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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on June 23, 2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-4, 7-12, 26-27, and 33-40 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 26, and 27 have been amended. Claims 34-40 are new. Claims 5-6, 13-25, and 28-32 have been cancelled.
The previous rejection of claims 3 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn as moot in view of the amendments to those claims.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: as amended, claim 27 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 positively recites the presence of a nucleating agent in line 18. Therefore, the recitation in line 13 of claim 27 that “the 3D glass-ceramic comprises nucleating agent” is redundant and unnecessary. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, 26-27, 33-4, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0131080 to Yuan (hereinafter “Yuan”).
Regarding claim 1, Yuan teaches a glass-ceramic (Abstract) characterized in that the glass-ceramic has a crystallinity of 70% or more (see ¶ 0026; claim 9; see also ¶ 0038, teaching wherein the residual glass phase in the glass-ceramic is in the range of 8-45% by weight, indicating a corresponding crystallinity of 55-92%); this range closely overlaps the claimed crystallinity range of 75-100 wt%. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Yuan teaches wherein the glass-ceramic is characterized in that the crystals of the glass-ceramic have an average grain size (i.e., particle size) of “further preferably 50 nm or less” (¶ 0070, lines 10-11; see also claims 23, 24). Yuan teaches wherein the glass-ceramic comprises a nucleating agent, said nucleating agent being, for example, P2O5 and/or ZrO2 (see ¶ 0048, teaching P2O5 as a nucleating agent; ¶ 0051, teaching ZrO2 as a nucleating agent). Yuan teaches wherein the glass-ceramic may be shaped into various shapes, including non-planar shapes, and therefore the glass-ceramic may be a 3D glass-ceramic (see ¶¶ 0082-0084).
Yuan teaches a particular example embodiment of the 3D glass-ceramic (Example 5) having component proportions summarized in Table A below (data taken from p. 12, Table 7):
Table A
Component
Claim 1
Yuan Example 5 (Table 7)
(mol%)
(wt.%)
(mol%)
SiO2
65.1 – 74
74.2
71.97
Al2O3
3 – 8.51
9.8
5.6
B2O3
0 – 4
0
0
MgO
0 – 1.4
1.0
1.45
Na2O
0 – 3
0.1
0.09
Li2O
18.8 – 25
9.3
18.1
K2O
0 – 1
1.0
0.6
CaO
0 – 2
0
0
ZnO
0 – 5
0.6
0.4
P2O5
1.7
0.7
ZrO2
2.0
0.95
Sb2O3
0.3
0.06
Rare Earth Oxide(s)
0 – 3
0
0
Example 5 from Table 7 of Yuan thus includes oxide ratios (in mol%) within the claimed ranges recited in claim 1 as amended, except for Li2O, where the molar amount in Example 5 is close to the lower end of the claimed range (less than 4% below the lower limit of 18.8 mol%), and MgO, where the molar amount is similarly close. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Yuan teaches wherein a crystalline phase of the 3D glass-ceramic of Example 5 includes petalite and lithium disilicate (see Table 7).
Thus, a 3D glass-ceramic reading on every limitation of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Yuan.
Regarding claim 2, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, and Yuan further teaches wherein the 3D glass-ceramic “can have any reasonable and useful thickness” (¶ 0085), such as 2 mm (see ¶ 0117) or 0.55 mm (see ¶ 0119).
Regarding claim 3, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, as set forth above. Given that Yuan teaches a 3D glass-ceramic substantially identical to the claimed invention in composition and structure, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the 3D glass-ceramic of Yuan would exhibit the same material properties as the claimed invention, including an average transmittance of 88-93% in a wavelength range of light of 380-780 nm and an average transmittance of 65-91.5% in a wavelength range of light of 360-400 nm, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). 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). Here, that prima facie case is bolstered by evidence within Yuan, which discloses that, in some embodiments, the average light transmittance in a wavelength range of 400-800 nm is preferably 88% or more (see ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 4, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, and Yuan further teaches wherein the 3D glass-ceramic of Example 5 has a haze of 0.35% (see p. 12, Table 7; see also ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 7, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, as shown above. Example 5 of Yuan includes SiO2 and Al2O3 in a total amount of 77.6% by molar ratio (see Table A above), within the claimed range recited in claim 7 as amended.
Regarding claim 8, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, and Yuan further teaches wherein the nucleating agent is P2O5 and/or ZrO2 (see ¶ 0048, teaching P2O5 as a nucleating agent; ¶ 0051, teaching ZrO2 as a nucleating agent; see also Table 4, wherein Examples 3 and 8, for instance, include both P2O5 and ZrO2).
Regarding claim 9, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, and Yuan further teaches wherein the 3D glass-ceramic comprises a fining agent being one or more of Sb2O3, SnO2, CeO2, or a compound of Cl (see ¶¶ 0064-0065; see also Example 5 in Table 7, which includes Sb2O3).
Regarding claim 10, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1. Yuan further teaches wherein the crystallized glass raw material of the 3D glass-ceramic is a glass material (see ¶ 0074), which is subjected to nucleation and crystallization (see ¶ 0076). Yuan teaches that the crystallized glass raw material of the 3D glass-ceramic, after undergoing nucleation and crystallization, has crystals with an average grain size (i.e., particle size) of preferably 50 nm or less, and still more preferably 40 nm or less (¶ 0070; claims 23, 24).
Regarding claim 11, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1. Yuan further teaches wherein the crystallized glass raw material of the 3D glass-ceramic is a glass material (see ¶ 0074), which is subjected to nucleation and crystallization (see ¶ 0076). Yuan teaches some embodiments in which the crystallized glass raw material of the 3D glass-ceramic, after undergoing nucleation and crystallization, has a crystallinity in the range of 70% to 82% (see p. 12, Table 7, row 25, describing crystallinity values ranging from 0.7 to 0.82, i.e., 70% to 82%, for Examples 1-8; see also ¶ 0026; claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1. Given that Yuan teaches a 3D glass-ceramic substantially identical to the claimed invention in composition and structure, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the 3D glass-ceramic of Yuan would exhibit the same material properties as the claimed invention—including a drop height of >1.5m after chemical strengthening and a Vickers hardness at a load of 300 gf for 10 s that is greater than 650—since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). 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 26, Yuan teaches a mobile phone display screen comprising the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1 (see ¶ 0139).
Regarding claim 27, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1 (see above, pp. 3-5), and Yuan further teaches wherein the 3D glass-ceramic includes 0 mol% B2O3 (see Table A above, p. 4, and see Table 7, Example 5).
Regarding claim 33, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, and Yuan further teaches wherein the 3D glass-ceramic is transparent (see ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 34, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, and Yuan further teaches wherein the 3D glass-ceramic includes 0 mol% B2O3 (see Table A above, p. 4, and see Table 7, Example 5).
Regarding claim 36, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim Yuan teaches some embodiments in which the crystallized glass raw material of the 3D glass-ceramic, after undergoing nucleation and crystallization, has a crystallinity in the range of 70% to 82% (see p. 12, Table 7, row 25, describing crystallinity values ranging from 0.7 to 0.82, i.e., 70 to 82 wt%, for Examples 1-8; see also ¶ 0026; claim 9); this range substantially overlaps the claimed range of 75-90 wt%. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35 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:
Regarding claim 35, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 7, as set forth above (see p. 6). However, Yuan does not teach wherein the 3D glass-ceramic includes SiO2 and Al2O3 in a total amount of 72.86%-74.8% by molar ratio, or wherein Na2O+Li2O is present in a range of 20.46%-26% by molar ratio.
Claim 37 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:
Regarding claim 37, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, as set forth above (see pp. 3-5). Moreover, Yuan teaches steps of mixing and melting raw materials for preparing the 3D glass-ceramic (¶ 0074), cooling to obtain a glass substrate (¶ 0074), subjecting the glass substrate to nucleation (¶ 0078), performing crystallization on the nucleated glass substrate (¶ 0078), and subjecting the crystallized glass raw material to 3D hot bending (¶¶ 0084, 0087).
However, Yuan does not teach wherein the hot bending includes a preheating station, a hot pressing station, and a cooling station, and wherein a temperature of the preheating station is 300-850°C, a temperature of the hot pressing station is 600-920°C, a pressure of the hot pressing station is 0-6 MPa, and a temperature of the cooling station is 200-650°C.
Claims 38-40 depend from claim 37 and therefore include the allowable subject matter of that claim. Therefore, if claim 37 were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, then dependent claims 38-40 would also be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-12 of the Remarks submitted with the reply filed June 23, 2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”), Applicant seeks to distinguish the claimed invention from the 3D glass-ceramic of Yuan by pointing out that the 3D glass-ceramic of claim 1, as amended, has crystalline phase that “is petalite and lithium disilicate.” Applicant points out, accurately, that Examples 3 and 8 from Table 4 of Yuan (discussed extensively in the previous Office action) do not include petalite (see Remarks at p. 11). However, Example 5 from Table 7 of Yuan does include both petalite and lithium disilicate in the crystalline phase, and so this line of argument is unavailing.
Applicant also seeks to distinguish the glass-ceramic of Yuan from the claimed invention on the grounds that the glass-ceramic of Yuan includes quartz crystalline phase (Remarks at p. 11). Applicant’s argument appears to be premised on the proposition that claim 1, as amended, includes only petalite and lithium disilicate in the crystalline phase. However, claim 1, as amended, currently recites that “a crystalline phase of the 3D glass-ceramic is petalite and lithium disilicate”; the current wording does not exclude the presence of another crystalline phase, and moreover the broadest reasonable interpretation of the verb “is” is an open interpretation (similar to “comprising”), such that the recited crystalline phase comprises petalite and lithium disilicate but might also comprise other crystalline forms, such as quartz. Therefore, all of Applicant’s arguments premised on the supposed exclusion of quartz crystalline phase from the claimed invention are unpersuasive, given the current wording of claim 1.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the rejected 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.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0102010 to Beall et al. (“Beall”) teaches glass and glass ceramic compositions having a combination of lithium silicate and petalite crystalline phases (Abstract). Beall teaches wherein the glass and glass ceramic compositions include P2O5 as a nucleating agent (¶ 0159).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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 R. 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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
