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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 11/30/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-19 and the cancellation of claim 20 (Group II) in the reply filed on 11/30/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da et al (WO 2019/218155 A1) in view of Ikeda et al (US 2019/0324177 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, and 13, Da teaches a chemically toughened glass article, comprising a glass having first surface, a second surface, and an edge connecting the first and second surfaces, the first and second surfaces being parallel to each other such that a first tangent line to the first surface has a first angle of 0° and a second tangent line to the second surface has a second angle of 180°; a chamfer structure at the edge, the chamfer structure having an averaged chamfer surface with a profile such that an angle (αxi) of a third tangent line to the averaged chamfer surface at any position on the averaged chamfer surface is in a range of from greater than 0° to less than 180°; and a chamfer height (H) of the chamfer structure that is defined as the projection of the segment spanning from the first surface to the second surface onto a line having an angle of 90° with both the first tangent line and the second tangent line (page 10-11; fig 1-5).
Da teaches its chemically toughened glass article comprises ultrathin glass with a thickness of less than 0.14 mm (i.e., 140 µm) (page 3). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Da, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Da teaches a first compressive stress region extending from the first surface to a first depth (DoL1), the first compressive stress region having a first compressive stress at the first surface of 100 to 2000 MPa and a second compressive stress region extending from the second surface to a second depth (DoL2), the second compressive stress region having a second compressive stress at the second surface of from 100 to 2000 MPa (page 6, 8).
Regarding the following limitations:
wherein the profile is such that for any segment spanning from a first position (xi) to a second position (xj) of the averaged chamfer surface and having an absolute value of a difference of the angles of the third tangent lines at the first and second positions is at least 90°, wherein the profile is such that a projection of the segment onto a line having an angle of 90° with both the first tangent line and the second tangent line has an extent that is at least 25% as compared to the central thickness;
a total chamfer height variation (TCHV) of the chamfer height (H) is defined as a difference of a maximum chamfer height (Hmax) and a minimum chamfer height (Hmin) along at least a portion of a length of the glass and/or a width of the glass divided by the average chamfer height (Havg) along the portion, wherein the portion is at least 25% of the length and/or the width;
a first ratio of (t*Havg)/TCHV that is at least 250 µm2;
wherein the profile is such that the angle (ax1) of the third tangent line at the first position (xi) is different from the angle (axj) of the third tangent line at the second position (xj);
wherein the average chamfer height (Havg) is from 35% to 100% of the central thickness;
wherein the total chamfer height variation (TCHV) is at most 0.75;
a fifth ratio of the thickness and the average chamfer height (Havg) that is from 1.2:1 to 10:1; and
a product of TCHV and t/Havg that is at most 1.00.
Da teaches the special designed chamfer shape can be produced by chemical etching, mechanical grinding, laser processing, wheel cutting or a combination of the above mentioned processing methods; and by adjusting the etching solution concentration, time, temperature, the chamfer shape can be controlled to reach the designed shape. (page 14, 15).
The teachings of Da would have suggested tone ordinary art at the time of invention that by adjusting treatment conditions of the chemically toughened glass article such as chemical etching, mechanical grinding, laser processing, wheel cutting or a combination of therein and by adjusting the etching solution concentration, time, and temperature the chamfer shape can be optimized, and therein, the difference of the angles of the third tangent lines at the first and second positions, the projection of the segment onto a line having an angle of 90° with both the first tangent line and the second tangent line extent as compared to the central thickness, the chamfer height (H) of the chamfer structure, the total chamfer height variation (TCHV), first ratio of (t*Havg)/TCHV, the fifth ratio, and product of TCHV and t/Havg; since all these variables are based on changing the shape of the chamfer of the chemically toughened glass.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to treatment conditions of the chemically toughened glass article such as chemical etching, mechanical grinding, laser processing, wheel cutting or a combination of therein; and adjust the etching solution concentration, time, and temperature to optimize the difference of the angles of the third tangent lines at the first and second positions, the projection of the segment onto a line having an angle of 90° with both the first tangent line and the second tangent line extent as compared to the central thickness, the chamfer height (H) of the chamfer structure, the total chamfer height variation (TCHV), first ratio of (t*Havg)/TCHV, the fifth ratio, and product of TCHV and t/Havg.
Furthermore, it is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the chemically toughened glass with the dimensions (i.e., chamfer size and shape) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Da fails to expressly suggest the following limitations:
a first compressive stress region having a first 60% depth (F60D) defined at a location where a concentration of ions exchanged into the first surface has decreased to 60% as compared to the concentration at the first surface;
a second compressive stress region having a second 60% depth (S60D) defined at a location where a concentration of ions exchanged into the second surface has decreased to 60% as compared to the concentration at the second surface;
a central portion having a central thickness equal to t-(F60D + S60D);
a second ratio of (F60D + S60D)/t that is in a range of from 0.01:1 to 0.5:1;
a third ratio F60D/S60D that is in a range of from 0.8:1 to 1.2:1; and,
a forth ratio of the first compressive stress and the second compressive stress in a range of from 0.8:1 to 1.2:1.
Ikeda teaches chemically toughened glass articles (para 38, 39, 56, 119); wherein examples of a method for forming a compressive stress layer a glass sheet include a method of immersing the glass sheet in a molten salt of NaNO3 or KNO3, then performing ion exchange treatment (chemical strengthening treatment), and cooling the glass sheet to around room temperature. Treatment conditions such as the temperature of the molten salt of NaNO3 or KNO3 and the immersion time may be set so that the surface compressive stress and the thickness of a compressive stress layer have desired values.
The teachings of Ikeda would have suggested tone ordinary art at the time of invention that by adjusting treatment conditions of the chemically toughened glass article such as the temperature of the molten salt of NaNO3 or KNO3 and the immersion time the compressive stress and thickness (i.e., depth) of the compressive stress regions, and therein, the central portion thickness, second, third, and forth ratios may be optimized.
Therefore, per Ikeda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the treatment conditions such as the temperature of the molten salt of NaNO3 or KNO3 and the immersion time of the glass fused to form the chemically toughened glass article of Da to optimize its compressive stress and thickness (i.e., depth) of the compressive stress regions, and therein, the central portion thickness, second, third, and forth ratios, the profile of angle (ax1) of the third tangent line at the first position (xi) as compared to at the second position,
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Da as modified by Ikeda would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious the method of making, structure, and composition of the chemically toughened glass article of the instant claims, therefore it is deemed to possess the properties of the instant claims.
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). “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). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 11, Da teaches the ultrathin glass may be made by the direct hot forming method for superior surface roughness (page 2, which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the first surface and/or the second surface has a surface roughness (Ra) of at most 1 nm. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to etch or polish the surface of the chemically toughened glass to optimize the properties of feel and appearance of the chemically toughened glass.
Regarding claim 14, Da teaches a glass wherein the glass comprises components (in wt.-%) of SiO2 (40-75), Al2O3 (10-30) and Li2O + Na2O + K2O (4-30) (page 18-19). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Da, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
The proportion (wt-%) being “0” reads as an optional claim and need not be taught by the prior art of Da.
Regarding claims 15-18, Da teaches the chemically toughened glass article for an improvement in impact resistance comprises at least one at one surface a coated or laminated polymer layer (e.g., polyimide or material that has a Young’s modulus of 2.5 GPa), which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the laminated layer covers 100% of one side of the article (page 29-30).
Regarding claim 19, Da teaches its chemically toughened glass article may be used in, and therein configured for use in, display covers (page 30-31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Polyimide (MIT) (2026) establishes known properties of polyimide. Technical Glasses teaches down-draw and up-draw (i.e., direct hot forming processes) are capable of manufacturing lass with a roughness of less than 1 nm (page 36, § 8.3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783