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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 6-20 in the reply filed on March 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copies of the foreign priority applications to overcome any rejection herein because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
1. Claim(s) 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by WO2020138062 (rejection based on corresponding English document USPub20220041493).
Regarding claim 6 and 14-20: ‘493 teaches chemically strengthened glass comprising a base composition in mol%, 55-70% SiO2 (abstract, 0034), 8-20% Al2O3 (abstract, 0035) and 5-15% Li2O (abstract, 0037).
While they may not explicitly discuss their glass meeting the formulas and stress profile features in the manner laid out in claims 6 and 14-20, note the following.
Applicants’ glass is made with a base glass composition (see Applicants published specification par 0094-0095, 0162-0163, 0177-0178 claims 7, 11, 14 and 18) which is met by ‘493’s base glass composition (see’493 abstract, par 0034-0035, 0037, 0050-0053 for instance).
Applicants’ glass has a thickness of 0.02-0.8mm (Applicants’ publication 0159) and is chemically strengthened with a two-step method wherein each step utilizes salt compositions, temperatures and durations (see Applicants’ publication oar 0041, 0068-0088 and Examples within their Tables), which also appear to be substantially similar to ‘493’s thickness (0070) and chemical strengthening method which is also a two-step method utilizing similar salt compositions, temperatures and durations (see 0077-0079 and Examples).
Given the similarities between that of ‘493 and Applicants’ disclosed glass, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting formula criteria and stress features to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 7-13: Claims 7-13 include conditional limitations and more specifically, that the glass has certain features “when” having a thickness of 0.7mm. Note for the record that this does not require the prior art glass to teach 0.7mm thickness with the claimed features. Instead, it only requires the prior art glass to have the recited features “when” having a thickness of 0.7mm.
In the instant case, given the similarities between that of ‘493 and Applicants’ disclosed glass, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting features to result under the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
2. Claim(s) 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by USPub20220033299.
Regarding claim 6 and 14-20: ‘299 teaches chemically strengthened glass comprising a base composition in mol%, 52-75% SiO2, 8-20% Al2O3 and 5-16% Li2O (0089-0091).
While they may not explicitly discuss their glass meeting the formulas and stress profile features in the manner laid out in claims 6 and 14-20, note the following.
Applicants’ glass is made with a base glass composition (see Applicants published specification par 0094-0095, 0162-0163, 0177-0178 claims 7, 11, 14 and 18) which is met by ‘299 base glass composition (0089-0106 for instance).
Applicants’ glass has a thickness of 0.02-0.8mm (Applicants’ publication 0159) and is chemically strengthened with a two-step method wherein each step utilizes salt compositions, temperatures and durations (see Applicants’ publication oar 0041, 0068-0088 and Examples within their Tables), which also appear to be substantially similar to ‘299’s thickness (Examples) and chemical strengthening method which is also a two-step method utilizing similar salt compositions, temperatures and durations (see 0055-0079 and Examples).
Given the similarities between that of ‘299 and Applicants’ disclosed glass, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting formula criteria and stress features to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 7-13: Claims 7-13 include conditional limitations and more specifically, that the glass has certain features “when” having a thickness of 0.7mm. Note for the record that this does not require the prior art glass to teach 0.7mm thickness with the claimed features. Instead, it only requires the prior art glass to have the recited features “when” having a thickness of 0.7mm.
In the instant case, given the similarities between that of ‘299 and Applicants’ disclosed glass, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting features to result under the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
3. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by USPub20210371332.
Regarding claim 6: ‘332 teaches chemically strengthened glass.
While they may not explicitly discuss their glass meeting the formulas criteria in the manner laid out in claim 6, note the following.
Applicants’ glass is made with a base glass composition (see Applicants published specification par 0094-0095, 0162-0163, 0177-0178 claims 7, 11, and 18) which is overlapped by the base glass composition taught by ‘332, when ‘332’s compositions are converted to mol% (0025, 0066-0075 for instance).
Applicants’ glass has a thickness of 0.02-0.8mm (Applicants’ publication 0159) and is chemically strengthened with a two-step method wherein each step utilizes salt compositions, temperatures and durations (see Applicants’ publication oar 0041, 0068-0088 and Examples within their Tables), which also appear to be substantially similar to ‘332’s thickness (0042) and chemical strengthening method which is also a two-step method utilizing similar salt compositions, temperatures and durations (see 0088-0099 and Examples).
Given the similarities between that of ‘332 and Applicants’ disclosed glass, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting formula criteria and stress features to result (MPEP 2112).
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.
4. Claim(s) 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub20210371332 as applied to claim 6 above.
Note ‘332’s chemically strengthened glass comprises a base composition in mass% (see 0025, 0066-0078 and ‘332’s claim 12) that allows for compositions, that when converted to mol%, overlap with that of claims 7, 11, 14 and 18 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 7-13: Claims 7-13 include conditional limitations and more specifically, that the glass has certain features “when” having a thickness of 0.7mm. Note for the record that this does not require the prior art glass to teach 0.7mm thickness with the claimed features. Instead, it only requires the prior art glass to have the recited features “when” having a thickness of 0.7mm.
In the instant case, given the similarities between that of ‘299 and Applicants’ disclosed glass previously discussed from claim 6, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting features to result under the same conditions (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 14-20: Given the similarities between that of ‘332 and Applicants’ disclosed glass, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting formula criteria and stress features to result (MPEP 2112).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights