DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (US 2014/0356576, “Dejneka”) in view of Gomez et al. (US 2015/0336843, “Gomez”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Dejneka teaches a glass article comprising a composition that comprises 55 to 82 mol% SiO2, 3 to 30 mol% Al2O3, 0 to 10 or more mol% Na2O (e.g., Tables 1 and 2, [0009], [0010], 0 to 5 mol% P2O5, an amount of MgO, CaO, and ZnO of 0 to 5 mol%, and 0 to 4 mol% K2O ([0010] – [0014]). Dejneka teaches the article may have a thickness of less than 2 mm ([0013]). Dejneka additionally teaches that the ratio of Li2O to R2O may be on the range of less than 1 ([0011]). Dejneka teaches that the ratio of R2O, which may be considered to be Li2O and Na2O, to Al2O3 may be on the range of from 0 to 5 (e.g., if Na2O may be on the range of from 8 to 16 mol% and Al2O3 may be on the range of from 9 to 16 mol% then the ratio may be, for example, Table 1, see [0073]). The amount of RxO may be on the same order as the amount of Al2O3 (and thus RxO – Al2O3 may be on the range of from about 0 to about 5, see generally [0009] – [0012] wherein Na2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO may be on the order of 10 mol% plus 0 to 5 mol% and Al2O3 may be on the range of from 3 to 30 mol%). Further, the total amount of Na2O and Al2O3 may be greater than 15 and up to 35 mol % (see [0009] –[0012], [0022]). Dejneka teaches that B2O3 need not be included ([0009], [0026]). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05. Dejneka fails to specifically teach the claimed Knoop lateral cracking scratch strength. However, in the same field of endeavor of strengthened glass compositions ([0005]), Gomez teaches that it is known to adjust the strengthening process and composition of components so as to improve the Knoop scratch hardness of a glass article to greater than 12 N ([0019], [0024] – [0026], [0006], and also see Table 1, [0041], showing compositions having Knoop hardness of 4-6 N). It therefore would have been obvious to have adjusted the chemical strengthening of the glass in order to improve the Knoop lateral cracking scratch strength to greater than about 12N (or on the range of as low as 4 to 6 N) in order to provide a strengthened glass article of use in various applications, such as, for example, electronic devices (e.g., [0024] – [0026], [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dejneka additionally teaches that the amount of Li2O may be in an amount reading on from 0 to 18 mol% ([0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Dejneka additionally teaches that the amount of RxO may be on the same order as the amount of Al2O3 (and thus RxO – Al2O3 may be on the range of from about 0 to about 5, see generally [0009] – [0012] wherein Na2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO may be on the order of 10 mol% plus 0 to 5 mol% and Al2O3 may be on the range of from 3 to 30 mol%).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Dejneka additionally teaches that the article may have first and second surfaces and a thickness ([0013]) and a stress profile throughout the thickness (i.e., compression and tension forces, [0013]), surface compressive stress of at least about 400 MPa ([0023], [0047]) and a central tension of including the range of greater than 50 MPa ([0032], [0015], [0054], for example for a DOL of 150 micrometers for a 1 mm sample the CT = 300 MPa/((1-0.15)/0.15)=52 MPa, which is less than 80 MPa, consistent with claim 7), and a depth of compression (i.e., the depth of layer) may be greater than 45 micrometers, which would include, for example, 150 micrometers, and thus 0.15*t for a sample having a thickness of 1 mm ([0034], [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Dejneka additionally teaches that the central tension (i.e., maximum central tension) may be less than 80 MPa (see Table 2, [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Dejneka additionally teaches that the thickness of the glass article may be less than or equal to 1 mm ([0034], [0054]) and the depth of compression (i.e., the depth of layer) may be greater than 45 micrometers, which would include, for example, 150 micrometers, and thus 0.15*t for a sample having a thickness of 1 mm ([0034], [0054]). Dejneka additionally teaches that the compressive stress may be greater than 400 MPa ([0072]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Dejneka additionally teaches that the Knoop scratch test may be on the range of from 10N to 16N (Gomez, e.g., [0006], [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Dejneka additionally teaches that the glass (i.e., the unstrengthened central plane) may include greater than 5 mol% Li2O ([0010]).
Regarding claim 11, Dejneka additionally teaches that the glass (i.e., the unstrengthened central plane) may include greater than 10 mol% Na2O ([0009], [0073], Table 1).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Dejneka fails to specifically teach the inclusion of P2O5, however Gomez teaches that it is a common component in strengthened glasses and its inclusion therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art in order to modify the strength of the glass (Gomez, [0030], [0033]). Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element or compound for another that would have provided predictable results (in this case a strengthened glass composition, Gomez, [0030], [0033]) would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Please see MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 13, Dejneka additionally teaches that the compressive stress may be greater than 450 MPa and thus greater than 690 MPa ([0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/26/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that because Dejneka fails to disclose a relationship between Al2O3 and RxO amounts in a glass composition Dejneka cannot disclose the limitation that RxO-Al2O3 be from about 0 to 5. The Examiner must respectfully disagree. Dejneka teaches the inclusion of RxO components and Al2O3 components and teaches that they may each be included in a range of mole percentages. In doing this Dejneka teaches ranges for each of the RxO components and Al2O3 that would satisfy the relationship RxO-Al2O3 being from about 0 to 5. As described in the rejection, the sum of the amounts of RxO components (i.e., Na2O, Li2O, K2O which may be on the range of greater than or equal to 10, and MgO, CaO, ZnO, which may be from 0.5 to 8, [0009] –[0012]) may be equal to the range of inclusion of Al2O3 (to be included in an amount of from 3 to 30 mol%, e.g., [0009]). Therefore, the Examiner must maintain that Dejneka teaches embodiments wherein RxO-Al2O3 would be from about 0 to 5. Applicant rightly notes that the working examples of Dejneka do not provide for compositions that satisfy the limitation that RxO-Al2O3 be from about 0 to 5. But Dejneka also provides a broad range of RxO and Al2O3 amounts that are suitable for its glass composition and thus clearly must envision that its teachings are not limited only to the working examples. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Please see MPEP §2123.
The Examiner notes, with regard to the amounts of P2O5 to be included in the glass composition, these limitations were treated in the rejection of claim 12, as described above and in the office action of 11/3/25. While Dejneka fails to specifically teach the inclusion of P2O5, Gomez teaches that it is a common component in strengthened glasses. Its inclusion therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art in order to modify the strength of the glass (Gomez, [0030], [0033]). Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element or compound for another that would have provided predictable results (in this case a strengthened glass composition, Gomez, [0030], [0033]) would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Please see MPEP 2143.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, and 4-14 are rejected as described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782