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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener et al. (WO 2021/063834, with US 2022/0220021 as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, and 8, Wegener teaches a glass article for display glass (cover substrate), such as for mobile phones (Wegener para 2). It is noted that “for an electronic device” is intended use of the ‘cover substrate,’ and is not given patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.02(II).
Wegener further teaches that the glass may comprise a composition of 40-75 wt% SiO2, 10-30 wt% Al2O3, 0-20 wt% B2O3, and >0-30 wt% Li2O + Na2O + K2O, with 9-16 wt% Na2O (Wegener para 46-48). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Wegener overlaps with the instantly claimed compositional proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
As the glass of Wegener has the same glass composition as claimed, and as some of the material being present from recycling is a product-by-process limitation, there is no clearly claimed or defined structural difference between a cover substrate with greater than 1% post-consumer recycled cover substrate and the taught display glass of Wegener.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Wegener teaches a display glass as above for claim 1. The glass has a thickness of 500 µm (0.5 mm) or less, with specific examples of 50, 55, 70, 80, 100, 130, 145, 160, 175, 190, 210, 280, or 330 microns (Wegener para 74). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03. Further, as there is a thickness, and as Wegener further teaches that the glass may be a band or film, it would intrinsically follow there would a first and second primary surface opposite the other (Wegener para 74).
Regarding claim 7, Wegener teaches a display glass as above for claim 1. Further, because Wegener teaches the claimed materials and the claimed thickness (as illustrated for claims 2-4, above) it would be expected to possess the same material properties as claimed, such as the instant axial transmission of greater than 90% for a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation between 420 and 800 nm. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or 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), see MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rinehart (US 3,357,876).
Regarding claim 6, Wegener teaches a display glass as above for claim 1. Wegener further teaches that there may be lithium oxide and phosphorous oxide within the glass (Wegener paras 68-71); Wegener also teaches that the glass may be chemically strengthened to provide a compressive stress region/layer (Wegener para 53-55).
However, Wegener only teaches Na+ -> K+ exchange.
Wegener and Rinehart are related in the filed of glasses with lithium and phosphorous oxides to be chemically treated to provide a compressive stress layer. Rinehart teaches ion exchange of lithium with sodium to provide a surface layer with improved strength and a fine break pattern (Rinehart col 3, ln 8-17) and a higher concentration of sodium ions at the surface of the glass than the core/base glass (Rinehart col 4, ln 15-29). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to chemically strengthen the glass of Wegener that possesses lithium ions to exchange them for the larger sodium ions as taught by Rinehart because this provides improved compressive stress, load strength, and a fine break pattern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 2/21/25