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 .
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor (or a joint inventor) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification, as originally filed, fails to provide ipsis verbus written support for the formula:
Na2O concentration (mea) x Na2O concentration(base)
Na2O concentration (centers)
Nor is the examiner able to ascertain how it possible for one of ordinary skill in the art to derive the formula from paragraphs [0037], [0150] or [0173] of the instant specification.
Paragraph [0173] states that Na2O concentration (centers) is taken as Na2O concentration(base): “An Na2O concentration at a specific depth was calculated by proportionally converting counts of the entire sheet thickness into the Na₂O concentration in mol%, assuming that the average count at the thickness center portion (500xt) ± 25 µm (sheet thickness t [mm]) corresponded to a Na2O concentration in a base composition of a chemically strengthened glass.”
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim 9 formula, (Na2O concentration (mea)/ Na2O concentration(centers)) x Na2O concentration(base), is indefinite. The specification states Na2O concentration (centers) is taken as Na2O concentration(base): “An Na2O concentration at a specific depth was calculated by proportionally converting counts of the entire sheet thickness into the Na₂O concentration in mol%, assuming that the average count at the thickness center portion (500xt) ± 25 µm (sheet thickness t [mm]) corresponded to a Na2O concentration in a base composition of a chemically strengthened glass.” In such a case, Na2O concentration(centers) = Na2O concentration(base) and the values cancel out so that the result is Na2O concentration(mea) = Na2O concentration (mea).
Moreover, one cannot calculate a value for Na2O concentration(mea) (i.e., Na2O concentration (90) or Na2O concentration (50) without an indication of what the formula equals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekiya et al. (WO 2022/181812 A1).
The rejection is based upon WO 2022/181812 A1 with a publication date of 01 September 2022. However, the English language equivalent, US 2023/0391666 A1, will be cited below.
Example 3 of Sekiya is a chemically strengthened glass having the following characteristics:
Profile Characteristic
Claimed Value
Value in Sekiya
Location in Sekiya
Relevant claim
Thickness (t)(mm)
0.7
Table 1
DOC (µm)
at a thickness of 0.70 mm, claim 1 requires a DOC of 190 x 0.7 = 130 µm or more
130
Table 3
1
CS90
at a thickness of 0.70 mm, claim 2 requires a CS90 of 5 + 50 x 0.7 = 40 MPa or more
57
Table 1
2
ICT (MPa µm)
27420
Table 1
CS90/ICT (µm-1)
≥ 0.0012
0.002
Calculated
1
CS50
132
Table 1
DOC/CS50 (µm/MPa)
≥ 0.8
1.0
Calculated
3
CS90/CS50
≥ 0.30
0.43
Calculated
4
CS0 (MPa)
≥ 750
843
Table 1
7
Set drop strength (cm)
≥ 40.5 cm
72
Table 1
8
An example falling within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03. In each instance in the table above, the article of Example 3 of Sekiya has stress profile characteristics that fall within the claimed ranges.
Claim 1 was amended to recite the depth of compression DOC is 190t or more. One of ordinary skill in the art would limit the resultant, calculate value to two significant figures because “190” has two significant figures. Thus, if a glass has a thickness of 0.70 µm, the claimed DOC must be 130 µm or more, because 190x0.70 = 130 µm when considering two significant figures.
As to claim 5, the first order differential (i.e., derivative) of the stress profile is the instantaneous slope of a tangent line to the curve. The stress profile of Example 3 of Sekiya is shown in Figure 2B. All points on the line in Figure 2B, example 3 (where CSx is greater than 0) have a tangent with a negative slope (i.e., < 0). Therefore, the first derivative is less than 2.
The properties of claim 6 are presumed to be inherent to the article of Example 3 of Sekiya because the article has a stress profile that is otherwise identical to the presently claimed invention and the rate of change shown in the stress profile in Figure 2B for example 3 is very small.
Further as to claims 5 and 6, the stress profile of Sekiya is measured using a scattered light photo elastic stress meter. See paragraph [0205]. Further as to claim 7, Sekiya teaches using a film stress measurement to measure the surface stress. See paragraph [0032].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to the anticipation rejection of claims 1-8 over Sekiya, applicants argue that amended claim 1 recites a DOC of 190t [µm], and requires a DOC of 133 µm or more. As noted above, the result of the formula 190t was interpreted to be limited to two significant figures and Sekiya discloses a DOC of 131 µm in Table 3. 131 µm is 130 µm when considering two significant figures.
As to the anticipation rejection of claim 9 over Dejneka, applicants argue Dejneka fails to disclose the ΔNa90/Na2O in the base composition when calculated as recited claim 9. As best as the examiner can ascertain, this argument is persuasive with respect to the indefinite language of claim 9, and the rejection is withdrawn.
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 David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 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, 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights