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
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to LU501121, with a filing date of 12/29/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2024 and 11/01/2024 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 14-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a product (s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in reply filed on 01/23/2026.
The Examiner would like to communicate that International Search Report findings are not binding to National Stage Examination. Also, patentability standards vary between US Practice and International Practice. The application will be examined on its own merits under US Practice.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. The abstract contains purported merits, citing,
compositions are compatible with conventional rolling and float processes.
are transparent or translucent.
have high mechanical strength and fracture resistance.
the compositions are able to be chemically tempered to even higher strength glass ceramics.
are useful as large substrates in multiple applications.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Appropriate correction is required.
Further, The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,,10 – the claimed ranges for respective attributes are inclusive. Example: Claim 2 - residual glass phase of from 15 wt.% to 50 wt.% includes 15 wt.%, 50 wt.% values.
Regarding Claim 1 - The 3D forming may be interpreted as providing the ceramic article of any shape considered 3D and is not limited to further shape processing given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 3 recites “wherein the glass ceramic article comprises Na2O,K20, or both, wherein a molar concentration of Na2O and K20 in the glass ceramic article is from 0.5 mol% to 9 mol%”. The Examiner understands the molar concentration range of 0.5 mol% to 9 mol% to represent the sum of the molar concentration of Na2O and K20 in the glass ceramic article, i.e. [Na2O + K20].
The Claims only involve the active steps of 3D forming of the ceramic article as claimed.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 4 – wherein the glass ceramic article has a molar ratio [Na2O + K20]/[A203] of from 0.1 to 5, a molar ratio [Na2O + K20]/[ZrO2] of from 0.3 to 5, or both / wherein the glass ceramic article has a molar ratio [Na2O + K20]/[A203] of from 0.1 to 5 or a molar ratio [Na2O + K20]/[ZrO2] of from 0.3 to 5, or both.
Regarding Claim 5 – and combinations of these / and combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 8 - glass ceramic pre-form is ceramed / glass ceramic pre-form is cerammed.
Regarding Claim 10 – for a second time / for a second time period.
Regarding Claim 12 – comprising strengthening the glass ceramic / comprising a strengthening of the glass ceramic.
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”)
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 Examiner exerts 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 - 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 3-13)
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 above supports Examiner responses to Claims 2-7 below.
The above composition, at the maximum wt% value for each component, is used for Claims 3-7 where a
PHOSITA can convert wt% to mol%.
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%; 3.40 mol%
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]/[A203] of from 0.1 to 5; 0.511.
a molar ratio [Na2O + K20]/[ZrO2] of from 0.3 to 5; 1.648.
or both; addressed in limitation 1 and limitation 2 of the instant claim.
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; 0.157.
a molar ratio [MgO+CaO+BaO+SrO+ZnO]/[ZrO2] of from 0.1 to 5; .505
or both; addressed in limitation 1 and limitation 2 of the instant claim.
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; 3.654%.
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; 56.48%.
from 1 mol% to 15 mol% A12O3; 6.65%.
from 10 mol% to 40 mol% Li2O; 21.28%.
from 0.2 mol% to 4 mol% P205; 1.19%.
and from 0.1 mol% to 10 mol% ZrO2; 2.06%
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
Prosecution Insights