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 1-15, in the reply filed on 12-19-2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12-19-2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, “the shape” should be --a shape-- since the element has not been previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes the following special definitions provided in the specification which are being referenced for interpretation of claim terminology:
“glass-based”, ¶ [0041]
“non-developable” curvature or curved shape, ¶ [0042]
“disposed on” and “disposed over”, ¶ [0044]
“coefficient of thermal expansion”, ¶ [0045]
“wrinkle”, ¶ [0046]
“glass transition temperature”, ¶ [0075]
“imaginary surface”, ¶ [0099]
“maximum compressive strain shape parameter”, ¶ [0246]-[0247], [0250]
“imaginary central surface”, ¶ [0248]
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 1-15 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 recites “the top surface” in line 10. Claim 1 previously recites “a top surface” of the mold in line 3, and “a top surface of the glass-based sheet” in line 4, and thus it is unclear which top surface line 10 is referring to. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as --the top surface of the mold--.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burdette ‘733 (US 2020/0262733 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burdette ‘733 teaches:
placing a glass-based sheet (glass sheet 12) over a mold (bending ring 16, Figs. 20-22; ¶ [0041]-[0042], [0065]), the mold comprising: a mold cavity (central cavity interior to support surfaces 112, Figs. 20-22), and a top surface (top surface of support surfaces 112, Figs. 20-22) defining a top perimeter edge of the mold cavity (top interior edge of support surfaces 112, Figs. 20-22)
placing a glass-based patch on a top surface of the glass-based sheet (glass sheet 14 with separation material 18 deposited thereon, placed on a top surface of glass sheet 12, Figs. 20-22; ¶ [0043])
heating the glass-based sheet and the glass-based patch to a reforming temperature such that the glass-based sheet and the glass-based patch deform into the mold cavity under gravitational force (Fig. 21; ¶ [0045]-[0046], [0065])
after deforming under the gravitational force, the glass-based patch comprises:
a first portion disposed over the top surface of the mold and conforming to a shape of the top surface (portion of glass sheet 14 disposed over the top surface of support surfaces 112, Fig. 21; ¶ [0065])
a second portion bent over the top perimeter edge of the mold cavity and disposed on the top surface of the glass-based sheet within the mold cavity (portion of glass sheet 14 disposed over the top interior edge of support surfaces 112 and central cavity interior to support surfaces 112, being bent into the upward concave shape, Fig. 21; ¶ [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Burdette ‘733 further teaches a bottom surface of the glass-based patch is not fixed to the top surface of the glass-based sheet such that the glass-based sheet and the glass-based patch can deform independently during reforming (¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 6, Burdette ‘733 further teaches the glass-based sheet and the glass-based patch are formed of the same glass composition (¶ [0078]-[0086] - wherein it is taught that the composition of the sheet and the patch can be the same of different).
Regarding claim 7, Burdette ‘733 further teaches the glass-based sheet is formed of a first glass composition comprising a first glass transition temperature, and the glass-based path is formed of a second glass composition comprising a second glass transition temperature, and wherein the first glass transition temperature is equal to the second glass transition temperature +/- 10°C (¶ [0078]-[0086] - wherein when the first glass composition is the same as the second glass composition, the first glass transition temperature would be equal to the second glass transition temperature).
Regarding claim 8, Burdette ‘733 further teaches the glass-based sheet is formed of a first glass composition comprising a first coefficient of thermal expansion, and the glass-based patch is formed of a second glass composition comprising a second coefficient of thermal expiation, and wherein the first coefficient of thermal expansion is equal to the second coefficient of thermal expansion +/- 10x10-7°C (¶ [0078]-[0086] - wherein when the first glass composition is the same as the second glass composition, the first coefficient of thermal expansion would be equal to the second coefficient of thermal expansion).
Regarding claim 13, Burdette ‘733 teaches that the glass-based patch is sized and positioned such that it is disposed on the entire top surface of the glass-based sheet (Figs. 20-22), and thus the glass-based path is necessarily sized and positioned such that it is disposed on the top surface of the glass-based sheet at any portion of the glass-based sheet that would develop a wrinkle during the reforming method in the absence of the glass-based patch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9-12, and 14-15 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Burdette ‘733 is considered to be the closest prior art.
Regarding claims 3-4, Burdette ‘733 teaches applying mechanical force to the glass-based patch toward the top surface of the mold, but it is not actually fixed relative to the top surface of the mold and may shift upon deformation, as from Fig. 20 to Fig. 21.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not fairly teach or suggest such a surface roughness. The prior art generally teaches significantly lower surface roughnesses for glass, and to minimize surface roughness.
Regarding claim 9, the perimeter edge of the glass-based sheet of Burdette ‘733 (sheet 12) does not have any portion disposed over the mold cavity.
Regarding claims 10-12, Burdette ‘733 teaches only a single glass-based patch (sheet 14), and it does not have a hollow center region.
Regarding claims 14-15, the prior art does not fairly teach or suggest the deformed glass-based sheet having a thickness uniformity of +/- 75 microns per 1000 mm2 of surface area on the first curved surface as claimed, particularly for a size of the sheet as claimed (60,000 mm2 or more) and formed by the method as claimed. The prior art also does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed maximum compressive strain shape parameter of greater than or equal to 3.0%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is related to reforming of glass-based sheets with concern for edge conditions of the sheets.
US 5,178,659
US 5,087,281
US 2,003,383
US 2019/0315647 A1
US 2018/0237326 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741