DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 initially defines a thickness of “at least 0.5 mm.” The plain meaning of this range is that it is open to any thickness that is at least 0.5 mm such as 1.0 mm, 3.0 mm or 9 mm. Claim 1 subsequently defines a weight per unit area for the glass pane. The weight per unit area is defined for three thicknesses: 0.7 mm, 1.5 mm and 5 mm. The claim is unclear how the weight per unit area at each of the three thicknesses relates to the entire range of claimed thickness.
Perhaps claim 1 is limited only to a glass pane having one of the three thicknesses recited in the weight per unit area limitation (0.7 mm, 1.5 mm and 5 mm) and does not encompass a glass pane having other thicknesses (such as 1.0 mm, 3.0 mm or 9 mm). This interpretation conflicts with the manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the range of “at least 0.5 mm.”
Perhaps the weight per unit area limitation only applies when the thickness is 0.7 mm, 1.5 mm or 5 mm, and a glass pane having a thickness other than these three thicknesses can have any weight per unit area. This interpretation seems overly limiting for applicants’ invention.
Or, perhaps, one of ordinary skill in the art is supposed to interpolate or extrapolate the weight per unit area limitation at any thickness of 0.5 mm or above based upon the data points provided in claim 1 (i.e., the weight per unit area at 0.7 mm, 1.5 mm and 5 mm). However, this interpretation is not claimed or disclosed in the specification as a possibility.
Claim 5 defines a “basis weight” for each of the thicknesses recited in claim 1. The basis weight has the same units as the weight per unit area recited in claim 1. Is basis weight the same as or different than weight per unit area?
As to claim 10, a broad limitation together with a narrow or limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation of a borosilicate glass, and the claim also recites “preferable” composition including ranges of components which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
As to claim 11, a broad range together with a narrow range that falls within the broad range (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation of a temperature quenching strength of at least 170 K, and the claim also recites a preferable range of at least 175 K which is the narrower statement of the range. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, and 12-18 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The specification and claims employ surface fineness, surface fine waviness, and Wfpd interchangeably. See claims 1 and 2 and paragraphs [0028]-[0031] of the published specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Borofloat® 33 - General Information” (22 December 2022)(NPL1) as evidenced by “UQG Optics Data Sheet Schott Borofloat 33” (13 October 2021)(NPL2).
The below rejection relies upon “Borofloat® 33 - General Information” (22 December 2022)(NPL1) and “UQG Optics Data Sheet Schott Borofloat 33” (13 October 2021)(NPL2) which accompany this Action and are cited on the attached PTO-892. The references were downloaded from archive.org, and the examiner attached a screenshot showing the archive.org download date as the first page.
NPL1 discloses a glass having a size of 0.70 to 15.0 mm (including 5.00 mm) and a standard size of 2300 x 1700 mm (2.3 m x 1.7 m). See the tables on the last page.
NPL1 does not disclose the weight per unit area of the glass pane. NPL2 discloses Borofloat 33 has a density of 2.2 g/cm3. See NPL2, page 5, table regarding “Mechanical Properties.” A glass having a thickness of 0.7mm (as taught by NPL1) and a density 2.2 g/cm3 has a corresponding weight per unit area of 1.5 kg/m2:
0.7 mm glass x 1 m x 2.2 grams x 1 kg x (100)3 cm3 = 1.5 kg/m2
1000 mm cm3 1000 g 1 m3
A glass having a thickness of 5.00 mm (as taught by NPL1) and a density 2.2 g/cm3 has a corresponding weight per unit area of 11 kg/m2. These weights pere unit area fall within the claim 1 and 5 ranges.
Thus, NPL1 discloses a glass pane having a size of 0.7 mm to 15 mm, a size of 2.3 x 1.7 m, and a weight per unit area of (d0.7) of 1.5 kg/m2 and (d5) pf 11 kg/m2.
NPL1 fails to disclose the surface fineness, or Wfpd, of the glass sheet as recited in claims 1 and 2. This property is presumed to be inherent to the pane disclosed by NPL1 for the reasons that follow.
First, Borofloat 33 gets its name because it is made by “floating” the glass on a pool of liquid metal, which is known as the float process. The float process is the same method as employed in the present invention (see instant claim 14). Moreover, Borofloat 33 is made to have a surface that is mirrorlike with a high degree of flatness. See page 1, second full paragraph of NPL2.
As to claims 3 and 4, NPL1 discloses Borofloat comes in pane thicknesses such as 0.7 and 5.0 mm. See the tables.
As to claim 5, as described above, Borofloat 33 has a weight per unit area of 1.5 kg/m2 at 0.7 mm, and 11 kg/m2 at a thickness of 5.0 mm. These values fall within the claimed range.
The properties recited in claims 6 and 7 are presumed to be inherent to the Borofloat of NPL1 as evidenced by the transmittance curve on the top of page 13 of NPL2.
As to claims 8 and 9, Borofloat 33 as disclosed in NPL1 inherently has a density of 2.2 g/cm3 which falls within the claimed ranges. See NPL2, page 5, table regarding “Mechanical Properties.”
As to claim 10, Borofloat 33 as disclosed in NPL1 is a borosilicate glass. See the chemical composition box on page 1 of NPL1.
The properties recited in claims 11 and 12 are presumed to be inherent to the glass pane as disclosed in NPL1 because the glass is formed of the same glass composition as the instant invention (see instant claim 10), and is formed by the same method as the present invention (see instant claim 14). See the entirety of NPL1.
As to claim 14, NPL1 discloses Borofloat 33 is formed by the float process on page 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Borofloat® 33 - General Information” (22 December 2022)(NPL1) as evidenced by “UQG Optics Data Sheet Schott Borofloat 33” (13 October 2021)(NPL2) as applied to claim 1 above, an further in view of Vogl (US 2020/0238664 A1).
NPL1 anticipates claim 1 for the reasons described above. The reference fails to disclose chemically or thermally toughening the glass.
However, it is known in the art to thermally toughen a glass as described in Vogl. See paragraph [0181].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of filing to have thermally toughened the glass of NPL1 because the resultant glass will exhibit an increased strength.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Borofloat® 33 - General Information” (22 December 2022)(NPL1) as evidenced by “UQG Optics Data Sheet Schott Borofloat 33” (13 October 2021)(NPL2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pfeifer et al. (US 6,717,561 B1).
NPL1 fails to teach a pane composite or glazing as recited in claims 15-17.
Pfeifer teaches Borofloat is useful as a substrate glass (607) and a cover glass (609) in a liquid crystal display (i.e., glazing). See col 3, lines 24-37.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to at the time of filing to have incorporated Borofloat 33 into an LCD glazing as the front and/or rear glass. The rationale for doing so is that Pfeifer teaches Borofloat 33 as a material known to be suitable as a cover or substrate in an LCD. It has been held to have been obvious to have selected a known material based upon its suitability for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Further as to claims 17 and 18, there are only two options in employing the substrate of Borofloat 33 as a cover glass or back glass as suggested by Pfeifer: the air side faces the LCD unit or the tin side faces the LCD. It would have been obvious to have employed either of these scenarios in formulating an LCD in accordance with the teachings of NPL1 and Pfeifer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784