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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on December 1, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 14-29 are withdrawn for being directed to a nonelected invention. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and made final.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0301527 Poole et al.
Regarding claim 1, Poole teaches a dual-textured (paragraph 0002) glass article (paragraph 0005) comprising:
a glass substrate comprising a first major surface 202 and a second major surface, the first major surface opposite the second major surface (figure 2);
wherein at least a portion of the first major surface comprises a dual-texture, the dual- texture comprising a plurality of first features 430 and a plurality of second features 440, wherein the plurality of first features comprise protrusions from the first major surface and the plurality of second features comprise indentations in the first major surface and indentations in the plurality of first features (figure 4).
Regarding claim 2, Poole teaches that the plurality of first features are randomly arranged on the first major surface (figure 4, where while the figures may not be to scale, the figures lend guidance regarding the structure and arrangement of the features).
Regarding claim 5, Poole teaches that the plurality of first features have heights from 0.2 microns to 2 microns (paragraph 0035, 200 nm to 2 microns).
Regarding claim 13, Poole teaches a consumer electronic product 100 (paragraph 0039) comprising:
a housing having a front surface 102, a back surface 104, and side surfaces 106 (figure 1a and 1b);
electrical components provided at least partially within the housing, the electrical components including at least a controller, a memory and a display 160 (paragraph 0054), the display being provided at or adjacent the front surface of the housing (figure 2); and
a cover substrate 112 disposed over the display, wherein the cover substrate comprises the dual-textured glass article of claim 1 (paragraph 0045).
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.
Claims 4, 6-12 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0301527 Poole et al.
Regarding claim 4, Poole teaches that the plurality of first features have sizes of less than 50 microns (paragraph 0035 teaching that sizes are less than a pixel, and paragraph 0052 teaching that a pixel is 50 microns), wherein the size of the plurality of first features is a diameter of a smallest circle enclosing individual ones of the plurality of first features at the first major surface (figure 4). Poole teaches an upper limit of less than 50 microns. Since the claimed lower limit of 50 microns is close to the prior art upper limit of less than 50 microns, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have reasonably expected that the performance of feature size in the prior art range of less than 50 microns would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
Regarding claim 6, Poole teaches that a distance between first features is from 1 to 20 microns (paragraph 0060). Poole teaches an upper limit of 20 microns. Since the claimed lower limit of 50 microns is close to the prior art upper limit of less than 50 microns, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have reasonably expected that the performance of feature pitch in the prior art range of 1-20 microns would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
Regarding claim 7, Poole teaches that the plurality of second features have sizes from 5 to 200 nm (paragraph 0036), wherein the size of the plurality of second features is a diameter of a smallest circle enclosing individual ones of the plurality of second features at the first major surface (figure 4, assuming measurement of the second features is the same method as that of the first features). Poole teaches an upper limit of 0.2 microns. Since the claimed lower limit of 0.5 microns is close to the prior art upper limit of 0.2 microns, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have reasonably expected that the performance of feature size in the prior art range of 5-200 nm would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
Regarding claim 8, Poole teaches that the plurality of second features have depths from 5 to 100 nm (paragraph 0036, 0.005 to 0.1 microns). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 5 to 100 nm reads on the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.5 microns.
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 12, Poole does not explicitly teach the haze, sparkle or diffusion. However, these features are defined based on the interaction of light with the surface, and the desired feel of the product. Poole teaches that the first surface features are configured to provide an anti-glare property and the second surface features are configured to provide an anti-reflective property, and the first surface features may diffuse or scatter light reflected from the surface of the enclosure component, reducing glare and improving the ability to see through the enclosure component under certain lighting conditions (paragraph 0031).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific haze, sparkle and diffusion of the glass article is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method, the precise haze, sparkle and diffusion would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed haze, sparkle and diffusion cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the haze, sparkle and diffusion of the glass article to obtain the desired optical characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Regarding claim 10, Poole teaches that the first features define a surface roughness (paragraph 0035), but does not teach the value of the surface roughness.
However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed surface roughness, a result of the size of the features, does not impart patentability to the claims.
Furthermore, surface roughness affects the texture and feel of the surface by the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the surface roughness of the product to obtain the desired texture, whether smooth or rough.
Regarding claim 31, Poole teaches all of the limitations with respect to claims 6, 7 and 8 above.
Regarding claims 30 and 32, Poole teaches that the plurality of second features have depths from 5 to 100 nm (paragraph 0036, 0.005 to 0.1 microns). Poole teaches an upper limit of 0.1 microns. Since the claimed lower limit of 0.2 microns is close to the prior art upper limit of 0.1 microns, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have reasonably expected that the performance of feature size in the prior art range of 5-100 nm would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
Regarding claim 33, Poole teaches all of the limitations with respect to claims 9 and 10 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0301527 Poole et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2010/0279068 Cook et al.
Regarding claim 3, Poole teaches the dual-textured glass article, but is silent regarding the glass composition. One reading Poole as a whole would appreciate that Poole is not particularly concerned with the glass composition, only the structure of the features, and a suitable glass composition would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Cook teaches an embossed glass article with a composition (paragraph 0048) of:
60-72 mol% SiO2,
9-16 mol% A12O3,
0 mol% P2O5 (where Cook’s silence and “consists of” language suggests that this oxide is not present),
5-12 mol% B2O3,
0 mol% MgO (where Cook’s silence and “consists of” language suggests that this oxide is not present),
0 mol% ZnO (where Cook’s silence and “consists of” language suggests that this oxide is not present),
0 mol% Li2O (where Cook’s silence and “consists of” language suggests that this oxide is not present),
8-16 mol% Na2O,
0-4 mol% K2O, and
0 mol% TiO2 (where Cook’s silence and “consists of” language suggests that this oxide is not present).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught ranges of oxides listed above, read on the claimed ranges of oxides.
Poole teaches the dual-textured glass article, and Cook teaches the glass composition. The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the glass article with the composition of the claim performs differently when combined with the other elements than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results (MPEP 2141, Part III. KSR A: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results). As such using the composition of Cook for the article of Poole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781