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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 July 2026 has been entered.
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMartino et al. (US 2017/0022093 A1).
DeMartino et al. discloses glass articles (i.e., sheets) that are strengthened (i.e., tempered) so that they possess a compressive stress on the surface. See the abstract and paragraph [0038].
The glass has a composition having overlapping ranges of components with the glass composition recited in instant claims 1, 3, 10 and 11.
Ratio
Claim 1 range (mol%)
DeMartino et al. range (mol%)
[0164]
Location in Demartino
SiO2
45-70
62-70
[0147]
Al2O3
9-25
5-28
[0148]
B2O3
0-10
0-8
[0149]
Li2O
4-15
6-10
[0155]
Na2O
1-21
0-18
[0152]
K2O
0-10
< 5
[0154]
MgO
0.03-10
0-5
[0150]
ZnO
3-10
0-4
[0162];[0164]
P2O5
0-15
0-10
[0158]
Li2O+Na2O+K2O
≥ 15
5-20
[0151]
Cl
≥ 0.02 (claim 3)
0-2
[0161]
Fe2O3
0.001-0.1 (claim 10)
≤ 0.1
[0156]
TiO2
0.001-0.1 (claim 11)
≤ 6
[0159]
Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by DeMartino et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
DeMartino et al. does not teach the claim 1 ratio of Li2O+Na2O+K2O+ZnO/Al2O3. However, DeMartino discloses a ratio of Li2O+Na2O+K2O /Al2O3 of less than 2 in paragraph [0169]. Moreover, the general composition of DeMartino et al. has amounts of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, ZnO and Al2O3 that overlap and can result in ratios inside and outside the range recited in claim 1. It would have been prima facie obvious to have employed any of these compositions lacking unexpected results associated with claimed ratio.
As to claim 4, DeMartino et al. discloses the glass composition is capable of achieving softening points below 900°C. See Table 1B.
As to claims 5, 6, 12 and 13, DeMartino et al. teaches a stress profile in Figure 19 that has the characteristics of claims 5, 6, 12 and 13:
PNG
media_image1.png
572
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the glass of DeMartino et al. to have the claimed property in view of the overlapping ranges of glass components.
As to claim 8, DeMartino et al. discloses forming the glass by the overflow down drawn method which will inherently result in “overflow confluent surface at a central portion.” See paragraph [0178].
As to claim 9, DeMartino et al. discloses the glass is employed as a cover glass for a touch display in paragraph [0142].
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki et al. (WO 2020/138062 A1).
The rejection is over WO 2020/138062 A1 because the reference has an earlier publication date. However, the English language equivalent, US 2022/0041493 A1, will be cited below.
Yuki et al. teaches a tempered glass sheet. See the title. The glass composition has overlapping ranges of components with the glass composition recited in instant claims 1, 3, 10 and 11. See paragraphs [0012], [0053], [0055] and [0057].
Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have selected from the overlapping portions of the ranges taught by Yuki et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
Yuki et al. does not teach the claim 1 ratio. However, the general composition of Yuki et al. has amounts of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, ZnO and Al2O3 that overlap and can result in ratios inside and outside the range recited in claim 1. It would have been prima facie obvious to have employed any of these compositions lacking unexpected results associated with claimed ratio.
As to claim 4, Yuki et al. discloses the inventive glass composition has a softening point of 900°C or less. See paragraph [0064].
As to claim 6, Yuki et al. discloses the glass article has a depth of layer of 50 to 200 µm. See paragraph [0019].
As to claim 7, the property recited in claim 7 can be found in Yuki et al. in paragraph [0065].
As to claim 8, Yuki et al. discloses forming the glass by the overflow down draw method which will inherently result in “overflow confluent surface at a central portion.” See paragraph [0021].
As to claim 9, Yuki et al. discloses the glass is employed as a cover glass for a touch display in paragraph [0001].
As to claims 12-13, the glass articles of Yuki et al. have a stress profile in accordance with Figures 1 and 2, and Figures 1 and 2 have the features of instant claims 12 and 13.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki et al. (WO 2020/138062 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Allan et al. (US 2015/0147574 A1).
As to claim 5, Yuki et al. teaches the glass article has a surface compressive stress of 200 MPa to 1000 MPa. See paragraph [0068]. Yuki et al. fails to teach the magnitude of the compressive stress at 30 µm.
Allan et al. teaches a glass article that is ion exchange strengthened to have a first and second peak, and a first and second bottom. See Figure 4. Allan et al. teaches a compressive stress at 30 µm of 300 MPa. See paragraph [0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the glass article of Yuki et al. with a compressive stress at 30 µm of 300 MPa as suggested by Allan et al. The stress profile of Allan et al. is resistant to the introduction of flaws that lead to a break. See paragraph [0003] of Allan et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that none of the examples of DeMartino have a combination of 4 to 15 mol% of Li2O, 3 to 10 mol% of ZnO, and the claim 1 Li2O+Na2O+K2O+ZnO/Al2O3 ratio. However, a reference may be used for all that it fairly suggests and is not limited to its examples for disclosure.
Applicants argue the existence of overlapping ranges does not establish the obviousness of the claim 1 ratio. However, each species in the glass space taught by DeMartino will have some ratio of Li2O+Na2O+K2O+ZnO/Al2O3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made any of these glass compositions.
Applicants argue that DeMartino does not teach increasing ZnO to 3 mol% while maintaining the Li2O+Na2O+K2O+ZnO/Al2O3 ratio below 2.0. This argument is not deemed persuasive because DeMartino teaches ranges that otherwise overlap the claimed ratio. Moreover, DeMartino discloses a ratio of Li2O+Na2O+K2O /Al2O3 of less than 2. See paragraph [0169].
As with the rejection over DeMartino, applicants argue the examples of Yuki do not simultaneously have ZnO ≥ 3 mol% and ([Li₂O] + [Na₂O] + [K2O] + [ZnO])/[Al₂O₃] ≤ 2.0. As above, a reference may be used for all that it fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art for its disclosure.
Applicants argue the combination of the claimed ZnO and ratio are necessary to achieve a balanced glass. To the extent applicants may be arguing unexpected results associated with the ranges, applicants bear the burden of establishing unexpected results with evidence. See MPEP 716.02(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
