Gross does not explicitly disclose a dimension of 50 mm or greater because Gross does not explicitly disclose the dimension of the glass sheet, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts to make the glass sheet of any dimension as desired because changes in size and shape are obvious per MPEP 2144.04, which states where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 11, Gross makes obvious a tempered glass sheet (see Gross at [0018], disclosing ion exchangeable glasses. Examiner notes ion exchanged glasses are tempered glasses) comprising as glass composition in mol% from 40 to 80% of SiO2 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 63.64 mol% SiO2), from 15 to 25% of Al2O3 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 15.39 mol% Al2O3), from 0 to 6% of B2O3 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.95 mol% B2O3), from 0 to 25% of Li2O (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 8.10 mol% Li2O), from 5 to 17% of Na2O (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 7.30 mol% Na2O), from 0 to 1% of K2O (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% K2O), from 0 to 1% of MgO (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO), from 0 to 10% of ZnO (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZnO), from 0 to 15% of P2O5 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.58 mol% P2O5), and from 0 to 1% of SnO2 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.05 mol% SnO2), and a compressive stress layer on a surface, the tempered glass sheet having a compressive stress value on an outermost surface of the compressive stress layer of 200 MPa or higher (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a compressive stress (CS) of 570 MPa), and having a value represented by [Li2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O]-[Al2O3]-[B2O3]-[P2O5] that is from -6 mol% to 6 mol% (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 8.10 mol% Li2O, 7.30 mol% Na2O, 0% K2O, 15.39 mol% Al2O3, 1.95 mol% B2O3, 3.58 mol% P2O5, for a value of [Li2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O]-[Al2O3]-[B2O3]-[P2O5] of (8.1)+(7.1)+(0)-(15.39)-(1.95)-(3.58)= -5.72).
While Gross does not explicitly disclose a sheet thickness of 100 µm or less because Gross does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the glass sheet, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts to make the glass sheet of any thickness as desired because changes in size and shape are obvious per MPEP 2144.04, which states where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
While Gross does not explicitly disclose a bending strain of 1.5 x 10-4 or less because Gross does not disclose the bending strain of the glass, the bending strain of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification. The instant specification at [0032] states the bending strain is dependent upon Al2O3 concentration, [0033] states the bending strain is dependent upon the B2O3 concentration, [0034] states the bending strain is dependent upon the alkali metal oxide content, and [0040] states the bending strain is reduced by P2O5 content. Gross discloses a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed by the rejections herein, and therefore the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed bending strain.
Gross does not explicitly disclose a bending angle of 30° or less because Gross does not disclose a bending angle. However, the instant specification at [0080] notes a glass composition with a composition as detailed in Table 1 No. 1, annealed and shaped to a thickness of 0.5 mm, polished to a thickness of 50 µm, and ion-exchanged with KnO3 at 390°C for 30 minutes provides a bending angle of 4.4°, which is within the claimed range. Gross at Table 1, Example 45 discloses an example of a glass with a composition substantially identical to that of No 58 from Table 1 of the instant specification. Gross discloses strengthening in a molten salt bath (e.g. KnO3 and/or NaNO3) at [0018]. As such, because the composition and processing steps of Gross are substantially identical to those of the instant invention, the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed bending angle.
Regarding claim 12, Gross makes obvious a glass sheet to be tempered (see Gross at [0018], disclosing ion exchangeable glasses. Examiner notes ion exchanged glasses are tempered glasses), as glass composition in mol% from 40 to 80% of SiO2 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 63.64 mol% SiO2), from 15 to 25% of Al2O3 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 15.39 mol% Al2O3), from 0 to 6% of B2O3 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.95 mol% B2O3), from 0 to 25% of Li2O (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 8.10 mol% Li2O), from 5 to 17% of Na2O (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 7.30 mol% Na2O), from 0 to 1% of K2O (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% K2O), from 0 to 1% of MgO (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO), from 0 to 10% of ZnO (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZnO), from 0 to 15% of P2O5 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.58 mol% P2O5), and from 0 to 1% of SnO2 (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.05 mol% SnO2), and which is ion-exchangeable (see Gross at [0018], disclosing ion exchangeable glasses.) and having a value represented by [Li2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O]-[Al2O3]-[B2O3]-[P2O5] that is from -6 mol% to 6 mol% (see Gross at Table 1, example 45, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 8.10 mol% Li2O, 7.30 mol% Na2O, 0% K2O, 15.39 mol% Al2O3, 1.95 mol% B2O3, 3.58 mol% P2O5, for a value of [Li2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O]-[Al2O3]-[B2O3]-[P2O5] of (8.1)+(7.1)+(0)-(15.39)-(1.95)-(3.58)= -5.72).
While Gross does not explicitly disclose a bending strain of 1.5 x 10-4 or less because Gross does not disclose the bending strain of the glass, the bending strain of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification. The instant specification at [0032] states the bending strain is dependent upon Al2O3 concentration, [0033] states the bending strain is dependent upon the B2O3 concentration, [0034] states the bending strain is dependent upon the alkali metal oxide content, and [0040] states the bending strain is reduced by P2O5 content. Gross discloses a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed by the rejections herein, and therefore the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed bending strain.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4-5 of the Remarks, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-12 under 103 over Xue have been fully considered and are persuasive because Xue fails to disclose or make obvious a value represented by [Li2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O]-[Al2O3]-[B2O3]-[P2O5] that is from -6 mol% to 6 mol%. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gross as detailed above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights