CTNF 18/380,710 CTNF 84281 DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2024 and 05/14/2024 are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-8, 11-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Click et al (US 2020/0017399 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Click et al teaches a glass composition and lithium silicate glass ceramic formed therefrom. Click et al teaches an embodiment comprising 70.52 mol% SiO 2 , 4.27 mol% Al 2 O 3 , 22.07 mol% Li 2 O, 0.05 mol% Na 2 O, 0.09 mol% K 2 O, 0.85 mol% P 2 O 5 , 1.97 mol% ZrO 2 , 0.15 mol% SnO 2 , and 0.02 mol% Fe 2 O 3 (see Table 1, Composition 1). This composition meets each compositional range limitation of the instant claim. The glass is formed into a glass-ceramic article having a crystalline phase and a residual glass phase. The crystalline phase comprises a lithium disilicate phase (see Table 3). Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated. Regarding claim 2 , Click et al teaches embodiments that are formed into glass-ceramic articles through crystallization treatments such that the lithium disilicate phase is present in a greater amount by wt% than the petalite sub-phase (see Table 3). Regarding claim 4 , Click et al teaches that the inventive glass-ceramic articles have haze values of 0.2 or less, and teaches that the haze value is measured in a thickness of 0.8 mm (see claim 1 and paragraph 0101). Regarding claim 5 , as discussed above, the glass-ceramic taught by Click et al has an equivalent composition to that of the instant claim and also has an equivalent crystalline phase content. This equivalent glass-ceramic article would thus inherently also have an equivalent lateral cracking resistance to that of the instant claims. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). The widest width of lateral cracking when subjected to scratch testing according to the parameters of instant claim 5 would thus be 125 µm or less. The further limitations of claim 5 are therefore met by the Click et al teachings. Regarding claim 6 , as above, the equivalent glass-ceramic article taught by Click et al would inherently have equivalent lateral cracking resistance, and would thus have a widest width of lateral cracking when subjected to scratch testing according to the parameters of instant claim 5 of 125 µm or less. Regarding claim 7 , the Na 2 O+K 2 O total in the aforementioned Click et al glass is 0.14 mol%. Regarding claim 8 , the Click et al glass-ceramic articles contain a petalite sub-phase (see Table 3). Regarding claim 11 , the Click et al glass-ceramic has a modulus of 95 GPa or greater (see claim 1). Regarding claim 12 , the Click et al glass-ceramic has a fracture toughness of at least 1.0 MPa·m 1/2 (see claim 1), and teaches embodiments wherein the fracture toughness is at least 1.1 MPa·m 1/2 , 1.2 MPa·m 1/2 , 1.3 MPa·m 1/2 , 1.4 MPa·m 1/2 , 1.5 MPa·m 1/2 (see paragraph 0041). Regarding claim 13 , Click et al teaches a glass composition and lithium silicate glass ceramic formed therefrom. Click et al teaches a starting glass embodiment comprising 70.52 mol% SiO 2 , 4.27 mol% Al 2 O 3 , 22.07 mol% Li 2 O, 0.05 mol% Na 2 O, 0.09 mol% K 2 O, 0.85 mol% P 2 O 5 , 1.97 mol% ZrO 2 , 0.15 mol% SnO 2 , and 0.02 mol% Fe 2 O 3 (see Table 1, Composition 1). This composition meets each compositional range limitation of the instant claim. Each limitation of instant claim 13 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated. Regarding claim 14 , the aforementioned Click et al embodiment has a Na 2 O/(Na 2 O+K 2 O) value of 0.36). Regarding claim 16 , Click et al teaches that the inventive glass-ceramic is formed from the starting glass composition by heating said glass in an oven at a rate of 5 °C/min to a nucleation temperature and holding for 4 hours, thereafter heating the nucleated glass article to a crystallization temperature at a rate of 5 °C/min and holding for 1 hour, and cooling the thus crystallized glass ceramic (see paragraph 0097). Click et al teaches a glass composition and lithium silicate glass ceramic formed therefrom that comprises 70.52 mol% SiO 2 , 4.27 mol% Al 2 O 3 , 22.07 mol% Li 2 O, 0.05 mol% Na 2 O, 0.09 mol% K 2 O, 0.85 mol% P 2 O 5 , 1.97 mol% ZrO 2 , 0.15 mol% SnO 2 , and 0.02 mol% Fe 2 O 3 (see Table 1, Composition 1). This composition meets each compositional range limitation of the instant claim. The glass-ceramic article formed as discussed above comprises a crystalline phase and a residual glass phase. Each limitation of instant claim 16 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated. Regarding claim 17 , Click et al teaches that the crystalline phase comprises a lithium disilicate phase and teaches embodiments that are formed into glass-ceramic articles through crystallization treatments such that the lithium disilicate phase is present in a greater amount by wt% than the petalite sub-phase (see Table 3). Regarding claim 18 , Click et al teaches strengthening the inventive glass-ceramic article through ion exchange in an ion exchange bath at a temperature of 470 °C for 2 hours or for 4 hours (see paragraph 0097) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Click et al (US 2020/0017399 A1) . Regarding claim 3 , the claim differs from Click et al as applied above because Click et al does not teach an exemplary embodiment wherein the K 2 O amount is 1.0 mol% or greater. However, Click et al teaches that the K 2 O content of the inventive glass ceramic is 0-2 mol% (see paragraph 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Each limitation of instant claim 3 is therefore met through routine optimization and experimentation with the Click et al range, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 15 , the claim differs from Click et al as applied above because Click et al does not teach an exemplary embodiment wherein the Na 2 O+K 2 O amount is 0.2-8 mol%. However, Click et al teaches ranges for the Na 2 O and K 2 O contents of 0-2 mol% each. As such, routine optimization and experimentation with the ranges for these two components would lead to a glass-ceramic having a combined amount of 0.2 mol% or greater. The further limitations of claim 15 are thus met by the prior art teachings. Regarding claim 19 , the claim differs from Click et al as applied above because while Click et al teaches performing an ion exchange treatment with time and temperature parameters meeting those of said claim, it does not teach an exemplary embodiment wherein a second ion exchange treatment is carried out. However, Click et al teaches that the inventive process encompasses ion exchange treatment schedules wherein more than one ion exchange cycles are carried out (paragraphs 0092 and 0093, wherein multi-step ion exchange processes are taught). From this teaching of multiple and repeat ion exchange steps, one of ordinary skill would have been able to arrive at a process wherein the multiple ion exchanges were carried out using the same parameters as taught in Click et al for the single step treatment. That is, the teachings render obvious a method wherein a first treatment is conducted in an ion exchange bath at a temperature of 470 °C for 2 hours or for 4 hours (as discussed above), and wherein the called-for second treatment is also carried out under these same conditions, said conditions also meeting the further limitations of instant claim 19. The Click et al teaching of multiple ion exchange treatments would lead one of ordinary skill to a method wherein the same treatment is repeated, and same treatment meets the limitations of instant claims 18 and 19. Each limitation of said claim 19 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Click et al (US 2020/0017399 A1) in view of Beall et al (US 10239780 B2) . Regarding claim 9 , the claim differs from Click et al as applied above because while Click et al provides Fig. 5 which appears to indicate a compressive stress line extending to values beyond 400 MPa as the line approaches the x=0, surface point, the scale of the y-axis ends at 400 MPa in stress, and thus it may not be possible to definitively determine if the actually surface compressive stress reaches 500 MPa. However, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Click et al in view of Beall et al in order to use surface compressive stress values taught therein. Beall et al teaches a similar glass-ceramic article that is of the lithium aluminosilicate system, and that has petalite and lithium silicate crystalline phases. Beall et al teaches strengthening the inventive glass-ceramic article through ion exchange, and teaches surface compressive stress value of 500 MPa and greater (see column 20, lines 30-32). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the Beall et al surface compressive stress values with the Click et al glass-ceramics because Beall et al provides an enabling teaching as to how to achieve such values using the same type of ion exchange strengthening as is taught by Click et al. Because the Click et al and Beall et al glass ceramics are equivalent in terms of composition and crystalline phase composition, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the aforementioned modification. Each limitation of claim 9 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 10 , the Click et al glass-ceramic has a maximum central tension of greater than 70 MPa (see Abstract). The depth of compression is most specifically taught as being in the range of 0.1t to 0.15t (see paragraph 0037). Click et al does not specify the depth of layer in terms of the depth of ion penetration to a minimum value. However, the aforementioned Beall et al document teaches an ion exchange treatment carried out at similar time and temperature conditions to that used in the Click et al method, and teaches the resultant depth of layer as exhibited by the plot of Na + concentration versus depth (see Fig. 5). As can be seen, Beall et al teaches that performing ion exchange under similar conditions to those of Click et al leads to a depth of layer greater than 2 µm, in that the Na concentration returns to the minimum value at a depth greater than 2 µm. Each limitation of claim 10 is therefore met by the teachings of Click et al in view of Beall et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct . Conclusion 11. No claim is allowed. 07-96 AIA 12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure . 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 NSW11 March 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/380,710 Page 2 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/380,710 Page 3 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/380,710 Page 4 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/380,710 Page 5 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/380,710 Page 6 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/380,710 Page 7 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/380,710 Page 8 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/380,710 Page 9 Art Unit: 1731