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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schneider (USPub20180105461) having an earlier provisional filing of October 13, 2016.
Regarding claims 1 and 6: Schneider teaches window members (0004, 0032, 0116) comprising a glass article (base) comprising a first surface 302 and an opposing second surface 304 facing the first surface in a thickness direction (Figures, 0043).
Ions in the article (base) can be exchanged with both first and second ion salts, each having an ion radius (i.e. the ion salts will be distributed in the base following the exchange). The first ion salts can include sodium ions (smaller radius) with second ion salts including potassium ions (larger radius) (see Examples for instance wherein both Na ion salts and K ion salts can be exchanged as well as par 0054-0059 discussing ion exchange).
A variation in compressive stress according to a depth increasing along the first direction from the first surface 302 forms a plot as shown by the schematic below.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The plot comprises tail region 316 wherein all points in this region have an absolute value of a slope of 0.01-1MPa/micron. (see 0051, Schneider’s claim 11, Figures).
Given that Schneider clearly suggests making the entirety of the tail regions, and all points therein, be present in depths in which compressive stress is above 0MPa/micron and less than 200 MPa/micron (see all Figures), one skilled in the art would consider Schneider to anticipate, or at the very least render obvious, making their tail region, and all points therein, be present in depths where the compressive stress is above 0MPa/micron and less than 200 MPa/micron.
Additionally, note that if the tail region is present at depths where the compressive stress is above 0MPa/micron and less than 200 MPa/micron, it would be readily expected that the slope of the points making up said tail would continue throughout a depth range at CS above 0MPa/micron and less than 200 MPa/micron.
For instance, and merely for illustrative purposes, see below wherein if a tail is at depths in which the the compressive stress is above 0MPa/micron and less than 200 MPa/micron, the slope of the points making up said tail would be present throughout a depth range at CS above 0MPa/micron and less than 200 MPa/micron.
PNG
media_image2.png
464
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Even further in the alternative, note that Schneider suggest that CS at 0.05t can be >100MPa (0053) which overlaps a CS of 200MPa and suggests that their tail can begin (i.e. the knee) at 0.5t (see 0052). This would allow for the following wherein as shown, the slope will be throughout a depth range in which the CS is above 0MPa/micron and less than 200 MPa/micron.
PNG
media_image3.png
479
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: The thickness of the base can be 0.01-0.5mm (0117).
Regarding claim 3: The plot has a first surface compressive stress 310 at a point at which the depth is 0micron and a compressive stress of 0MPa at a depth of compression 330 (note the schematic has compressive stress MPa as the Y axis and depth in micron as the X axis).
The plot shows a first spike section 312 in which the absolute value of the slope will be greater than 2MPa/micron (see 0051) and a second tail section 316 in which the absolute value of the slope can be 0.01-1MPa/micron at depths of greater than 0micron to the depth of compression 330 (0051). As shown above, the second tail section 316 is in a depth greater than the depth of the first spike section 312.
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Although not shown by the above schematic, Schneider does teach that their plot can comprise points in the tail region 316 (second section) at which the slope can be equal to or greater than 0MPa/micron (i.e. points where the slope is positive) and even include upward convex shapes (See hump shapes in Fig. 4-6 for instance).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights