DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024, 07/31/2024, 03/27/2025, and 07/03/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains a limitation to a depth that is greater than or equal to 0.07t, and recites that the depth has “the same potassium (K) concentration as that at the center of the strengthened microcrystalline glass […]”. It seems as those the property that is intended to be claimed with this limitation is the minimum depth at which the potassium content returns to the potassium content present before ion exchange, i.e. that concentration still present in the center of the glass. However, this is not clear from the wording of the claim. Any depth measured from the surface to an arbitrary distance thereunder could constitute the depth, and as such one could choose a value wherein the concentration of potassium has returned to the center level, even if this is not the initial point at which the K value ceases to be increased. By way of illustration, one could choose a depth 0.5 t, and this value would inherently be the same as that in the center of the glass, but the depth would still constitute a value greater than 0.07 where this concentration property is present, and would thus meet the instant claim limitation.
Because the composition profile feature intended to be claimed is ambiguous due to the claim language, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claims 2-14 and 18-19 are indefinite under USC 112 as depending from claim 1 and therefore containing the indefinite limitations thereof.
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al (CN 115286251 A).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is drawn to a precursor microcrystalline glass that can be used to form the strengthened glass of instant claim 1 through a post-treatment. As such, any glass that, pre-strengthening treatment, meets the compositional and structural limitations of the instant claim would meet the patentably weighted claim limitations. Kang et al teaches a spinel-phase microcrystalline glass. An embodiment (example 11) is taught that comprises, in wt%, 31.5% SiO2, 36.5% Al2O3, 0.50% Li2O, 3.20% MgO, 2.3% B2O3, 7.00% Na2O, 11.50% ZnO, 0% BaO, 5.30% ZrO2, and 2.20% TiO2. A main crystal phase is a spinel and a secondary a crystal phase is zirconium dioxide. The spinel crystal phase is a zinc spinel, magnesium spinel, or mixed zinc-magnesium spinel that would be represented by a formula (Zn,Mg)Al2O4. The Kang et al microcrystalline glass has a crystallinity of 54% and is strengthened by ion exchange. As such, each compositional and structural limitation of instant claim 15 is met by the Kang et al teachings, and the Kang et al microcrystalline glass would be able to be formed into the strengthened glass of claim 1.
The dissociation energy U per unit volume of the Kang et al glass is not taught. However, as the composition and structure of the Kang et al microcrystalline glass are equivalent to those of the instant claim, the resultant dissociation energy property would also inherently be equivalent. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Each limitation of claim 15 is therefore met by the Kang et al teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, Kang et al teaches an embodiment that that comprises, in wt%, 31.5% SiO2, 36.5% Al2O3, 0.50% Li2O, 3.20% MgO, 2.3% B2O3, 7.00% Na2O, 11.50% ZnO, 0% BaO, 5.30% ZrO2, and 2.20% TiO2, wherein X according to the equation of the claim is 4.8, Y is greater than 0, and Z is 5.4.
Regarding claim 17, the equivalent glass-ceramic taught by Kang et al would inherently have equivalent properties, and would thus have a Young’s modulus value of 110 GPa or greater. Further, Kang et al teaches that the inventive microcrystalline glass has a secondary zirconium oxide crystal phase. The BaO content of the aforementioned Kang et al exemplary embodiment glass is 0 wt%.
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.
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 1-4, 6-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (CN 115286251 A) in view of Beall et al (US 2019/0161397 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kang et al teaches a spinel-phase microcrystalline glass. An embodiment (example 11) is taught that comprises, in wt%, 31.5% SiO2, 36.5% Al2O3, 0.50% Li2O, 3.20% MgO, 2.3% B2O3, 7.00% Na2O, 11.50% ZnO, 0% BaO, 5.30% ZrO2, and 2.20% TiO2. A main crystal phase is a spinel and a secondary a crystal phase is zirconium dioxide. The spinel crystal phase is a zinc spinel, magnesium spinel, or mixed zinc-magnesium spinel that would be represented by a formula (Zn,Mg)Al2O4. The Kang et al microcrystalline glass is strengthened by ion exchange, and necessarily has what can be considered high scratch resistance, “high” being a relative term with no set quantitative value. While said strengthening would lead to an ion exchange depth wherein, below said depth, the concentration of the exchanged element is the same as the center concentration, Kang et al does not teach an embodiment wherein the surface K2O concentration is 7.00 wt% or more. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kang et al in view of Beall et al in order to perform the ion exchange strengthening using various exchanged media, including 100% KNO3 and 100% NaNO3. Beall et al teaches an ion-exchangeable glass ceramic (microcrystalline glass) having the same zinc-magnesium spinel phase as that taught by Kang et al and the same ZrO2 secondary phase, and being used for the same cover glass applications. Beall et al teaches that the strengthening of the inventive glass-ceramic can be carried out with a 100% KNO3 bath (see Table 5 at page 24). As Beall et al teaches that such a strengthening treatment leads to advantageous improvements in properties such as damage resistance (see paragraph 0081), and as such one would have had motivation to use this KNO3 bath treatment with the Kang et al microcrystalline glasses to be strengthened.
Because this obvious modification of Kang et al in view of Beall et al would lead to a glass-ceramic that is equivalent compositionally to that of the instant claims, and is treated with an equivalent 100% KNO3 bath for a time and temperature disclosed in the instant Specification as leading to the claimed surface K2O concentration, the Kang et al in view of Beall et al glass-ceramic would also necessarily have an equivalent surface K2O concentration of at least 7.00 wt%. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, as above, Kang et al in view of Beall et al teaches a glass-ceramic (microcrystalline glass) that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims, and through equivalent ion exchange conditions, would have a surface layer also being equivalent. The resultant single-rod static pressure property would therefore necessarily also be equivalent to that claimed instantly, and would have a value of at least 450 N.
Regarding claim 3, as above, the equivalent glass-ceramic taught by Kang et al in view of Beall et al would necessarily have equivalent properties, and would thus have a Young’s modulus value of 110 GPa or greater.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned embodiment glass has a Vickers hardness of 814 kgf/mm2.
Regarding claim 6, Kang et al teaches that the inventive microcrystalline glass has a secondary zirconium oxide crystal phase.
Regarding claim 7, Kang et al teaches a translucent microcrystalline glass with a visible light transmittance of 0.1-65%. However, Beall et al teaches that the inventive microcrystalline glass is transparent through reduction in crystallite size (see paragraph 0062), and that the transparency makes the inventive material suitable for use as a cover glass for electronic device displays. As such, the teaching shows that transparency can be an advantageous property of spinel glass-ceramics. Thus, one of ordinary skill, when performing the obvious modification of Kang et al in view of Beall et as discussed above, would have also had motivation to form a transparent glass-ceramic according to Beall et al through grain size reduction. Each further limitation of claim 7 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8, as above, the equivalent glass-ceramic taught by Kang et al in view of Beall et al would necessarily have equivalent properties, and would thus have a scratch resistance such that no scratch results from the testing conditions specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Kang et al teaches an embodiment that that comprises, in wt%, 31.5% SiO2, 36.5% Al2O3, 0.50% Li2O, 3.20% MgO, 2.3% B2O3, 7.00% Na2O, 11.50% ZnO, 0% BaO, 5.30% ZrO2, and 2.20% TiO2, wherein X according to the equation of the claim is 4.8, Y is greater than 0, and Z is 5.4.
Regarding claim 10, the W value of the Kang et al embodiment discussed above is 3.10. However, the overlapping ranges for each component of the inventive microcrystalline glass as compared to the corresponding ranges of the instant claims are such that a W value of 3.00 or less would be arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization and experimentation. The claim is therefore obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11, in the aforementioned Kang et al exemplary embodiment, the Al2O3 value is 36.5 wt%.
Regarding claim 12, the BaO content of the aforementioned Kang et al exemplary embodiment glass is 0 wt%.
Regarding claim 13, Kang et al teaches embodiments wherein the inventive glasses are free of TiO2 and P2O5 (see paragraph 0082, example 3).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, Beall et al teaches that the ion exchange is performed according to a method meeting each limitation of the instant claim. The microcrystalline glass prepared thereby thus meets each limitation of claim 14.
Regarding claims 18-20, as discussed above, Kang et al teaches a microcrystalline glass meeting each limitation of instant claim 15, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kang et al in view of Beall et al. Beall et al teaches that the inventive glass-ceramics are used in electronic devices with microcrystalline glass component (microcrystalline glass covers), and as such the combined prior art teaches an electronic device meeting each further limitations of claims 18-20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a microcrystalline glass meeting each limitation of instant claim 1 and wherein the average grain size of the glass is less than or equal to 15.00 nm, and the crystal content of the microcrystalline glass is 20.00-50.00 wt%.
Conclusion
14. No claim is allowed.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW29 May 2026
Prosecution Insights