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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/06/2026 has been entered,
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to KR10-2022-0122069 with a filing date of 09/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment Submitted/Entered with Filing of Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)/Request for Continued Examination (RCE) After Final Rejection filed 04/06/2026 has been entered. Claim 21 has been added. Claim 19, which was withdrawn previously, has been canceled. Claims 12-18 and 20 remain withdrawn.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 8-19, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-11, under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different embodiment of Wang.
The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that:
The Examiner has used Hindsight Bias in regard to the claimed range of 10% to 40% for the Rb+ ion content being a matter of routine optimization for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
The Examiner provided an arbitrary calculation based on ionic radius, moles of ions, glass dimensions, glass volume in an ion-exchange bath to force the calculation to read on claim 1.
There lacks technical foundation and has made unfounded assumptions regarding process variable not taught in the prior art related to why a single sheet of glass requires 0.04% ion concentration with a batch of thousands of sheets requires 20% to 40% concentration; Examiner aligns the above with the motivation to flexibly adjust the ration of the metal salts with different radii according to the glass thickness and target strength.
The Examiner’s calculation provides no scientific basis to assume Rb+ ions would achieve the same depth at K+ ions (10um) given the difference in ionic size and diffusion rates between K+ ions and Rb+ ions.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
Responses below to b)-d) are to address a).
and d) – the calculation provided was an exercise to demonstrate that a PHOSITA by simple calculation could determine the proper concentrations of the relative ions that should be in the second strengthening bath. As the Applicant has noted in Applicant Argument in d) above that there is no scientific bases for the assumption that Rb+ ions would exchange to the same depth as K+ ions, the depth of Rb+ ions exchanged to 10um was used to create an “apples-to-apples” comparison with K+ as a means to illustrate a PHOSITA could perform a calculation.
Regarding variables not taught in the prior art to support the calculation, the level of one skilled in the art, albeit not specifically defined due to its transient nature, encompasses at least engineering logic and common sense logic applicable in the art in addition to those disclosed in the prior art references. It must have presumed that one of ordinary skill in the art knows something about the art apart from what the references alone teach, see In re Bode, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). Here, the calculation demonstrated the actual minimum numbers of Rb+ ions needed to exchange a single glass substrate of a certain size (i.e. to exchange a certain area of glass to a depth of 10um; the volume of glass would be different/less if the depth of layer was less than 10um yet the calculation was used to determine the volume of glass having the ability to be exchanged by a certain concentration of Rb+ ions. As is common in industrial processes, processing large quantities of parts is desired for the benefits of efficiency and cost. "Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. And because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves." In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As the calculation was used to determine the volume of glass having the ability to be exchanged by a minimum number of Rb+ ions ( concentration of Rb+ ions) , then one could determine actual number of the Rb+ ions (Rb+ concentration) to exchange any volume of glass desired to be processed (volume of glass to be exchanged representative of all glass, or all glass parts, to be exchanged to a certain depth of layer). This aligns with the Examiners motivation “to flexibly adjust the ratio of the metal salts with different radii according to the glass thickness and target strength”, where target strength is based upon depth of layer (DOL), i.e. the volume of glass to be exchanged.
Further from the Examiner
In summary, Wang describes the below Page 5 lines 30-38,
Table I.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table II.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Table III.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Table II Embodiment 4 represents a three-stage ion exchange process where the 2nd bath and 3rd bath represent the ion exchange baths applicable to the instant application. Substituting a large ion (Rb+) for a medium ion (K+) provides for a small ion (Na+) and a large ion (Rb+) in the 2nd bath. Further the range of the small ion (S = Na+) in the 2nd bath is 80-97% (overlapping ranges with the claimed range of Na+) and the range of the medium ion (M= K+) is 3-20%. The medium ion (M=K+) is substituted by the large ion (L=Rb+), which would also provide for an overlapping range. Moreover, optimization of the ranges of Rb+ and Na+ would be obvious for the reason to flexibly choose metal ions according to actual needs, such as depth of layer, surface compressive value and increased resistance to bending cracks, as noted by Wang (Page 4 lines 7-8, Page 5 lines 10-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20210269356A1 by Kang et. al. (herein “Kang”) and in view of CN110627378A (English language
translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced herein) by Wang (herein
“Wang”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 4,015,045 by Rinehart (herein “Rinehart”).
Regarding Claim 1 , Kang teaches:
A method of manufacturing a window; [0008], [0054], [0055], “ According to one aspect of the
invention, a method for manufacturing a glass article for a display device”, “…embodiments of a
glass article constructed according to principles of the invention. Glass is used as a cover
window for protecting a display…”
the method comprising:
preparing a first preliminary glass substrate including Li+ ions and Na+ ions; [0019], [0053];
“The LAS-based glass may include a silicon dioxide in a range of about 55 mol % to about 62 mol
%, an aluminum oxide in a range of about 18 mol % to about 26 mol %, a sodium oxide in a
range of about 8 mol % to about 13 mol %, and a lithium oxide in a range of about 2 mol % to
about 5 mol %”, “…glass article refers to an article made entirely or partially of glass, which is
usually, an amorphous undercooled liquid of extremely high viscosity that appears as a solid,
and may include one or more nonmetallic elements, e.g., silicon, and metallic elements, e.g.,
calcium, lead, lithium, sodium, rubidium, cesium and/or potassium, in the form of oxides, such
as silicon dioxide.”
providing a first strengthening molten salt including Na+ ions onto the first preliminary glass
substrate and forming a second preliminary glass substrate; [0100], “the first ion exchange
…is performed generally by exposing the glass to mixed molten salt containing potassium (K)
ions and sodium (Na) ions.
providing a third strengthening molten salt including K+ ions onto the third preliminary glass
substrate and forming a strengthened glass substrate; [0115], “The third ion exchange process
…is generally performed by exposing the glass to single molten salt containing potassium (K)
ions.”
Kang teaches a three-step mixed molten salt ion exchange process where the ratio of medium radius
metal ions (K+)/small radius metal ions (Na+) increases with each successive ion exchange step (Fig. 7),
where, in general, increasing the average atomic radii of ions in each successive mixed molten salt
ion exchange is common practice to one skilled in the art. Kang further teaches an LAS glass that may
contain lithium, sodium, potassium and rubidium ions ([0053]) near the surface of the glass can be
exchanged with larger ions that have the same valence, i.e. when the glass contains monovalent alkali
metal ions such as lithium (Li) ions, sodium (Na) ions, potassium (K) ions and rubidium (Rb) ions, the
monovalent cations on the surface may be replaced by sodium (Na) ions, potassium (K) ions, rubidium
(Rb) ions, or cesium (Cs) ions with a larger ionic radius [0098]. While Kang teaches a mixed molten salt
of NaNO3 and KNO3 in the second strengthening and directly suggests that rubidium ions
(Rb+) can be in mixed molten salt ion exchange processes, Kang fails to specifically disclose,
providing a second strengthening molten salt including Na+ ions and Rb+ ions onto the second
preliminary glass substrate and forming a third preliminary glass substrate.
wherein the Na+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 60% to about 90% and the
Rb+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 10% to about 40% with respect to a
total cation concentration of the second strengthening molten salt.
In a similar endeavor of a method using three mixed molten salt ion exchange processes for providing
a compressive stress layer (with a depth of layer) on the surface of a glass article, Wang teaches the use
of, and concept of:
small radius metal ions (Na+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+)), medium radius metal
ions (K+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+)), and large radius metal
ions which are at least rubidium ions (Rb+, which exchanges with potassium ions (K+), lithium
ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+))(Page 3 lines 58-60, Page 4 lines 1-5), where the average ionic
radius in each successive molten salt ion exchange bath increases, where the quantity of smaller
ionic radius ions increases from the glass surface to a depth of layer and where a quantity of
larger ionic radius ions decreases from the glass surface to a depth of layer (i.e. more Rb+ ions in
the second and third strengthening ion exchange processes) (Page 1 lines 50-54),
which is illustrated by denoting the penetration depths of each size of ion (Page 4 lines 5-8);
As well, Wang teaches the use of, and concept of, a first number ratio which, are ratios of the
number of X ions to Y ions in each strengthening molten salt process, where X represents larger
ions (which encompasses Rb+) and Y presents smaller ions (which encompasses Na+) (Page 2
line 60, Page 3 lines 1-7, 38-42) and where it is understood by one skilled in the art that X and Y
represent proportions of a total of X + Y. As well Wang cites it is understood that the
composition and first number ratio of the molten salts could be different (Page 6 lines 1-2).
Further, in summary, Wang describes the below Page 5 lines 30-38;
Table I.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table II.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Table III.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Table II Embodiment 4 represents a three-stage ion exchange process where the 2nd bath and 3rd bath
represent the ion exchange baths applicable to the instant application. Substituting a large ion (Rb+) for
a medium ion (K+) provides for a small ion (Na+) and a large ion (Rb+) in the 2nd bath. Further the range
of the small ion (S = Na+) in the 2nd bath is 80-97% (overlapping ranges with the claimed range of Na+)
and the range of the medium ion (M= K+) is 3-20%. The medium ion (M=K+) is substituted by the large
ion (L=Rb+), which would also provide for an overlapping range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie
evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Wang’s Na+ and K+ range.
as substituted by Rb+ ions, that corresponds to the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05. Further, the Examiner
recognizes the technical aspect of substituting Rb+ ions for K+ ions would require some amount less of
Rb+ ions than K+ ions and that the amount of Rb+ ions and the amount of Na+ ions.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Rb+ for K+ and optimize the amount of Rb+ ions and
Na+ ions in the 2nd strengthening ion exchange process since it has been held that where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to substitute Rb+ for K+ and optimize the
amount of Rb+ ions and Na+ ions in the 2nd strengthening ion exchange process for the purpose to
flexibly choose metal ions according to actual needs, such as depth of layer, surface compressive value
and increased resistance to bending cracks, as noted by Wang (Page 4 lines 7-8, Page 5 lines 10-14).
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover
optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters
through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,
105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 2 - Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
the first strengthening molten salt comprises NaNO3; [0100] lines 3-4, “For example, for the first
ion exchange process, the glass is immersed in a bath containing mixed molten salt in which
potassium nitrate (KNO3) and sodium nitrate (NaNO3) are mixed.”
Regarding Claim 3 – Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
wherein,
the second strengthening molten salt comprises the Na+ ions and the Rb+ ions as cations, but
does not include other cations; The instant claim was taught previously in Claim 1, as in a
NaNO3/KNO3 molten salt bath, KNO3 was substituted with RbNO3.
Regarding Claim 4 – Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 3.
While the combination teaches Na+ ions and Rb+ ions in the second strengthening molten salt, Kang fails to teach,
the Na+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 70%,
and the Rb+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 30%
with respect to a total cation concentration of the second strengthening molten salt.
Wang teaches the use of, and concept of:
small radius metal ions (Na+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+)), medium radius metal
ions (K+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+)), and large radius metal
ions which are at least rubidium ions (Rb+, which exchanges with potassium ions (K+), lithium
ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+))(Page 3 lines 58-60, Page 4 lines 1-5), where the average ionic
radius in each successive molten salt ion exchange bath increases, where the quantity of smaller
ionic radius ions increases from the glass surface to a depth of layer and where a quantity of
larger ionic radius ions decreases from the glass surface to a depth of layer (i.e. more Rb+ ions in
the second and third strengthening ion exchange processes) (Page 1 lines 50-54),
which is illustrated by denoting the penetration depths of each size of ion (Page 4 lines 5-8);
As well, Wang teaches the use of, and concept of, a first number ratio which, are ratios of the
number of X ions to Y ions in each strengthening molten salt process, where X represents larger
ions (which encompasses Rb+) and Y presents smaller ions (which encompasses Na+) (Page 2
line 60, Page 3 lines 1-7, 38-42) and where it is understood by one skilled in the art that X and Y
represent proportions of a total of X + Y. As well Wang cites it is understood that the
composition and first number ratio of the molten salts could be different (Page 6 lines 1-2).
Further, in summary, Wang describes the below Page 5 lines 30-38;
Table I.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table II.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Table III.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Table II Embodiment 4 represents a three-stage ion exchange process where the 2nd bath and 3rd bath
represent the ion exchange baths applicable to the instant application. Substituting a large ion (Rb+) for
a medium ion (K+) provides for a small ion (Na+) and a large ion (Rb+) in the 2nd bath. Further the range
of the small ion (S = Na+) in the 2nd bath is 80-97% (close but not overlapping ranges with the claimed
range of Na+) and the range of the medium ion (M= K+) is 3-20%. The medium ion (M=K+) is substituted
by the large ion (L=Rb+), which would also provide for a close but not overlapping range.
Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the exact range of Rb+ ions and Na+ ions. It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention was made to use the ranges of Wang since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are
close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and
further being motivated for the purpose to flexibly choose metal ions according to actual needs, such
as depth of layer, surface compressive value and increased resistance to bending cracks, as noted by
Wang (Page 4 lines 7-8, Page 5 lines 10-14). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed
ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have
expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d
775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Wang cites that after the second strengthening, the higher K
concentration in the second strengthening (and here Rb+ was substituted for K+ ions) vs. the first
strengthening increased the compressive strength (CS) value (Fig. 5, Page 8 lines 53-54). As the Rb+ is a
result effective variable whose property is to increase compressive stress, then optimizing Rb+ and Na+
for the claimed ranges would have been obvious to try.
Regarding Claim 5 – Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang fails to disclose wherein,
the third strengthening molten salt comprises Rb+ ions
Wang discloses the use of, and concept of:
small radius metal ions (Na+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+)), medium radius metal
ions (K+, which exchanges with lithium ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+)), and large radius metal
ions which are at least rubidium ions (Rb+, which exchanges with potassium ions (K+), lithium
ions (Li+) and sodium ions (Na+))(Page 3 lines 58-60, Page 4 lines 1-5), where the average ionic
radius in each successive molten salt ion exchange bath increases, where the quantity of smaller
ionic radius ions increases from the glass surface to a depth of layer and where a quantity of
larger ionic radius ions decreases from the glass surface to a depth of layer (Page 1 lines 50-54),
which is illustrated by denoting the penetration depths of each size of ion (Page 4 lines 5-8);
While Kang does not specifically teach a third strengthening molten salt that includes rubidium ions
(Rb+), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention was made to deploy the concept of adding larger ionic radius ions (Rb+
ions) suggested by Wang to any of the three strengthening molten salt processes of Kang (including the
third strengthening molten salt process) as one would be motivated to do so to flexibly choose metal
ions according to actual needs, such as surface compressive value and increased resistance to bending
cracks, as noted by Kang (Page 4 lines 7-8, Page lines 10-14). The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6 – Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 5 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 5.
While Kang teaches a proportion of K+ ions in a third strengthening molten salt (Fig. 7), Kang fails to
teach,
the K+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 60% to about 90%,
and the Rb+ ions are present at a proportion in a range of about 10% to about 40%,
with respect to a total cation concentration of the
Wang teaches a third strengthening treatment wherein large radius metal ions (Rb+ Page 3 lines 3, 9-10) can be introduced and the medium radius metal ions (K+, Page 4 lines 1-5) is relatively higher.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Rb + to the third strengthening treatment, as one would be motived to do so for the purpose of shortening the ion exchange time while increasing the surface compressive stress, as noted by Wang (Page 6 lines 17-19). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wang teaches the use of, and concept of, a first number ratio and a second number ratio, which,
as summarized by the Examiner here, are ratios of the number of X ions to Y ions in each strengthening
molten salt process, where X represents larger ions (which encompasses Rb+) and Y presents smaller
ions (which encompasses Na+) (Page 2 line 60, Page 3 lines 1-7, 38-42) and where it is understood by
one skilled in the art that X and Y represent proportions of a total of X + Y. The first number ratio
and second number ratio for each strengthening process has a value relative to each of the other
strengthening processes. As well Wang cites it is understood that the composition and ratio of the
molten salts could be different (Page 6 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of Wang to
optimize the proportions of K+ and Rb+ in the third strengthening process of the combination since it
has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the
optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to
use the concept of Wang optimize the proportions of Ka+ and Rb+ in the third strengthening process for
the purpose of being able to flexibly adjust the ratio of metal salts with different radii according to the
glass thickness and the target strength, as noted by Wang (Page 6 lines 2-3). Where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine
experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,
235.
Regarding Claim 7 – Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
the first strengthening molten salt is provided at a temperature in a range of about 380 °C to about 420 °C for a period in a range of about 30 minutes to about 3 hours in the forming of the second preliminary glass substrate; [0011], “The first step may include a first strengthening step performed for about 90 minutes… at a temperature of about 385° C. to about 405° C.”
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Kang’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05"
Regarding Claim 8 – Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
the second strengthening molten salt is provided at a temperature in a range of about 380 °C to about 420 °C for a period in a range of about 30 minutes to about 3 hours in the forming of the third preliminary glass substrate; [0110], “For example, the second ion exchange process may be performed for about 1 hour to about 3 hours…in the temperature range of about 380° C. to about 460° C.” Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Kang’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05"
Regarding Claim 9 – Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
the third strengthening molten salt is provided at a temperature in a range of about 380 °C to about 450 °C for a period in a range of about 10 minutes to about 2 hours in the forming of the strengthened glass substrate; [0116], “ For example, the third ion exchange process may be performed for about 5 minutes to about 10 minutes, in the temperature range of about 380° C. to about 460° C.”
Regarding Claim 10 - Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein the strengthened glass substrate comprises,
a compressive stress layer having a compressive stress of about 1400 MPa or less; [0118], “In one exemplary embodiment, the maximum compressive stress CS1 of the first surface US subjected to the third ion exchange process may have a value ranging from about 900 MPa to about 1,200 MPa.”
as measured through a method of ASTM C770-16; as noted in “Standard Test Method of Measurement of Glass Stress- Optical Coefficient”, https://store.astm.org/c0770-16.html.
and the compressive stress layer has a thickness in a range of about 90 μm to about 130 μm; [0124], “the first compression depth DOC1 may be about 250 μm or less”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Kang’s compressive stress layer thickness that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11 – Kang and Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Kang teaches wherein,
forming a printing layer overlapping a portion of the strengthened glass substrate in plan view after the forming of the strengthened glass substrate; [0063], “The strengthened glass article 100 may be used as a main body of the cover window 100….The cover window 100 may further include a print layer disposed on at least one surface of the glass article 100 at an edge portion of the glass article 100. The print layer of the cover window 100 may prevent the bezel area of the display device 500 from being visible from the outside, and may perform a decoration function in some cases”.
Regarding Claim 21 - Kang, Wang and Rinehart in the rejection of claim 10 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 10.
Kang teaches wherein,
the compressive stress layer has a thickness in a range of about 90 um to about 110 um; [0124], “the first compression depth DOC1 may be about 250 μm or less”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Kang’s compressive stress layer thickness that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure.
Dejneka et. al. (U.S. Patent 9,290,413) discloses a mixed alkali ion exchange process to provide a compressive stress and a depth of layer (DOL).
Lee et. al. (U.S. Patent 8,312,739) discloses a two-stage ion exchange process that provides compressive stress at the surface of a lithium alumino-silicate glass, contains a depth of layer, where the primary and secondary salt baths are created by added the desired ions of Li+, Na+, K+, Cs+, or Rb+.
Levene (U.S. Patent 3,853,674) discloses a multi-stage ion exchange process where ions are exchanged out the glass sequentially as sodium for lithium ion exchange, followed with a potassium for sodium ion exchange, followed by a rubidium for potassium ion exchange, and finally followed with a cesium for rubidium ion exchange. The subsequent glass has a depth of layer and a compressive stress on the surface of the glass.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights