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 statement (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2024 is 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 19-20 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 19 contains limitations to “the first ion exchange bath” and “the second ion exchange bath”, but claim 15 from which the claim depends does not contain any reference to ion exchange bathes or to any ion exchange process. There is thus not proper antecedent basis for these limitations, and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Similarly, claim 20 contains limitations to “the first ion exchange bath” and “the second ion exchange bath”, but claim 15 from which the claim depends does not contain any reference to ion exchange bathes or to any ion exchange process. There is thus not proper antecedent basis for these limitations, and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
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 1-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross (US 2020/0180999 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gross teaches an ion exchangeable glass comprising SiO2, Al2O3, Na2O, MgO, CaO, and total RO content in amounts each falling within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim. Exemplary embodiments are taught comprising in mol%:
60.8 SiO2, 16.0 Al2O3, 4.9 P2O5, 16.1 Na2O, 2.0 MgO, 0.0 ZnO, 0.1 SnO2, 0.0 CaO;
60.9 SiO2, 15.8 Al2O3, 4.9 P2O5, 15.8 Na2O, 2.5 MgO, 0.0 ZnO, 0.1 SnO2, 0.0 CaO;
60.8 SiO2, 16.0 Al2O3, 5.0 P2O5, 16.1 Na2O, 2.0 MgO, 0.0 ZnO, 0.1 SnO2, 0.0 CaO;
60.3 SiO2, 15.6 Al2O3, 5.0 P2O5, 15.9 Na2O, 3.0 MgO, 0.0 ZnO, 0.1 SnO2, 0.1 CaO;
59.9 SiO2, 15.7 Al2O3, 5.0 P2O5, 16.3 Na2O, 2.9 MgO, 0.0 ZnO, 0.1 SnO2, 0.1 CaO;
60.7 SiO2, 15.4 Al2O3, 4.9 P2O5, 15.9 Na2O, 2.9 MgO, 0.0 ZnO, 0.1 SnO2, 0.1 CaO;
60.3 SiO2, 15.5 Al2O3, 5.4 P2O5, 15.8 Na2O, 3.0 MgO, 0.0 ZnO, 0.1 SnO2, 0.1 CaO;
60.2 SiO2, 15.5 Al2O3, 4.9 P2O5, 16.4 Na2O, 2.9 MgO, 0.0 ZnO, 0.1 SnO2, 0.1 CaO.
See Table 2, examples 19, 20, 25, 30, 33, 34, 35, and 38.
As can be seen, each aforementioned embodiment meets each compositional limitation of the instant claim, and the glasses are free of Li. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, as shown above, Gross teaches embodiment glasses comprising 16 mol% or greater Al2O3.
Regarding claim 3, as shown above, the Gross embodiment glasses comprise 7-18 mol% Na2O.
Regarding claim 4, as shown above, the Gross embodiment glasses comprise 0-13 mol% MgO.
Regarding claim 5, as shown above, the Gross embodiment glasses comprise 0-13 mol% CaO.
Regarding claim 6, the RO contents of the Gross embodiment glasses are in the range of 1-25 mol%.
Regarding claim 7, the (Na2O+RO)/Al2O3 ratios for the exemplary embodiment glasses shown above are, respectively, 1.13, 1.15, 1.13, 1.21, 1.23, 1.2, 1.21, and 1.25.
Regarding claim 8, as shown above, Gross teaches embodiment glasses comprising 0-5 mol% P2O5.
Regarding claim 11, Gross teaches glass compositions wherein each limitation of instant independent claim 1 is met, and wherein further the glasses comprise SnO2 in an amount of greater than 0 to 1 mol% (see Table 2, examples 17-21).
Regarding claim 12, Gross does not specify the Young’s modulus values of the inventive glasses. However, because the glasses are compositionally equivalently to those of the instant claims, as shown above, said glasses would also inherently also have equivalent strength properties such as Young’s modulus. The modulus values of the Gross glasses would thus be 60 GPa or greater.
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).
Regarding claim 13, Gross does not specify the fracture toughness values of the inventive glasses. However, because the glasses are compositionally equivalently to those of the instant claims, as shown above, said glasses would also inherently also have equivalent strength properties such as fracture toughness. The fracture toughness values of the Gross glasses would thus be 0.75 MPa·m1/2 or greater.
Regarding claim 14, Gross teaches glasses having strain points of greater than 600 °C (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, Gross teaches glasses meeting each compositional limitation of the instant claim. Gross teaches that the glasses are produced by melting by heating. Cooling inherently occurs as the melt returns to room temperature. Each limitation of claim 15 is therefore met by the Gross teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Claims 1-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al (US 2019/0362754 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sato et al teaches an ion exchangeable glass. Exemplary embodiments are taught wherein the glasses comprise, in mol%:
53.89 SiO2, 16.98 Al2O3, 9.95 MgO, 7.98 CaO, 8.98 Na2O, 2.00 TiO2, 0.15, SnO2, 0.07 CeO2;
53.89 SiO2, 16.97 Al2O3, 9.95 MgO, 5.99 CaO, 8.98 Na2O, 4.00 TiO2, 0.15, SnO2, 0.07 CeO2;
53.44 SiO2, 16.80 Al2O3, 12.78 MgO, 2.95 CaO, 8.87 Na2O, 3.94 TiO2, 0.87, SnO2, 0.35 CeO2.
See Table 1-4, examples 38-40.
As can be seen, each aforementioned embodiment meets each compositional limitation of the instant claim, and the glasses are free of Li. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, as shown above, Sato et al teaches embodiment glasses comprising 16 mol% or greater Al2O3.
Regarding claim 3, as shown above, the Sato et al embodiment glasses comprise 7-18 mol% Na2O.
Regarding claim 4, as shown above, the Sato et al embodiment glasses comprise 0-13 mol% MgO.
Regarding claim 5, as shown above, the Sato et al embodiment glasses comprise 0-13 mol% CaO.
Regarding claim 6, the RO contents of the Sato et al embodiment glasses are in the range of 1-25 mol%.
Regarding claim 7, the ratio (Na2O+RO)/Al2O3 for the second exemplary glass shown above is 1.47.
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned Sato et al glasses comprise SnO2 in amounts falling within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, the Sato et al glasses have Young’s modulus values greater than 60 GPa.
Regarding claim 13, Sato et al does not specify the fracture toughness values of the inventive glasses. However, because the glasses are compositionally equivalently to those of the instant claims, as shown above, said glasses would also inherently also have equivalent strength properties such as fracture toughness. The fracture toughness values of the Sato et al glasses would thus be 0.75 MPa·m1/2 or greater. 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).
Regarding claim 14, Sato et al does not specify the fracture toughness values of the inventive glasses. However, because the glasses are compositionally equivalently to those of the instant claims, as shown above, said glasses would also inherently also have equivalent strength thermal properties such as strain point. The strain points of the Sato et al glasses would thus be 600 °C or greater.
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 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 2020/0180999 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the claim differs from Gross as applied above because while Gross teaches performing ion exchange for a period of up to 24 hours, Gross only teaches embodiments wherein the ion exchange is conducted at 410 °C, and not at a temperature of 500 °C or greater. However, Gross further teaches that the inventive ion exchange process may be carried out at temperatures of greater than 500 °C (see paragraph 0064), even though only a single temperature value is actually used in said exemplary embodiments. Because the full teachings of Gross would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use a method wherein the further limitations of the claim are met, through use of the full temperature range taught by Gross, the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 18, Gross teaches that the inventive glasses have compressive stress values of greater than 350 MPa and less than 900 MPa (see Table 2), and that the depth of compression is 75 µm or greater (see paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 19, Gross teaches performing ion exchange in a KNO3 salt bath (see paragraph 0064).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2019/0362754 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the claim differs from Sato et al as discussed above because Sato et al does not teach any exemplary embodiments comprising Y2O3 in an amount within the range of the instant claim. However, Sato et al does teach that Y2O3 can serve to improve chemical durability and alkali resistance (see paragraph 0054). As such, routine optimization and experimentation with the overlapping Sato et al range would lead to a glass comprising Y2O3 in an amount within the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.. Each limitation of claim 9 is met by the Sato et al teachings, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10, the claim differs from Sato et al as discussed above because Sato et al does not teach any exemplary embodiments comprising ZrO2 in an amount within the range of the instant claim. However, Sato et al does teach that ZrO2 can serve to improve chemical durability and enhance Young’s modulus (see paragraph 0055). As such, routine optimization and experimentation with the overlapping Sato et al range would lead to a glass comprising ZrO2 in an amount within the range of the instant claim. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. Each limitation of claim 10 is met by the Sato et al teachings, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 2020/0180999 A1) in view of Lee et al (KR 101398140 B1).
Regarding claim 17, the claim differs from Gross as applied above because Gross teaches ion exchange strengthening through a single stage process wherein treatment in only one salt bath is employed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gross in view of Lee et al in order to use the two-step ion exchange treatment taught therein to strengthen the glasses. Lee et al teaches an ion exchange protocol for chemical strengthening of an aluminosilicate glass comprising a first immersion into a 50% KNO3-50% NaNO3 bath at 500 °C for 6 hours, and a second treatment in a KNO3 bath at 390 °C for 2 hours (see paragraphs 0037-0041). Lee et al teaches that this treatment allows for control of the compressive stress and ion penetration depth independently and enhancing the resultant properties of the glass. This teaching would provide motivation to one of ordinary skill to use the Lee et al two-step process for the strengthening called for by Gross, and in doing so would constitute a process wherein a second exchange is done under conditions meeting the further limitations of instant claim 17. As such, the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al teaches that the inventive method comprises a first bath and a second bath containing KNO3.
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al teaches that the inventive method comprises a second bath containing NaNO3.
Conclusion
16. No claim is allowed.
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
18. 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
NSW3 July 2026
Prosecution Insights