DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on June 29th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 29th, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The term “intensity” of claims 1-3 is considered equivalent to concentration and/or number or an equivalent thereof.
The term “LAS glass-ceramic” is considered equivalent to lithium aluminosilicate glass (whether the ceramic/crystallization is specified or not). It would be helpful if Applicant spelled out the term and left the abbreviation in parenthesis, like “lithium aluminosilicate (LAS) glass-ceramic”.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the ratio range claimed is unclear. The ratio range of hydrogen ions at a depth of 30 nm from the surface to that of the surface is stated to be equal to or greater than 1:4. However, it is unclear due to the nature of the ratio is the ratio should greater (i.e. 1:2 or 1:1) or the difference between the numbers should be greater (set forth in claim 2, which fixes this aspect of claim 1).
Furthermore, open ended ranges with no natural or inherent endpoint (i.e. the natural endpoint of a range less than 40% would inherently be 0% or an emissivity of greater than 0.5 would inherently be 1) with no explicit support for the entirety of the range are often considered indefinite under current practices.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear which alkali ions comprise the alkali ions. While lithium, sodium, and potassium are known alkali ions set forth in the specification, it is unclear which are being measured/detected and whether this would further include rubidium, cesium, or francium which are not disclosed. Claims 4-5 at least partially elucidate this issue.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether ratio is in reference to each of the alkali ions to the hydrogen ions detected/present or a combined intensity of alkali ions to the hydrogen ions present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Dersch et al. (Hydrogen/lithium interdiffusion in a lithium aluminosilicate glass studied by NRA and RBS) (hereinafter “Dersch”), in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dersch.
Regarding claims 1-5, Dersch teaches lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic (LAS/SiO2-Li2O-Al2O3), wherein the samples used additionally contain TiO2 and ZrO2 [pg. 329, 2.1 Glass Samples], which are important materials for household appliances [pg. 329, 1. Introduction], wherein a plate of 2 mm in thickness is tested with different levels of hydrogen ion diffusion into the surface forming a hydration layer wherein the hydrogen ions are replacing the lithium ions, wherein the Sample 1 is untreated, Sample 2 is treated such that a hydration layer extends to a depth of less than about 20 nm, Samples 3 and 4 comprising hydration depths much deeper, wherein for Sample 2 the balance between the surface intensity of hydrogen (~8 atom%) to a depth of about 30 nm being estimated to be between about 2.5 atom% (1:3.2) and about 1 atom% (1:8) [pg. 330 & Fig. 2], the intensity of lithium at the surface is estimated to be about 0.25-0.5 atom% and at 30 nm is estimated to be about 4-5 atom% (giving a calculated ratio range of 1:0.05 to 1:0.125, wherein the hydration layer if not inherently anticipating the claimed invention would have been optimizable such that the hydration layer depth may be lengthened or shortened to obtain the correct ratios as desired for possible coloration, wherein when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I. Furthermore, 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). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dersch, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0002103 A1) (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 6-7, Dersch does not teach a foldable glass having a thickness within the claimed range.
Wang teaches a lithium aluminosilicate glass [0041-0042], for white home appliances [0024. 0126], wherein the glass having a thickness of less than 0.5 mm/500 µm, such as 0.1 mm/100 µm [0038, 0131, claim 1] that is flexible enough to have a bending radius of less than 150 mm (foldable) [0109-0110].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a hydration layer to a flexible/foldable glass substrate having a thickness within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a home appliance with a beneficial lithium aluminosilicate covering.
Claims 1-2 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tomozawa et al. (Hydrogen-to-alkali ratio in hydrated alkali aluminosilicate glass surfaces) (hereinafter “Tomozawa”), in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tomozawa.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Tomozawa investigated the relationship between hydrogen and alkali ions after water treatment, wherein their concern was about alkali leaching leading to losses in mechanical strength [pg. 3546, 1. Introduction], wherein experimental glasses consisting of a ternary alkali aluminosilicate system, one example of which is pure lithium aluminosilicate glass (LAS/SiO2-Li2O-Al2O3), wherein lithium demonstrated the least amount of intrusion forming a shallow and non-constant/gradient concentration which needed further optimization/study [pg. 3547, 3. Results] and longer exposures at higher temperatures increased gradient depth and a larger sample surface area to water volume ratio (container size) effecting the initial concentration levels at the surface, wherein the initial concentration close to the surface, wherein the initial values of hydrogen intensity the surface were about 7-8 x1021 atoms/cm3 and about 0.25-2.5 x1021 atoms/cm3 at depths of about 30 nm from the surface in the sample treated in destilled water at 23 °C for 168 hrs, giving a calculated estimated hydrogen intensity ratio range of 1:2.8 to 1:32.
Claims 3 & 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomozawa, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hamilton et al. (WO 2013/082343 A1) (hereinafter “Hamilton”), wherein claims 5-7 are further in view of Noda et al. (WO 2023/181955 A1) (hereinafter “Noda”), or vice-versa claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Tomozawa and Hamilton.
Regarding claim 3, Tomozawa does not teach lithium reduction levels within or even near the claimed ranges, but also only demonstrates hydration of an experimental glass consisting of pure lithium aluminosilicate. Tomozawa also does not teach a flexible/foldable glass having a thickness within the claimed range.
Hamilton teaches a concern for the leaching/diffusion of alkali, such as lithium, sodium, and potassium, from glass, but conversely teaches that the hydration layer that can partially cause it also provides an intrinsic barrier layer thereto [0007, 0011, 0038], wherein the hydration layer is formed by treatment in deionized water at 0 to 200 °C, such as 20 to 100 °C, which may or may not be slightly acidic [0041-0047], which can all be precisely controlled to create a depth and compositional profile as desired without overly leaching the alkali [0041, 0056, 0071], wherein a leaching profile of increasing times forms barriers of different thickness such as 2 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours forming hydration layers at depths of about 50 nm, about 150 nm, and about 250 nm, which is not substantially altered under further thermal treatment [0079, 0082, Figs. 6A-6B & 9], wherein depletion of the alkali species can be from 1 to 100% (1:0.99 to 1:0.01), and the glass substrate being useful for electronic applications including electronic displays [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, using the knowledge of lithium ions behave as set forth in Tomozawa, to provide depth and compositional gradients that could achieve the desired alkali (and hydrogen) intensities within the desired ranges using routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to use a known method of leaching alkali species from glass [Tomozawa] to provide an intrinsic barrier to future leaching/diffusion thereof [Hamilton], preventing both intrusion into subsequently deposited layers [Hamilton] and loss of mechanical strength [Tomozawa].
Regarding claims 5-7, Noda teaches a glass article, usable as a cover or electronics glass for foldable devices [0001-0002, 0016, 0020-0022, 0151], wherein the glass article is a thin flexible alkali aluminosilicate glass having a thickness of 0.005 to 0.1 mm (5 to 100 µm) [0015-0018, 0027, 0036] having an improved pendrop strength/impact resistance due to the inherent hydration layer formed by a water treatment process at a temperature of about 46 to 100 °C [0007-0012], wherein the alkali aluminosilicate glass [0052-0054] comprises composition comprising at least some Li2O, which is other than the inclusion of Na2O an essential component, preferably at less than 20% [0056, 0059], among other optional oxides such as minimal B2O3 to suppress Young’s modulus without surface discoloration [0055], preferably at least some MgO to improve melting and moldabilty without increasing devitrification probability [0061], optionally CaO [0062], SrO [0063], and BaO [0064] for the same/similar reasons as MgO, wherein CaO has a comparatively increased effect at reducing high-temperature viscosity [0062], optionally ZnO to increase effectiveness at ion exchange performance and increasing compressive stress values [0065], preferably at least some ZrO2 to also/alternatively improve ion exchange performance [0066], a minimal amount of P2O5 to prevent phase separation [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a non-experimental glass usable for electronic displays having a composition, thickness, and flexibility as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a water treated glass with a thickness and flexibility usable for (foldable) electronic displays [Noda] and comprising compositionally-based qualities from additional oxides other than the ternary system of a pure alkali aluminosilicate that would improve formation, processing, and treatment [Noda] and would have provided the substrate with improved pendrop strength/impact resistance [Noda], wherein the glass article may be part of a laminate having subsequently applied protective coatings/layers, reinforcing layers, and adhesive layers [0031-0032, 0090-0091, 0093]
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the teachings of hydration layer depth and gradients formed during hydrogen-alkali interchange during water treatment of Tomozawa/Hamilton to provide hydrogen/alkali intensity ratios at chosen/desired depths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to not only provide, in addition to improved pendrop strength/impact resistance [Noda], a barrier to subsequent alkali leaching, preventing strength loss [Tomozawa] and effects to subsequently deposited layers [Hamilton], inherently formed and optimized by the hydrogen ions of the hydration layer.
Claims 1 & 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Negano et al. (WO 2024/247778 A1) (hereinafter “Negano”), in the alternative, claims 1 & 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Negano, wherein claims 6-7 are evidenced by or further in view of Noda et al. (WO 2023/181955 A1) (hereinafter “Noda”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Negano teaches a tempered glass suitable as a cover glass in electronic displays [0001-0002], wherein an extremely shallow hydration layer having a higher hydrogen concentration/intensity formed on the order of nanometers from the surface, in comparison to hydrogen concentration in deeper regions of the glass, provides a higher impact resistance, specifically a ratio of hydrogen concentration at the surface (at 5 nm) to hydrogen concentration 30 nm from the surface is preferably 20 (1:20) or more but not limited thereto [0008, 0019], wherein the impact resistant hydration layer is formed by a water treatment at a temperature of between 10 and 100 °C [0072-0075], with examples and comparative examples all comprising ratios within the claimed range [Tables 2-3], with the glass composition comprising at least an aluminosilicate [0030-0032] preferably comprising at least some Li2O for improved surface hydrogen concentration via the water treatment [0030, 0034], wherein example A is a lithium aluminosilicate glass containing SiO2, Al2O3, Li2O, B2O3, Na2O, K2O, and MgO.
Regarding claim 3, the ratio of alkali ions at a depth of 30 nm to the surface in an example is 0.07 for Li, 0.1 for Na, and 0.62 for K [Table 1], but is preferably below 1:0.1 for each alkali ion [0020-0022].
Regarding claims 6-7, the plate thickness is 2000 µm or less, but from the viewpoint of imparting flexibility thereto is 200 µm or less, preferably 150 µm or less [0013, 0029], wherein examples are formed at a thicknesses of about 30 µm [0087 & Tables 2-3], wherein Noda evidences/further teaches a glass article, usable as a cover or electronics glass for foldable devices [0001-0002, 0016, 0020-0022, 0151], wherein the glass article is a thin flexible alkali aluminosilicate glass having a thickness of 0.005 to 0.1 mm (5 to 100 µm) [0015-0018, 0027, 0036] having an improved pendrop strength/impact resistance due to the inherent hydration layer formed by a water treatment process at a temperature of about 46 to 100 °C [0007-0012].
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negano, as applied to claim 1 above, optionally further in view of Shibuya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0095164 A1) (hereinafter “Shibuya”) and/or Kajiwara et al. (JP 2016-147792 A) (hereinafter “Kajiwara”), either as evidenced by or further in view of Hamilton et al. (WO 2013/082343 A1) (hereinafter “Hamilton”).
Regarding claim 2, Negano teaches comparative examples as having hydrogen intensity ratios below the desired ratio of 1:20, wherein the comparative glasses were demonstrated to have a lower impact resistance, not an insufficient one [0099-0100], and also comprise a different composition with a very low Li2O amount [Tables 2-3], which is not taken into account by Negano. While a range of 1:4 to 1:6 would have been non-preferred, “nonpreferred disclosures can be used. A nonpreferred portion of a reference disclosure is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims.” In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, based on the desired depth of the hydration layer, the hydrogen may deplete at a distance further than 30 nm from the surface which could increase the ratio within the range claimed.
Alternatively, Shibuya teaches a glass substrate for a display device as having a ratio of a concentration of hydrogen at the surface (0-100 nm) to a concentration of hydrogen at a distance from the surface (100-500 nm) as being 1:1.01 to 1:50, wherein a ratio of greater than 1.01 prevent alteration of the surface due to burning and a ratio less than 50 increases chemical durability of the glass [0162, 0171], wherein the hydration layer also improves impact resistance via absorption of forces thereof [0222].
AND/OR
Kajiwara teaches a glass substrate for a display device as having a Y/X ratio, wherein Y is hydrogen ion concentration at a depth closer to the surface (40-60 nm) and X is the hydrogen ion concentration at a depth further from the surface (500-5000 nm) [0014], of greater than 3.0 and preferably 30 or less [0019-0020], wherein the ratio provides increased strength and acid resistance without resulting in a sparse internal structure on the surface of the glass [0020-0034].
Furthermore, Hamilton evidences/further teaches that a glass substrate comprising a surface hydration layer provides an intrinsic barrier layer to alkali leaching/depletion [0007, 0011, 0038], wherein the hydration layer is formed by treatment in deionized water at 0 to 200 °C, such as 20 to 100 °C, which may or may not be slightly acidic [0041-0047], which can all be precisely controlled to create a depth and compositional profile as desired without overly leaching the alkali [0041, 0056, 0071], wherein a leaching profile of increasing times forms barriers of different thickness such as 2 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours forming hydration layers at depths of about 50 nm, about 150 nm, and about 250 nm, which is not substantially altered under further thermal treatment [0079, 0082, Figs. 6A-6B & 9], wherein depletion of the alkali species can be from 1 to 100% (1:0.99 to 1:0.01), and the glass substrate being useful for electronic applications including electronic displays [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to more fully explore hydrogen intensity values within the claimed range and outside the preferred range of Nagano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize hydrogen gradients for other properties/effects outside of only impact resistance such as chemical durability [Shibuya/Kajiwara(/Hamilton)], which can be imparted at depths within several to tens nanometers as opposed to hundreds or thousands of nanometers [Hamilton].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 September 13th, 2026
Prosecution Insights