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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/26 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are pending examination, claim 6 has been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-5, and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al (US 2019/0367410; hereafter Jin) in view of Marusak (US 3410673; hereafter Marusak) and Lee et al (US 2018/0297892; hereafter Lee).
Claims 1 and 14: Jin teaches a method for manufacturing a glass article for a display device (see, for example, abstract, Fig 4-5, [0003], [0124], [0139]), the method comprising:
providing a LAS-based glass (See, for example, abstract, [0111-119]);
a first step of immersing, comprising a first ion exchange process, the LAS-based glass in a first molten salt (such as a first ion exchange bath) (See, for example, [0102-0103], [0127-0128]);
a second step of immersing, comprising a second ion exchange process, the LAS-based glass subjected to the first step in a second molten salt (such as a second ion exchange bath (see, for example, [0102], [0106],[0128], [0131]);
wherein a concentration in the first molten salt of first cations (such a Na) ranges from about 33.7mol % to about 28.4 mol %, and a concentration of second cations ranges from about 66.3 mol % to about 71.6 mol %, based on the total number of moles of cations in the first molten salt (see, for example, [0103], [0128], as converted from the explicit range of 25wt% NaNO3 / 75% KNO3 to 30wt% NaNO3 / 70% KNO3; further inclusive of any / all subranges and endpoints). If such a recitation does not already anticipate the claimed range alternatively in case of conversion error, the ranges at [0103] / [0128] at least overlap those of applicant, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a concentration within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)),
wherein a concentration in the second molten salt of first cations (Na) ranges from about 5.9 mol % to about 10.5 mol %, and a concentration of second cations (K) ranges from about 89.5mol % to about 94.1 mol %, based on the total number of moles of cations in the second molten salt (see, for example, [0106], [0131] as converted from the explicit range of 4wt% NaNO3 / 96% KNO3 to 9wt% NaNO3 / 91% KNO3 further inclusive of any / all subranges and endpoints). If such a recitation does not already anticipate the claimed range, alternatively in case of conversion error, the ranges at [0106] / [0131] at least overlap those of applicant, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a concentration within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Jin does not explicitly teach a third step of immersion, comprising a third ion exchange process, as claimed. Marusak teaches a method of ion-exchanging LAS based glass (see, for example, fig 1-2, abstract). Marusak further teaches a multiple bath ion exchange process including baths comprising mixtures of NaNO3 and KNO3 (see, for example, col 3 line 65-col 4 line 12, and Example III-IV). Marusak further teaches wherein following ion exchange in the second bath comprising the mixed Na/ K salts, performing a third ion exchange immersion in a third molten salt of pure KNO3 (~100 mol%) for “a relatively short period of time”, such as an exemplary embodiment at 5 minutes, resulted in reduced bath contamination, and a significant improvement in impact strength (See, for example, col 3 line 65-col 4 line 46 and Example IV). Marusak further teaches wherein the duration is result effective influencing the degree of exchange and the temperature of exchange (see, for example, col 3 line 20-col 4 line12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated performing a third ion exchange immersion process in a third molten salt of pure KNO3 (~100mol%) for “a relatively short period of time” following the second bath / step, since such an additional treatment would predictably reduce bath contamination and improve impact strength. As “preferably not exceeding about 5 minutes” / 5 minutes has been supplied as a further narrowed value / species of “a relatively short period of time”; it establishes that “a relatively short period of time” is broader genus and would naturally extend beyond 5 minutes, claimed terms “about 6 minutes”, further “about 7 minutes” prefaced with “about” suggest inclusion of some degree of variance from these values, thus considering the span upward from 5 for the genus of “a relatively short period” and the downward span below 6 /7 from “about”, the prior art appears to anticipate the claimed range. Alternatively, for sake of argument otherwise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a duration within the range of about 6 minutes to about 9 minutes, further about 7 to about 8 minutes, since discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980), 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and/ or 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. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner,778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Jin in view of Marusak do not explicitly teach performing a stress relieving process after a first ion exchange process, and before a second ion exchange process. Lee teaches a method of ion-exchanging glass articles (see, for example, abstract). Lee further teaches a multiple bath ion exchange process including baths comprising mixtures of NaNO3 and KNO3 (see, for example, [0098-0101], [0121], [0168],Fig 4-5). Lee further teaches wherein after a first ion exchange process and before a second ion exchange process, a stress relieving process is performed at a temperature 500°C or more, further 530oC, for about 2 hrs as it relieves surface compressive stress, increases the compression depth, and lowers central tension allowing the thinner articles improved reliability, durability, and stability (See, for example, [0005-6], [0073-74], [0091], [0110], [0015], [0113-0115], [0124], [0140], [0143-144], [0150], [0163-0164], Fig 4). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated performing a stress relieving process at a temperature 500°C or more for about 2 hrs between first and second ion exchange processes since it would predictably relieve surface compressive stress, increase the compression depth, and lower central tension allowing thinner articles improved reliability, durability, and stability.
Marusak further teaches wherein the temperature of the bath temperature during ion exchange is result effective influencing the degree of exchange and the duration of exchange, and can vary from temperature close to strain point to 200oC below (see, for example, col 3 line 20-col 4 line 12). Jin further teaches wherein the temperature of strengthening steps influences the exchange and are commonly conducted at from 350 to 420oC (see, for example, [0105], [0108], [0127], [0130]). Although no exemplary embodiment is taught wherein the third strengthening is performed at a temperature of about 370oC to about 390oC, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980), and since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claims 2-3 Jin further teaches wherein the first cations comprise smaller, further sodium ions, and the second cations comprise larger, further potassium ions (see, for example, [0103], [0128]).
Claim 4: Jin further teaches wherein the first step comprises a first strengthening step performed for about 30 minutes to about 120 minutes at a temperature of about 360° C. to about 410° C inclusive of any / all subranges and endpoints (see, for example, [0104-0105], [0129-130]). If such a recitation does not already anticipate the claimed ranges of about 90 minutes to about 240 minutes at a temperature of about 385° C. to about 405°; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated values within the claimed ranges since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 5: Jin further teaches wherein the second step comprises a second strengthening step performed for about 10 minutes to about 30 minutes at a temperature of about 380° C. to about 390° C inclusive of any / all subranges and endpoints (see, for example, [0107-0108], [0132-0133]). If such a recitation does not already anticipate the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated values within the claimed ranges since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 7: Jin further teaches wherein each of the first molten salt and the second molten salt comprises at least one of sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate (see, for example, [0103], [0106], [0128], [0131]), and wherein Marusak has taught the third molten salt comprises potassium nitrate (see, for example, col 4 lines 3-12, and example, IV).
Claim 8: Jin in view of Marusak and Lee teach the method of claim 1 above, and Jin further teaches wherein the resulting strengthened LAS-based glass is desired to have a maximum compressive stress greater than 1000 MPa (see, for example, [0136]). Although such a range is not explicitly a range of about 986.6 MPa to about 1248.1 MPa as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a MCS within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 9: Jin in view of Marusak and Lee teach the method of claim 8 above, and Jin further teaches wherein the ion-exchange process is performed with the desired stress profile in mind (see, for example, [0074]). The stress profile of a strengthened glass would be a resulting property of strengthening process. As the process of the prior art has performed three distinct exchange processes, involving different cation concentrations / chemistries including wherein the concentration of smaller cation (Na) decreases with each iteration); each would result in penetration depth, diffusion properties, and contribution to resulting stress profile. In light of these differences, the resulting overlay / combination of these three distinct and different diffusive processes would inherently yield two points of transition / inflection per exposed surface (in part dictated by points of intersection of each diffusive process), thus when considering a cross section there would occur at least four points of inflection. Alternatively, as the explicitly recited steps of the claimed process resulting in a stress profile has been taught by the prior art, including the three distinct ion exchange processes including the same salts in the same order (NaNO3 / KNO3 then NaNO3/KNO3 , then KNO3), within the same concentrations, resulting in the same Na and K ion exchange (wherein Na due its small radius would exchange deeper than the K) behavior; the resulting property of the stress profile including at least four inflection points is believed inherent ( Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim 10: Jin in view of Marusak teach the method of claim 8 above, and Jin further teaches wherein the strengthened LAS-based glass has a compression depth of about 120 μm to about 180 μm, inclusive of any / all subranges and endpoints (See, for example, [0135]). If such a recitation does not already anticipate the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a compression depth within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 11: Jin in view of Marusak teach the method of claim 8 above, and Marusak teaches wherein the addition of KNO3 ion exchange processing improves the sample breakage height when ball impact testing (See, for example, Example V). The critical drop height of a strengthened glass would be a resulting property of strengthening process. As the explicitly recited steps of the claimed process resulting in a strengthened and more impact resistant glass sample have been taught by the prior art, including the three distinct ion exchange processes including the same salts in the same order (NaNO3 / KNO3 then NaNO3/KNO3 , then KNO3), within the same concentrations, resulting in the same Na and K ion exchange behavior; the resulting property of a critical drop height within the claimed range is believed inherent ( Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). Alternatively as the prior art is explicitly aware of optimizing for impact strength by drop height, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such a value within the claimed range since discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 12: Jin further teaches wherein the LAS-based glass comprises a silicon dioxide in a range of about 58 mol % to about 65 mol %, an aluminum oxide in a range of about 11 mol % to about 20 mol %, a sodium oxide in a range of about 6 mol % to about 18 mol %, and a lithium oxide in a range of about 0.1 mol % to about 10 mol %; based on oxide (see, for example, [0111-119]; inclusive of any / all sub ranges and endpoints). If such a recitation does not already anticipate the claimed composition range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a compression depth within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 13: Jin in view of Marusak and Lee teach the method of claim 1 above, and Marusak further teaches wherein it is well known in the art that substrate removed Li ions generated during the exchange process enter the bath and harm the effectiveness of the bath over time, resulting in requiring the purification or replacement of the bath (See, for example, col 3 lines 43-65). The method of Marusak has led to a reduction in the frequency at which the bath must be exchanged, thus minimizing associated costs (see, for example, col 4 line 1-12). Although the prior art does explicitly teach the frequency of replacement of the third bath occurs about every 30 times of use, the prior art has established that there exists an economy in duration of bath use; namely, too short leads to higher costs, while too long yields detrimental results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the third molten salt about every 30 times of repeated since discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980), and “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 14, filed 3/26/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the previously applied 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of the claims; therefore this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/26 with respect to the art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg 8-10) that “Marusak’s ‘preferably not exceeding about 5 minutes’ positively teaches away from your claimed 7-8 minute duration in the pure KNO3 bath” and such a teaching is a “one-sided upper limit”. The examiner asserts that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). While the preferred embodiment appears to express an upper limit of “about 5 minutes”; the recitation of “a relatively short period of time” directly preceding this preferred range establishes that “a relatively short period of time” is a broader genus and would thus extend beyond “about 5 minutes” therefrom and is an explicitly acceptable and suitable duration, and alternative to the preferred about 5 minutes, for achieving the desired outcome; thus it is not hard capped, and does not teach away from the closely adjacent durations of claimed lower endpoints of “about 6” or “about 7” as presently claimed in claims 1 and 14 respectively.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (pg 9-10) (“Marusak does not disclose or suggest the claimed temperature range, “about 370 to about 390oC” for the third step”, “Marusak’s explicit third-bath example is at 450oC” one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The rejection of these claims is not over Marusak alone, thus it is not required to teach each and every limitation. As described in the rejection the argued temperature limitation it taught by the knowledge gleaned from a combination of prior art. The examiner maintains that both Marusak and Jin have established wherein temperature of ion exchange processes is well known as an established results effective variable. Jin further provides a general teaching wherein ion exchange processes are commonly conducted at temperatures of from 350 to 420oC (see, for example, [0105], [0108], [0127], [0130]). Thus the examiner maintains reliance upon the combination of prior art is apt with respect to the argued limitation.
Applicant argues establishment of criticality of the claimed ranges of “about 6 minutes to about 9 minutes” (claim 14) and “about 7 minutes to about 8 minutes” (claim 1) based upon evidence at [0168-0171] and Table 1 of the specification. Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing because they are not accompanied by a showing of evidence of secondary considerations commensurate in scope with the claims, and further to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The data provided in the original disclosure only appears to provide information at a single data point within / at an endpoint (7 minutes). Further, this data appears to be obtained by testing on a singular type of glass sample (chemical composition, size / dimensions), singular formulations for each ion exchange bath (chemistry, concentration, mode of preparation, etc), singular ion exchange conditions for each exchange (duration, temperature, mode, etc), and undisclosed intervening of following processes. Further these actual singular settings (beyond the third bath containing KNO3) are not clearly provided preventing adequate comparison to the claimed scope. Meanwhile, the claimed formulation is open to any LAS glass of any composition / concentration of elements, size / dimension, etc; any bath ion species / precursors and over any claimed concentrations; at any first and second exchange temperatures and durations; and over any values of temperature, duration of the third exchange process. As such there is no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions / materials / conditions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the one unique combination tested (MPEP 716.02(d)); so the Applicant’s assertion of unexpected results / criticality are unconvincing.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
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 NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights