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 § 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(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 11,130,705 cited by Applicants.
Regarding claims 1: ‘705 teaches a chemically strengthened glass-based article (see Col. 6, lines 28-29) comprising first and second opposing surfaces defining a thickness (t) and a stress profile x that extends through the thickness in a direction normal to the first and second major surface (see entire document discussing stress created in the glass).
The glass has a first CS layer extending from the first surface to a DOC1, wherein DOC1 can be greater than 0.15t (Col. 29, lines 22-38), a second CS layer extending from the second surface to a DOC2, wherein DOC2 can equal DOC1 (see Col. 2, line 40, Col. 13, lines 51-52, Figure 4).
A central tension zone 130 is between the first and second CS layers (see Col. 2, lines 9-20, Col 13, lines 20--53 and Figure 4), it comprises a maximum tension (PT) (Col. 27, lines 56-67 bridged to Col. 28, lines 1-19) and a breadth of tension zone extending from DOC1 to t-DOC2 (see zone 130 in Figure 4).
Regarding the claimed stress features of claim 1, the following is noted.
Initially, the glass compositions (in mol%) disclosed and used in ‘705 overlap with (MPEP 2144.05) and can even be substantially the exact same with that used by Applicants (in mol%) as shown below.
Applicants
disclosure
(see Applicants’ claims 17-18 as well as the following citations)
‘705
Disclosure
(see the following citations
Applicants an example composition
(see Table 1 in spec)
‘705
an example composition
(see Ex 7 in Table 1)
SiO2
50-75
(spec 0186)
50-75
(Col. 31, lines 30-31)
58.38
58.35
Al2O3
10-25
(spec 0187)
10-22
(Col. 32, lines 8-9)
17.81
17.81
B2O3
1-11
(spec 0188)
1-7
(Col. 32, lines 30)
6.06
6.07
Na2O
0.5-15 or 1-10
(spec 0190)
1-18, 3-10, etc.
(Col. 33, lines 6-7, 11-12)
1.73
1.73
Li2O
5-15
(0189)
wherein Li2O>Na2O (spec 0190)
10.5-15
(Col. 32, lines 43-44 and 53-54)
10.74
Li2O>Na2O
10.74
Li2O>Na2O
Li2O/Na2O
≥1 and even ≥2
(spec 0198)
6.21
6.21
K2O
0-1
Spec 0191)
< 1
(Col. 33, line 31)
0.20
0.20
MgO
0-5
(spec 0192)
0-17.5
(col. 33, line 41-42)
4.43
4.43
CaO
0-5
(spec 0193)
0-4
(Col. 34, lines 7-8)
0.57
0.57
ZnO
0-3
(spec 0194)
None disclosed
0
0
SnO2
0-1
(spec 0195)
0-0.2
(Col. 34, lines 63-64)
0.1
0.08
Additionally, Applicants glass thickness can be 0.4-0.77mm (spec 0056) and ‘705 similarly teaches suitable glass thickness being 0.4-0.9 overlapping Applicants and even 0.6-0.7mm which falls within that disclosed by Applicants (Col. 13, line 6-10).
Further, Applicants’ glass is made by ion exchange using a mixed NaNO3/KNO3 salt with 8-9.5wt% NaNO3/ 90.5-92wt% KNO3 with examples such as 8wt% NaNO3/ 92wt% KNO3 (see spec 0292-0293 and Table 3) at various temperatures and durations such as 455C for 3.78 hours, 470C for 3.12 hours, 490C for 2.12hours, etc. (see 0292-0293 and conditions used in Table 3).
Similarly, ‘705’s chemically strengthened glass is made by ion exchange using a mixed NaNO3/KNO3 salt with ≥5wt% NaNO3/ ≤ 95wt% KNO3 such as using “about” 7wt% NaNO3/ “about” 93wt% KNO3 (see Col. 29, line 59 and 64 and Col. 30, lines 3-4) which overlaps Applicants’ salt composition mixture (MPEP 2144.05), and it is done at temperatures of 340-500C (Col. 30, line 23) and durations of 2-48hours (Col. 30, lines 35-36) overlapping the temperatures and durations disclosed by Applicants (MPEP 2144.05).
Note that although ‘705’s Example 7 composition may be produced by very specific ion exchange conditions 10 and 11 listed in ‘705’s Tables, it has been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to their Examples nor the conditions used in such Examples. Instead, a reference is limited to what it teaches as a whole. In the instant case, as discussed in the Office Action, ‘705 does as a whole disclose glass thickness overlapping Applicants, compositions overlapping Applicants and even a specific glass composition the same as Applicants’. Additionally, 705’s broad disclosure does disclose that the glasses of their invention can be made by ion exchange conditions (salt mixtures, temperatures and durations) overlapping that disclosed by Applicants’ and it would be well within the skill of the art to find it obvious to use the specific glasses of 705’s Examples and ion exchange them under the alternative conditions broadly disclosed therein (i.e. using 705’s broadly disclosed conditions instead of the conditions 10 and 11 of the Examples).
Given the similarities (substantial overlap of broadly disclosed compositions and even ‘705 disclosing the same composition of Applicants as well as the overlap of the ‘705’s thickness and processing parameters) between Applicants and that of ‘705, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting stress features to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 2: The peak tension can be greater than or equal to 90MPa (Col. 27, lines 56-67 bridged to Col. 28, lines 1-19).
Regarding claim 3: Given the similarities between Applicants and that of ‘705, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting stress features to results (MPEP 2112).
Alternatively, ‘705 does teach maximum tension (PT), KIC and thickness values that would allow for relationships overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05) (see Col. 10, lines 10-67 bridged to Col. 11, lines 1-37, Col 13, line 3-10, Col. 27, lines 55-67 bridged to Col. 28, lines 1-67).
Regarding claim 4: As discussed above, the thickness of the glass can be 0.4-0.9 or 0.6-0.7mm (Col. 13, line 6-10) but ‘705 additionally suggests suitable thicknesses being that which fall within the range recited in claim 4 (see Table 4).
Regarding claim 5: As discussed above, ‘705’s glass includes 10.5-15mol% Li2O and can even include 10.74mol%.
The glass can have a fracture toughness at claimed (see Col. 2, lines 18-20, 33-35 and Col. 10, lines 26-67).
Regarding claims 6: Given the similarities between Applicants and that of ‘705, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting stress features to results (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 7: ‘705’s glass has a frangibility factor as claimed (see Col. 2, line 18-20).
Regarding claim 8: The DOC can be as claimed (see Col. 29, lines 22-38).
Regarding claims 9-13 and 14: Given the similarities between Applicants and that of ‘705, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting stress features to results (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 15: The surface CS can be greater than 550MPa (Col. 27, line 19).
Regarding claim 16: ‘705’s glass can be a glass-ceramic as claimed (Col. 35, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 17 and 18: As discussed above, ‘705’s glass is formed by subjecting their glass to an ion exchange treatment and the glass comprises the following meeting that claimed.
‘705
Disclosure
(see the following citations
‘705
an example composition
(see Ex 7 in Table 1)
SiO2
50-75
(Col. 31, lines 30-31)
58.35
Al2O3
10-22
(Col. 32, lines 8-9)
17.81
B2O3
1-7
(Col. 32, lines 30)
6.07
Na2O
1-18, 3-10, etc.
(Col. 33, lines 6-7, 11-12)
1.73
Li2O
10.5-15
(Col. 32, lines 43-44 and 53-54)
10.74
Li2O>Na2O
Li2O/Na2O
6.21
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and Declaration filed May 11, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. However, for clarity of record, the Examiner would like to note that in view of the Declaration, the previous 102 rejection has been changed to a 103 making the present Office Action Non-Final and the Examiner would like to make following points in response to Applicants’ argument of inherency.
In summary, Applicants argue that the claimed invention is not inherent over ‘705 because the glass composition of ‘705’s Example 7 is made by ion exchange conditions 10 and 11 which as shown in their Declaration, would not arrive at the claimed stress parameters.
This is not persuasive. Initially, while the Examiner agrees that Applicants’ Declaration does indicate that ‘705’s Example 7 made using conditions 10 and 11 would not arrive at the conditions and thereby, the Examiner has withdrawn the 102 rejections, the claims would still be considered obvious in view of ‘705’s teachings as a whole absent some showing of criticality.
Specifically, note that although ‘705’s Example 7 composition may be produced by very specific ion exchange conditions 10 and 11 listed in ‘705’s Tables, it has been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to their Examples nor the conditions used in such Examples. Instead, a reference is limited to what it teaches as a whole. In the instant case, as discussed in the Office Action, ‘705 does as a whole disclose glass thickness overlapping Applicants, compositions overlapping Applicants and even a specific glass composition the same as Applicants’. Additionally, 705’s broad disclosure does disclose that the glasses of their invention can be made by ion exchange conditions (salt mixtures, temperatures and durations) overlapping that disclosed by Applicants’ and it would be well within the skill of the art to find it obvious to use the specific glasses of 705’s Examples and ion exchange them under the alternative conditions broadly disclosed therein (i.e. using 705’s broadly disclosed conditions instead of the conditions 10 and 11 of the Examples).
Given the similarities (substantial overlap of broadly disclosed compositions and even ‘705 disclosing the same composition of Applicants as well as the overlap of the ‘705’s thickness and processing parameters) between Applicants and that of ‘705, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting 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