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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In view of Applicant’s Specification, the term “3D glass-ceramic” is interpreted to mean a glass-ceramic in which the upper and lower faces of the glass-ceramic are non-planar (see Specification at p. 11, line 19).
The transitional phrase “includes,” as used in claims 6-7 and 27-30, is interpreted in light of the Specification as having an open construction, in the same manner as “comprising” (see Specification at pp. 8-9; and see MPEP 2111.03(IV)).
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 3 and 26 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 3 recites that the 3D glass-ceramic has a certain average transmittance “at a wavelength of light of 380-780 nm” or a certain average transmittance “at a wavelength of light of 360-400 nm.” However, the use of the phrase “a wavelength of light” in combination with these wavelength ranges renders these property limitations unclear, since it is not clear whether it is meant to indicate a transmittance within the claimed range at any single wavelength within the recited wavelength range, or whether a glass-ceramic must have a transmittance value within the recited transmittance range across the entirety of the wavelength range in order to fall within the bounds of the claim. Therefore, the scope of claim 3 is unclear.
For purposes of claim interpretation, claim 3 will be read as indicating that “average transmittance” is an average of individual transmittance values measured at discrete wavelengths within the recited wavelength range, such that a glass-ceramic will fall within the bounds of the claim if the calculated average of transmittance values falls within the claimed average transmittance value range. This interpretation appears to broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (see Specification at p. 11, lines 28-34).
Claim 26 recites “Application of the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1” in any one of a number of recited articles and devices. As worded, claim 26 reads as a use claim that fails to set forth any steps involved in the process of “applying” the 3D glass-ceramic to its use in a mobile phone display screen, a tablet computer display screen, etc. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-12 and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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%). 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 100 nm of less (¶ 0070, line 9; see also claims 23, 24). 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).
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% at a wavelength of light of 380-780 nm and an average transmittance of 65-91.5% at a wavelength 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 at a wavelength in a 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 has a haze of 0.20% to 0.44% (see p. 10, Table 4, giving haze values for Examples 1-8; see also ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 5, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, and Yuan further teaches wherein a crystalline phase of the 3D glass-ceramic is lithium silicate, lithium disilicate, and/or petalite (see ¶ 0068; see also p. 10, Table 4).
Regarding claim 6, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, and Yuan further teaches particular example embodiments of the 3D glass-ceramic having component proportions summarized in Table A below (data taken from p. 10, Table 4):
Table A
Component
Claim 6
Yuan Example 3
Yuan Example 8
(mol%)
(wt.%)
(mol%)
(wt.%)
(mol%)
SiO2
55 – 74
75.3
72.1
76.5
72.8
Al2O3
3 – 19
8.5
4.8
8.0
4.5
B2O3
0 – 4
0
0
0
0
MgO
0 – 6
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
Na2O
0 – 3
0
0
0
0
Li2O
6 – 25
10.0
19.2
10.0
19.1
K2O
0 – 1
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.4
CaO
0 – 2
0
0
0
0
ZnO
0 – 5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
P2O5
2.0
0.8
1.4
0.6
ZrO2
2.2
1.0
2.0
0.9
Rare Earth Oxide(s)
0 – 3
0
0
0
0
Thus, both Examples 3 and 8 of Yuan include oxide ratios (in mol%) within the claimed ranges recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 6, as shown above. Example 3 of Yuan includes SiO2 and Al2O3 in a total amount of 76.9% by molar ratio, and Example 8 of Yuan includes SiO2 and Al2O3 in a total amount of 77.3% by molar ratio (see Table A above), both within the claimed range of more than 60% by molar ratio. Moreover, in Example 3 of Yuan, Na2O+Li2O is present in a total amount of 0+19.2=19.2% by molar ratio, and in Example 3 of Yuan, Na2O+Li2O is present in a total amount of 0+19.1=19.1% by molar ratio (see Table A above), both within the claimed range of 7%-30% by molar ratio.
Regarding claim 8, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1, and Yuan further teaches wherein the 3D 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; 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).
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. 10, Table 4, 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 N 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). Here, that prima facie case is bolstered by evidence within Yuan, which discloses several example embodiments that exhibit a drop height of 1500 mm (i.e., 1.5 m) or more (see Tables 8 and 9, describing Examples 15, 16, 19, 21, and 23, all of which exhibit a drop height of 1500 mm or greater).
Regarding claim 26, Yuan teaches wherein the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 1 is applied in a mobile phone display screen (see ¶ 0139). Moreover, it should be noted that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); see MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 27, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 2 (see above, p. 5), and Yuan further teaches example embodiments (e.g., Examples 3 and 8) that include oxide ratios (in mol%) within the claimed ranges recited in claim 27 (see Table A above, p. 6).
Regarding claim 28, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 3 (see above, p. 5), and Yuan further teaches example embodiments (e.g., Examples 3 and 8) that include oxide ratios (in mol%) within the claimed ranges recited in claim 27 (see Table A above, p. 6).
Regarding claim 29, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 4 (see above, p. 5), and Yuan further teaches example embodiments (e.g., Examples 3 and 8) that include oxide ratios (in mol%) within the claimed ranges recited in claim 27 (see Table A above, p. 6).
Regarding claim 30, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 5 (see above, p. 5), and Yuan further teaches example embodiments (e.g., Examples 3 and 8) that include oxide ratios (in mol%) within the claimed ranges recited in claim 27 (see Table A above, p. 6).
Regarding claim 31, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 6 (see above, p. 5), and Yuan further teaches wherein the 3D 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; see also Table 4, wherein Examples 3 and 8, for instance, include both P2O5 and ZrO2).
Regarding claim 32, Yuan teaches the 3D glass-ceramic according to claim 6 (see above, p. 5), 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).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0130175 to Siebers et al. (hereinafter “Siebers”) teaches a highly crystalline transparent, translucent, or opaque lithium aluminum silicate (LAS) glass-ceramic which has a proportion of residual glass phase of less than 20% by weight (Abstract). Siebers teaches that the average crystallite size of the crystals in the glass-ceramic is typically in the range from 20 nm to 50 nm (¶ 0018).
U.S. Pat. Pub. 2023/0031267 to Hu et al. (hereinafter “Hu”) teaches a multi-crystal nucleus transparent glass-ceramic (Abstract) that, in some embodiments, includes the following oxides (in mol%): SiO2: 65 mol % to 75 mol %, Al2O3: 6 mol % to 13 mol %, B2O3: 1 mol % to 3 mol %, MgO: 0 mol % to 7 mol %, ZnO: 1 mol % to 2 mol %, K2O: 1 mol % to 3 mol %, Na2O: 1 mol % to 7 mol %, Li2O: 10 mol % to 20 mol %, CeO: 0.1 mol % to 0.25 mol %, SnO2: 0.2 mol % to 0.3 mol % (¶ 0018).
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
Prosecution Insights