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
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 05/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, 12 and 19 have been amended.
35 U.S.C. 102 rejections pages 9-12 with respect to Claims 1-10,
35 U.S.C 103 rejections pages 14-15, with respect to Claim rejections 11-13 have been fully considered
but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections pages 12-13 with respect to claims 4-5
has been considered persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further
consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new interpretation of Claims 4 and 5.
The Examiner will address applicable arguments. NOTE: The Examiner wishes to offer appreciation to
the Applicant for the opportunity to provide improved communication/clarity.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
Examiner thus determining that the prior art products and methods are substantially identical in
regard to glass ceramic composition, crystallization processes and 3D forming processes of the
instant application (MPEP 2112.01) is improper, citing In re Rijckaert, In re Oelich, and Ex parte Levy.
The applicant provides evidence in Comparative Examples 16 and 17 in the specification where both
before and after 3D forming, the residual glass phase is 12% (i.e. does not increase). As such,
PHOSITA would not expect the concentration of crystal phases (unexpected results) to increase
when 3D forming after ceramming, when convention is residual glass phase decreases. Examples
13, 14 18A-18B, 18C-18D, 18F-18G, 19A-19F the emphasized feature of increases residual glass
phase after 3D forming.
Regarding Claims 4-5 the Applicant argues that,
The Office using the “maximum weight % value for each component, is used for Claims 3-7 where a
PHOSITA can convert wt% to mol% is improper.
Using the maximum amount for all ranges would add up to significantly more than 100
wt% and such a composition could not be achieved.
Conversion of wt% to mol% is not possible due to mol% dependence on identity of all
components. Second, molar ratio if correctly converted is not inherent in the disclosure of Beall.
Beall fails to identify the relevant result-effective variable of the features of Claim 4 and Claim 5,
citing E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008,
128 USPQ2d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and that he Courts have found that there is no result-
effective variable when there is no disclosure between the parameter to be optimized and the
relevant result (In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d, 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Regarding Claims 11-13 the Applicant argues that,
Rai fails to disclose, teach or suggest the features of Claim 1. Rai discloses crystallizing a pre-
nucleated glass in mold, where a PHOSITA would understand that combined
forming/ceramming would decrease the amount of residual glass phase. Further that teaches
preforming/post forming % crystalline phase of 15%/40%.
Rai fails to cure the deficiency of Beall. The Office cites Ex parte Rubin yet Ex parte Rubin is
directed to changing the order of the steps where the claimed invention reversed the order of
the steps. Rais discloses the order and combination of the method steps are important. The
rationale by Office is rebutted by the teachings of Rais itself.
Regarding Claims 14-20 the Applicant argues that,
Claims 14-20 include at least the emphasized features of Claim 1 that is in condition of
allowance and rejoinder is requested.
In response to the Applicant’s argument Regarding Claim 1 the Examiner replies ,
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination
of three different elements: i) the results must fairly compare with the prior art, ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope and iii) the results must truly be unexpected. (See MPEP §716.02) Applicant' s showing of allegedly unexpected results does not satisfy these requirements.
As noted, the Examiner has viewed the application as a whole. In interpreting Beall, the Examiner has indicated that after ceramming and after 3D forming, the wt% of the residual glass phase is 5wt% to 30wt%. All Examples in Table provide values for 2D ceram and 3D forming with the range of Beall. While Comparative Example 16 and Comparative Example 17 also provide for residual glass phase is 5wt% to 30wt% of Beall, Comparative Example 16 and Comparative Example 17 results are not “commensurate in scope” (Comparative Example 16 = Composition of Comparative Example 11; Comparative Example 17 = Composition of Comparative Example 17). The specification in Table 1, Comparative 11 and Comparative 12, provide for [Na2O] + [K2O]/ [Al2O3] and [Na2O] + [K2O]/ [ZrO2] outside the scope of the claims. The claims as a whole (specially claim 2) claim that within the scope of the claims, that the glass ceramic preform has a residual glass phase of 10wt% to 50wt% and that the glass article (after 3D forming ) has a residual glass phase from 15% to 50wt%. Beall discloses a glass ceramic preform/ glass ceramic article with a residual glass phase of 5wt% to 30wt%, which reads on the claims (overlapping ranges are prima facie case of obviousness). Hence, within the scope of the claims, Beall supports that he prior art products and methods are substantially identical in regard to glass ceramic composition , crystallization processes and 3D forming processes of the instant application. See MPEP 2112.01. Hence the argument is mute.
In response to the Applicant’s argument Regarding Claims 4-5 the Examiner replies ,
Regarding Claims 4-5 the Applicant argues that,
The Office using the “maximum weight % value for each component, is used for Claims 3-7
where a PHOSITA can convert wt% to mol% is improper.
Using the maximum amount for all ranges would add up to significantly more than 100
wt% and such a composition could not be achieved.
Conversion of wt% to mol% is not possible due to mol% dependence on identity of all
components. Second, molar ratio if correctly converted is not inherent in the disclosure of Beall.
The Examiner acknowledges the previous attempt to communicate mol% from Beall was not
straightforward as the Examiner communicated under the umbrella of compact prosecution. The
Examiner appreciates the opportunity to more clearly provide evidence for the Examiner position.
All references below are contained in the Excel file “Calculations wt mol ranges All 4 Ratio Conditions
Met”.
As the Applicant has rightly stated the sum of the highest wt% value of each composition component
would add to greater than 100 wt% for a composition. The Examiner intended this phrase to mean that
other constituents would not be at their highest value for the very reasoning provided by the Examiner.
Moving forward, it is understood that the composition of Beall in wt % (SiO2: 65-80%; Al2O3: 5-16%;
Li2O: 8-15%; Na2O: 0-3%; K2O: 0-3%; B2O3: 0-6%; ZnO: 0-2%; P2O5: 0.5-4%;ZrO2: 0.2-6%) cannot
encompass all compositions within all the stated ranges. Yer, there are compositions where the total
wt% of all components is 100% (i.e. 100g.)From this moles/mol% of each component can be
calculated. Further, all claimed ratios ((Na₂O+K₂O)/Al₂O₃; (Na₂O+K₂O)/ZrO₂; ZnO/Al₂O₃; ZnO/ZrO₂) can be
calculated for those 100wt%, or 100g compositions, and compared against the claimed values of the
same, as well as the claimed values for components in Claims 3-7 ( See All 4 Ration Conditions
Met, lines 12-16, 19-28). For Claims 3-7, in each case Beall compositions provide overlapping ranges to
support a prima facie case of obviousness. See Table I and Table II below:
Table I.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table II.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Respectful disagreement. The Examiner has not indicated Beall compositions required
optimization to meet the claimed composition ranges or the relative ratio ranges. Beall discloses
viable compositions that provide ranges of mol% that read on Claims 3-7 (anticipated
overlapping ranges which disclose the claimed range with sufficient specificity, MPEP 2131.03 ).
The ratio ranges of Claims 3-7 are calculations provided by the Examiner. There is no
requirement that prior art must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be
deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “[T]he reference need not satisfy an
ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In response to the Applicant’s argument Regarding Claims 11-13 the Examiner replies,
Rai is not relied upon to teach the features of Claim 1. Rai is relied upon to teach,
heating the glass ceramic pre-form to a forming temperature;
after heating, pressing the glass ceramic pre-form into a mold;
for a time period to produce the glass ceramic article;
and cooling the glass ceramic article;
and is not relied upon to teach level or crystallinity (or residual glass phase). Beall is relied upon
to teach residual glass phase. Further, specific compositions of Rai in Table 2 [0095] do not meet
mol% requirements for Claims 3-7 (notably Rai does not contain ZnO nor the level of P2O5 of
Beall) making any suggestion regarding the level of crystallinity/residual glass phase of Rai mute.
While the Examiner does not agree with the Applicant’s argument regarding Ex parte Rubin, the
Examiner states that the selection of any order of performing process steps, which includes
simultaneous process steps, is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results
See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) .
In response to the Applicant’s argument Regarding Claims 14-20 the Examiner replies,
As the argument for Claims 14-20 is the same as Claim 1, the Examiner response for Claims 14-
20 is the same as for Claim 1. The request for rejoinder is denied.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,809,488 by
Beall et. al. (herein “Beall”) and NPL “Calculations wt mol ranges All 4 Ratio Conditions Met” provided by
the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 1 - Beall teaches a method of forming a glass ceramic article, the method comprising three dimensional (3D) forming a glass ceramic pre-form to produce the glass ceramic article having a lithium disilicate crystalline phase, a petalite crystalline phase, and a residual glass phase wherein,
prior to 3D forming, the glass ceramic pre-form comprises the lithium disilicate crystalline phase, the petalite crystalline phase, and the residual glass phase; Col 1 lines 66-67, Col 2 line 1, Col 7 lines 46-47, Col 9 lines 46-47, Col 21 lines 55-58, “ glass-ceramic article having a petalite crystalline phase and a lithium silicate crystalline phase…”, “The lithium silicate crystal phase may be lithium disilicate…”, “…the glass-ceramic composition has a residual glass content…”, ““ The resultant glass ceramic...sheet…can then be reformed… into curved or bent pieces…”
and after 3D forming, the glass ceramic article comprises a concentration of the residual glass phase greater than a concentration of the residual glass phase in the glass ceramic pre- form.
Beall discloses prior to 3D forming, the concentration of the residual glass phase in the glass ceramic
pre-form; Col 9 lines 46-48, “…the glass-ceramic composition has a residual glass content of about 5 to
about 30 wt %...” but fails to disclose the concentration of residual glass phase after 3D forming greater
than the residual glass phase in the glass ceramic preform.
In viewing the instant application and references of Beall and Rai ( Claims 11-13) as a
whole, the prior art products and methods are substantially identical in regard
to glass ceramic composition , crystallization processes and 3D forming processes of the instant
application. MPEP 2112.01 - Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been
established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a
sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant
has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
Examiner Note: Beall cites a composition of a cerammed glass ceramic article (Col 4, lines 4-13)
in wt% as below:
SiO2: 65-80%;
Al2O3: 5-16%;
Li2O: 8-15%;
Na2O: 0-3%;
K2O: 0-3%;
B2O3: 0-6%;
ZnO: 0-2%;
P2O5: 0.5-4%;
ZrO2: 0.2-6%.
Here, the Examiner understands the cerammed glass article means either
the glass ceramic preform in the claims, or, as Beall notes,
as the resultant glass sheet (which is the glass ceramic preform) can be reformed into curved or
bent pieces (Col 21 lines 55-59)k , can also mean, with a broadest reasonable interpretation, the
glass ceramic article (which is the nomenclature in the claims used for the glass ceramic after 3D
forming). As such, attributes of the glass ceramic preform remain as attributes for the glass
ceramic article.
The composition of Beall provides specific claimed compositions and claimed ratio ranges that read on
Claim elements 3-7 below. See “Calculations wt mol ranges All 4 Ratio Conditions Met”, lines 12-
16 and 19-29. Beall provides overlapping ranges for Claims 3-7 below, where claimed range is
anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity” ( MPEP
2131.03).
Regarding Claim 2 - Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Beall teaches wherein,
prior to 3D forming, the concentration of the residual glass phase in the glass ceramic pre-
form is from 10 wt.% to 50 wt.%; Col 9 lines 46-48, “…the glass-ceramic composition has
a residual glass content of about 5 to about 30 wt %...”
and the glass ceramic article has the residual glass phase of from 15 wt.% to 50 wt.% after 3D
forming; Based on Examiner Note above, Col 9 lines 46-48, “…the glass-ceramic composition
has a residual glass content of about 5 to about 30 wt %...”
Regarding Claim 3 – Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Beall teaches wherein,
the glass ceramic article comprises Na2O, K2O, or both; Col 2, lines 61-67, continued Col 3
lines 1-4.
wherein,
a molar concentration of Na2O and K2O in the glass ceramic article is from 0.5 mol% to 9
mol%; 0-4.99%.
Regarding Claim 4 – Beall in the rejection of claim 3 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 3.
Beall teaches wherein,
the glass ceramic article has a molar ratio [Na2O + K20]/[Al203] of from 0.1 to 5; 0.109-1.635.
a molar ratio [Na2O + K20]/[ZrO2] of from 0.3 to 5; .331-1.648.
Regarding Claim 5 – Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Beall teaches wherein,
the glass ceramic article comprises one or more metal oxides selected from the group consisting
of ZnO, MgO, CaO, BaO, SrO, and combinations of these; Col 2, lines 61-67, continued Col 3
lines 1-4, “ ZnO 0.2-6%”.
and the glass ceramic article has a molar ratio [MgO+CaO+BaO+SrO+ZnO]/[Al203] of from 0.05
to 5; 0.08-.501
a molar ratio [MgO+CaO+BaO+SrO+ZnO]/[ZrO2] of from 0.1 to 5; .252-.505.
Regarding Claim 6 – Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Beall teaches wherein,
the glass ceramic article comprises from 0 mol% to 10 mol% B2O3; 0.00-5.305.
Regarding Claim 7 – Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Beall teaches wherein,
a composition of the glass ceramic article comprises from 55 mol% to 80 mol% SiO2; mol % 60.6-74.3
from 1 mol% to 15 mol% Al2O3; mol % 2.74-9.183.
from 10 mol% to 40 mol% Li2O; mol % 16.082-28.475.
from 0.2 mol% to 4 mol% P205; mol % 1.576-1.764.
and from 0.1 mol% to 10 mol% ZrO2; mol % 2.723-3.048.
Regarding Claim 8 – Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Beall teaches wherein,
the glass ceramic pre-form is ceramed prior to 3D forming the glass ceramic preform to produce
the glass ceramic article; Col 21 lines 55-58, Col 3 lines 28-29, 40-41“, “The resultant glass
ceramic...sheet…can then be reformed… into curved or bent pieces…”, ”…and ceramming the
glass composition to form a glass ceramic article.”
Regarding Claim 9 – Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Beall teaches further comprising preparing the glass ceramic pre-form prior to 3D forming the glass
ceramic pre-form to produce the glass ceramic article wherein preparing the glass ceramic pre-form
comprises,
ceraming a precursor glass to produce the glass ceramic preform comprising the lithium
disilicate crystalline phase, the petalite crystalline phase and the residual glass phase; Col 3 lines
39-42, Col 7 lines 46-47, Col 9 lines 46-47 “…and ceramming the glass composition to form a
glass-ceramic article comprising a petalite crystalline phase and a lithium silicate crystalline
phase…”,“The lithium silicate crystal phase may be lithium disilicate…”, “…the glass ceramic
composition has residual glass content…”
wherein,
the concentration of the residual glass phase in the glass ceramic pre-form is from 10 wt.% to 50
wt.%, Col 9 lines 46-48, “…the glass-ceramic composition has a residual glass content of about
5 to about 30 wt %...”
and the glass ceramic pre-form has a total concentration of crystal phases that is within 50% of a
total concentration of crystal phases in the glass ceramic article after 3D forming; Col 8 lines
46-51 outline petalite crystalline phases wt%. Col 8 lines 52-53, Col 9 lines 19 -23 outline
lithium disilicate crystalline phases wt%. Based on Examiner Note above, the total
concentration of crystalline phases before and after 3D forming would be essentially the same,
reading in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 10 – Beall in the rejection of claim 9 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 9.
Beall teaches wherein,
the ceraming the precursor glass to produce the glass ceramic pre-form; Col 4 lines 40-41,
“…ceramming comprises…”
comprises,
heating the precursor glass to a nucleation temperature; Col 4 lines 41-42 “heating the
composition to a nucleation temperature…”
of from 500°C to 650°C; Col 21, line 16 , “…the nucleation temperature can be 600°C…”
maintaining the precursor glass at the nucleation temperature for a first time period; Col 4 lines
42-43, “…maintaining the nucleation temperature for a predetermined period of time…”
of from 1 min to 600 min; Col 21 lines 1-2, “at the nucleation temperature for time in the range
from between about ¼ hr (30min) to about 4 hr (240min)”.
increasing a temperature of the precursor glass to a crystallization temperature; Col 4 lines 43-
44, “…heating the composition to a crystallization temperature...”
of from 680°C to 800°C; Col 21 lines 17-18, “…the crystallization temperature can be in a range
from 630°C to 730°C.”
and maintaining the precursor glass at the crystallization temperature for a second time; Col 4
lines 44-45, “maintaining the crystallization temperature for a predetermined period of time..”
of from 1 sec to 600 min to produce the glass ceramic pre-form; Col 21 lines 6-8, “maintaining
the nucleated crystallizable glasses at the crystallization temperature for a time in the range
from about ¼ hr (30min) to about 4 hr (240min) to produce the glass ceramic”.
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 11 -13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall et. al. and
in further view of USPGPUB 20200180992A1 by Rai et. al. (herein “Rai”).
Regarding Claim 11 – Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Beall teaches a glass ceramic pre-form can be bent into curved shapes, Beall does not
disclose wherein 3D forming the glass ceramic pre-form comprises,
heating the glass ceramic pre-form to a forming temperature;
after heating, pressing the glass ceramic pre-form into a mold;
for a time period to produce the glass ceramic article;
and cooling the glass ceramic article;
In a similar endeavor of 3D forming nucleated and crystallized glass ceramics, Rai teaches 3D forming a
glass article where the glass composition is selected such that resultant glass ceramic article has petalite
crystalline phase and lithium silicate crystalline phase [0058]. Further, an example where a precursor
glass [0065] is cut into a preform shape to take the shape of a mold ([0066], lines 25-27,) where the
precursor glass is placed on a mold and heated to a crystallization temperature (which is the same as the
forming temperature) to crystallize the glass, hence, having a glass ceramic preform at a forming
temperature ([0069], lines 1-6). Further, mechanical pressure may be applied to the mold during the
crystallization process ([0072], lines 1-3) where the crystallization temperature (forming temperature) is
held for a duration [0070], lines 1-2] and cooled to room temperature ([0071], lines 1-3). This example
is noted in [0115].
Rai discloses the claimed invention except for the separate step of heating the glass ceramic pre-form to
a forming temperature the separate steps of after heating/ pressing the glass ceramic pre-form. 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 method of Rai in the process of Beall, as one would be motivated to do so
for the purpose applying pressure to the glass during the crystallization process, which includes the
heating to a crystallization temperature in a broadest reasonable interpretation, to physically hinder the
movement and expansion of the glass within the mold as well as allow fast heating of the glass to the
crystallization temperature, as noted by Rai ([0072]. Further, in general, the transposition of process
steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent
in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex
parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
Regarding Claim 12 – Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Beall teaches further comprising,
strengthening the glass ceramic article after the 3D forming to produce a strengthened glass
ceramic article; Col 21 lines 55-58, Col 19 lines 37-38, “The resultant glass ceramic can be
provided as a sheet, which can then be reformed by…other means into curved or bent pieces”.
Here, the glass ceramic can be a sheet or the glass ceramic can be a curved article of glass.
“The ion exchange process or processes that are used to strengthen the glass and/or glass
ceramic…”
having a compressive stress layer extending from a first surface of the glass ceramic article to a
depth of compression; Col 19 lines 42-48, “ …the glasses and/or glass-ceramics may be ion
exchanged….to develop a surface compressive layer...The resulting compressive stress layer
may have a depth (also referred to as a “depth of layer”)”.
wherein,
the strengthened glass ceramic article has a compressive stress of the compressive stress layer
of greater than or equal to 200 MPa; Col 20, lines 3-5, “…the glass-ceramic can have
a surface compressive stress in a range from about 100 MPa to about 500 MPa”.
the depth of compression is from 0*t to 0.3*t, where t is a thickness of the strengthened glass
ceramic article; Col 17 lines 47-49, “ The resulting compressive stress layer
may have a depth (also referred to as a “depth of layer”) of at least 100um on the surface…”. As
there is a quantified depth of layer, the depth of compression for any glass thickness is greater
than 0*t.
or greater than or equal to 10% of the thickness of the strengthened glass ceramic article; Col
17 lines 36-41 “ The articles formed form the glasses and glass ceramics described herein can be
any thickness…anywhere from about…1mm or less”. 100um depth of layer is 10% of the
thickness of 1mm, where 1mm is a common thickness of glass sheet in industry.
While Beall discloses an ion exchange process to produce the above limitations of the instant claim,
and ion exchange as a PHOSITA would know produces central tension inherently with surface
compressive stress, Beall fails to disclose specifically,
and a central tension of greater than or equal to 40 MPa.
Rai further teaches an ion exchange process post 3D forming where the central tension (CT) is at least
100MPa. Rai discloses the claimed invention except for a central tension value for the composition of
Beall. Central tension is a result effective variable, presenting itself in conjunction with surface
compressive stress after ion exchange. 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 an optimized ion exchange process
of Rai, and therefore optimize the central tension, in the process of Beall , since it has been held that
discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One
would have been motivated to optimize the ion exchange process and central tension for the purpose
of, as PHOSITA would know, to balance tensile and compressive stress to maintain structural
equilibrium. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable
which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said
variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6
(CCPA 1977). Further, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables
such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ
215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 13 – Beall in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
As is common in the industry of the instant application and would be known by PHOSITA, volume
changes can occur when processing glass ceramic materials, yet Beall fails to disclose,
a total volume change of the glass ceramic article during forming is less than 1% of the glass
ceramic pre-form before the 3D forming.
Rai further teaches forming a glass ceramic article (for the purpose of compact prosecution, see Claim
11, lines 11-30). Further that the process “hinders the movement and expansion of the glass within the
mold”. By hindering expansion during forming, Rai is reducing the total volume change between before
and after 3D forming. Rai discloses the claimed invention except for the exact total volume change.
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 optimize the total volume change 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 parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a
showing of criticality. One would have been motivated to optimize (and this case,
minimize) the total volume change for the purpose of, as a PHOSITA would know, to maintain
dimensional stability or prevent cracking. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Conclusion
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
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
