CTFR 18/286,298 CTFR 85508 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3 and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ‘243 (US 2020/0102243 A1) . Regarding claims 1 and 3, Li ‘243 teaches: exposing a glass article comprising a thickness ranging from 20 microns to 200 microns to a molten salt (¶ [0114], [0135], [0181]), the molten salt comprising: 2 wt% to 10 wt% of an inorganic non-hydroxide salt that is selected from the group consisting of potassium carbonate (K 2 CO 3 ) or potassium phosphate (K 3 PO 4 ) (¶ [0186]-[0187], [0190]) 85 wt% to 98 wt% potassium nitrate (KNO 3 ) (¶ [0186]-[0188]) less than 1 wt% sodium nitrate (NaNO 3 ) (¶ [0186]-[0187], [0189]) inducing a compressive stress region extending from a surface of the glass article to a depth of compression and comprising a compressive stress of 700 MPa or more by ion-exchanging between the glass article and the molten salt (¶ [0114], [0129], [0181]). Regarding the ranges of the glass article thickness and the percentages of the molten salt constituents, the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by Li ‘243. It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding the inorganic non-hydroxide salt, Li ‘243 does not explicitly teach that the percentage is sufficient to provide a pH from 9 to 12 when 5 grams of the inorganic non-hydroxide salt is dissolved in 100 grams of distilled water. However, Li ‘243 teaches the same species of inorganic non-hydroxide salt as disclosed by Applicant’s specification as having such a property (potassium carbonate (K 2 CO 3 ) or potassium phosphate (K 3 PO 4 ). It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Since the inorganic non-hydroxide salts disclosed by Li ‘243 are identical to those disclosed and claimed by the Applicant, Li ‘243 anticipates and/or renders obvious the property of the inorganic non-hydroxide salt being sufficient to provide a pH from 9 to 12 when 5 grams of the inorganic non-hydroxide salt is dissolved in 100 grams of distilled water as claimed. Regarding claim 2, Li ‘243 further teaches the molten salt comprises 5 wt% to 10 wt% of the inorganic non-hydroxide salt (¶ [0186]-[0187], [0190]). Regarding claim 6, Li ‘243 teaches the molten salt contains sodium from NaNO 3 , and wherein such content includes the range of 0 to less than 1 wt%, as recited in claim 1 (¶ [0187], [0189]). Such a range would also include a sodium concentration ranging from 900 ppm to 4000 ppm in embodiments in which NaNO 3 is the only sodium-containing constituent of the molten salt. Regarding claims 7-8, Li ‘243 teaches subjecting the glass article comprising the surface compressive stress of 700 MPa or more to a pen drop test to measure impact resistance defined by the capability of the surface of the glass article to avoid failure at a pen drop height measured in cm (¶ [0205]-[0206]), and shows that glass articles comprising the surface compressive stress of 700 MPa are capable of avoiding failure at height in the range of 15 cm to 25 cm (Table 9). The glass articles of Li ‘243 are not described as being subjected to any etching processes configured to etch a layer from the surface of the glass article. Li ‘243 is silent regarding comparing a pen drop height of the glass article comprising the surface compressive stress of 700 MPa to a pen drop height of the glass article before exposure to the molten salt. However, Li ‘243 expresses a desire to maximize drop performance and damage resistance of the ion-exchanged glass articles (Abstract; ¶ [0113], [0129]), and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Li ‘243 by maximizing a value of Y relative to a value of X as claimed. Regarding claim 9, the method disclosed by Li ‘243 is devoid of an etching process configured to etch a layer from the surface of the glass article comprising the compressive stress of 700 MPa or more. Regarding claims 10-11, Li ‘243 further teaches the compressive stress is 800 MPa or more, and the compressive stress ranges from 800 MPa to 1100 MPa (¶ [0129]). Regarding claim 12, Li ‘243 further teaches the depth of compression is greater than 10% of the thickness of the glass article (¶ [0008], [0133], [0149]). Regarding claim 13, Li ‘243 further teaches the molten salt comprises a temperature ranging from 350°C to 500°C, and wherein the glass article is exposed to the molten salt for a time period ranging from 5 minutes to 120 minutes (¶ [0192]). Regarding claim 14, Li ‘243 further teaches the glass article comprises an alkali aluminosilicate glass (¶ [0165]). Regarding claim 15, Li ‘243 further teaches the glass article comprises an alkali borosilicate glass (¶ [0165]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ‘243 (US 2020/0102243 A1) in view of Fujiwara ‘773 (US 2020/0055773 A1) . Regarding claims 4-5, Li ‘243 is silent regarding a pH of the molten salt. In analogous art of ion exchanging of glass articles, Fujiwara ‘773 suggests making a pH of molten salt for ion exchange in a range of 7.5-10.5, which falls in the claimed ranges, for the benefit of enabling cutting of Si-O-Si bonds so that the compressive stress layer can be modified to thereby form a low-density layer in the glass surface (¶ [0125]-[0129], [0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Li ‘243 by making the pH of the molten salt comprise a pH ranging from 7.5-10.5 for the benefit of enabling cutting of Si-O-Si bonds so that the compressive stress layer can be modified to thereby form a low-density layer in the glass surface, as suggested by Fujiwara ‘773 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ‘243 (US 2020/0102243 A1) in view of Gross ‘412 (US 2019/0256412 A1) . Regarding claim 16, Li ‘243 further teaches the glass article comprises and alkali aluminosilicate composition (¶ [0165]), but is silent regarding the particular composition claimed. In analogous art of ion exchanging of glass articles, Gross ‘412 suggests an alkali aluminosilicate glass composition for ion exchanging comprising: 60-70 mol% SiO 2 (¶ [0034]) 7.5-20 mol% Al 2 O 3 (¶ [0034]) 0.1-7.5 mol% MgO (¶ [0034]) 12.5-19 mol% Na 2 O (¶ [0034]) at least one of 0.5-4 mol% K 2 0, 0.1-5 mol% CaO, or 0.1-5 mol% B 2 O 3 (¶ [0034]) wherein the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by Li ‘243. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Li ‘243 by using a composition of the glass article as suggested by Gross ‘412 as a substitution of alkali aluminosilicate glass compositions for ion exchange. Regarding claim 17, Li ‘243 further teaches the glass article comprises and alkali aluminosilicate composition (¶ [0165]), but is silent regarding the particular composition claimed. In analogous art of ion exchanging of glass articles, Gross ‘412 suggests an alkali aluminosilicate glass composition for ion exchanging comprising: 65-70 mol% SiO 2 (¶ [0034]) 7.5-12.5 mol% Al 2 O 3 (¶ [0034]) 2.5-7.5 mol% MgO (¶ [0034]) 12.5-17.5 mol% Na 2 O (¶ [0034]) wherein the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by Li ‘243. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Li ‘243 by using a composition of the glass article as suggested by Gross ‘412 as a substitution of alkali aluminosilicate glass compositions for ion exchange . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 18 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As noted in Applicant’s remarks dated 04-28-2026, Li describes that the inclusion of Li 2 O is critical because it allows for the exchange of potassium and sodium ions to achieved the desired stress profiles. Thus, while Li describes ranges of Li 2 O with an endpoint of 0 mol%, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have found it obvious to make the glass article substantially free of Li 2 O as claimed . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 04-28-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized as follows : Li does not render obvious the molten salt bath NaNO 3 concentration because it has been held that the fact that a claimed species or subgenus is encompassed by a prior art genus is not sufficient by itself to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and it has been held that a disclosure of millions of compounds does not render obvious a claim to three compounds, particularly when that disclosure indicates a preference leading away from the claimed compounds. Response : The obviousness rationale is not one of selecting a species or subgenus. Li explicitly teaches a combination of molten salt species of NaNO 3 with KNO 3 and K 2 CO 3 (e.g., ¶ [0187]). Thus it does not teach away from the claimed combination of compounds. Further, teaching of the concentration of NaNO 3 is a matter of disclosed ranges, not of a species. Obviousness of ranges has its own extensive case law, as outlined in MPEP 2144.05, which specifically states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, as cited in the rejections above and previously. The Office action is lacking in analysis of determining the scope and contents of the prior art to specifically articulate any teachings or suggestions in the prior art that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed species or subgenus. Response : The Office action points to specific portions of Li that teach the exact species of molten salts as claimed, and to specific portions of Li that teach ranges of concentration overlapping the claimed concentrations, and to case law that explains why the disclosed ranges are considered to render obvious the claimed ranges. Li does not disclose, teach, or fairly suggest that one should use less than 1 wt% NaNO 3 . Response : Li specifically teaches ranges that include 0 to 1 wt% NaNO 3 , which was cited in the Office actions above and previously. Li’s preferred examples would lead one away from using any less than 6 wt% NaNO 3 . Response : The disclosure of preferred embodiments does not negate the broader disclosure of the prior art. Li specifically teaches ranges that include 0 to 1 wt% NaNO 3 , which was cited in the Office actions above and previously. The examples also only include two molten salt species, as opposed to the three species claimed and as disclosed in Li, e.g., ¶ [0187]. It is noted that Li suggests adding an additional salt such as K 2 CO 3 to a conventional molten salt batch containing “nitrates such as KNO 3 and/or NaNO 3 ” (¶ [0186]). This suggests that the inclusion of NaNO 3 is not necessarily required, and/or could be included in small amounts, with a balance of KNO 3 . Applicant’s specification demonstrates a particular sensitivity to undesirable effects on surface compressive stress related to molten baths comprising more than 1 wt% NaNO3, and shows criticality of the range. Response : ¶ [0065] discusses “undesirably low (for some applications) values for surface compressive stress (for example, a surface compressive stress below 700 MPa or below 800 MPa)”. The objective data provided in Table 1 of the specification demonstrates that compressive stress above 700 MPa or above 800 MPa can be achieved with NaNO 3 at 2 wt% or even at 5 wt%, depending upon the particular treatment conditions. Also, plotting the data (shown below), it can be seen that there is a fairly smooth progression of compressive stress against wt% NaNO 3 . Thus it does not appear that the claimed range is particularly critical. [Chart] Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00. 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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. /ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/286,298 Page 2 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/286,298 Page 3 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/286,298 Page 4 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/286,298 Page 6 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/286,298 Page 7 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/286,298 Page 8 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/286,298 Page 9 Art Unit: 1741 Application/Control Number: 18/286,298 Page 10 Art Unit: 1741
Prosecution Insights