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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicants’ Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 06/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, 11, 14, and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 14-16, 18-20, 22, 29, 31, 33, 45, 47, 48, and 51 remain pending in the application.
Applicants' s Arguments/Remarks, filed 06/22/2026, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 12-13, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 15, 16, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the amendment bringing the previous subject matter of claim 6 into claim 1, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yus which was previously applied in the rejection of claim 6.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 13-14, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to Claims 22, 29, 31, and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
NOTE: The rejections of Claims 22, 29, 31, and 33 used Busdiecker as a reference only, not Rhinehart, inasmuch as a 102(a)(1) rejection should have been in the Non-Final Office Action. This does not change the Applicant’s arguments or the Examiners Response to Argument for Claim 22 as the Applicant’s arguments and the Examiners Response are, essentially, based on Busdiecker. This error is remedied in this Office Action.
The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Claim Interpretation a) for Claim 22, the Applicant argues that,
It is unreasonable to interpret “depositing a nuclear catalyst” as a nuclear catalyst being present during glass forming where the nuclear catalyst would be throughout the glass and present at all surfaces, in that the interpretation must be consistent with the specification, citing MPEP 2111. Further, citing paragraph [00101] that describes the nucleation catalyst diffusing from the solution or slurry into the glass article, that the slurry is distinct and separate from the glass article, and the amendments (“the nucleating catalyst is dissolved in a liquid to form a solution or suspending in a liquid to form a slurry”, “holding the fused glass article at the nucleation temperature to diffuse the nucleation catalyst from the solution or the slurry into one or more portions of the glass article”) as evidence of further unreasonableness of the interpretation.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
The rejection is improper as the inkjet technique of Yus would change the principle operation of Rhinehart (MPEP, 2143; In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). Rhinehart states the coating can be conducted by dipping/immersion the glass article or spraying the glass article with the solution; Rhinehart was designed to form a film on the glass. Using the technique of Yus to print patterns would not utilize dipping/immersion/spraying or result in a film.
Regarding Claims 14 and 20 the Applicant argues that,
Patentable as Claims 14 and 20 depend on Claim 1, and Scott fails to cure the deficiencies of Rhinehart.
Regarding Claim 22 the Applicant argues that,
In the “Claim Interpretation” of the Office Action, it is unreasonable to interpret "depositing a nuclear catalyst" as "an addition of the nuclear catalyst in the glass during forming” due to the glass contains TiO2 (nuclear catalyst). Rhinehart does not cure the deficiencies of Busdiecker and combination of Rhinehart with Busdiecker as suggested by the Office would not be the method claimed
In response to the Applicant’s argument Regarding Claim Interpretation a) for Claim 22 and Regarding Arguments for Claim 22 proper the Examiner replies that,
Respectful disagreement. Case law clearly states the art does not recognize any distinction
between coating and impregnating. In re Marra et al., 141 USPQ 221. A material in a glass (i.e.
impregnated) can be interpreted as a coating, and in the instant application, the coating is
provided a nucleating catalyst, where Busdiecker provides nucleating catalyst within the glass
itself. While the Examiner appreciates the information in the specification, the specification is
silent as to the state/physical condition of the glass article when the nucleation catalyst is
deposited, rendering the “consistent with the specification” argument of MPEP2111 mute.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specifications are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057
(Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, regarding the amendment “holding the fused glass article at the
nucleation temperature to diffuse the nucleation catalyst from the solution or the slurry into
one or more portions of the glass article” Busdiecker cites that “the nucleation promotes sealing
in some manner, such as by promoting the diffusion rates of ions in the glass (ions, which would
include the nucleating catalyst ions in the glass) (Col 4 lines 35-39). Here, the nucleating catalyst
is in solution (the glass) and the nucleating catalyst (with other ions) diffuses in the glass.
Hence, the argument is moot. The Claim Interpretation and the Rejection for Claim 22 is
maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument Regarding Claim 1, the Examiner replies that,
Respectful disagreement. The principle operation of Rhinehart, as noted by the Applicant, can be spraying. The inkjet method of Yus is a form of spraying, as both spraying and inkjet use a nozzle to eject fluid. See Evidentiary Reference “Inkjet Printing: Facing Challenges and it’s New Applications in the Coating Industry” (Poozesh) which illustrates an inkjet operation with a nozzle ejecting fluid and (Page 3, Fig. 1b) and discusses the use of spray technology, where liquid is ejected from a nozzle (Page 14 - last two lines). Further, Yus states specifically that there are many strategies to immobilize TiO2 particles on soft and rigid substrates for their use as films (Page 1 Col 2 Para. 2) and that inkjet printing has proven very promising to immobilize materials (Page 3 Col 1 lines 1-3). In the broadest sense, a film is a pattern. Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Hence, the argument is moot. The rejection for Claim 1 is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument Regarding Claims 14 and 20, the Examiner replies that
As the same argument for Claim 1 applies to Claims 14 and 20, the Examiners response to arguments for Claim 1 apply to Claims14 and 20.
The rejection for Claims 14 and 20 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are withdrawn except for the below:
Regarding Claim 22 – “depositing a nuclear catalyst” is understood by the Examiner to mean
an addition of the nuclear catalyst in the glass during forming, where the nuclear catalyst would be throughout the glass and present at all surfaces. Or,
an addition of a nuclear catalyst after glass forming. Or,
both a) and b).
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”.
Regarding Claim 18 – “a chemical composition of the crystalline phase is substantially the same as a chemical composition of the non-crystalline phase” is an outcome of the method and does not affect the method in a manipulative sense and is a mere claiming of a particular structure.
Regarding Claim 19 - “a chemical composition of the crystalline phase is different from a chemical
composition of the non-crystalline phase” is an outcome of the method and does not affect the method
in a manipulative sense and is a mere claiming of a particular structure.
Examiner Note: The art does not recognize any distinction between coating and impregnating. In re
Marra et al., 141 USPQ 221.
Regarding Claims 1 and 22 – “to form an at least partially coated surface”.
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.
(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.
Claims 22, 29, 31, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 3,507,737 by Busdiecker et. al. (herein “Busdiecker”).
Regarding Claim 22 – Busdiecker teaches a method for producing localized crystallization in a glass
article, the method comprising,
fusing a second glass article to the first glass article to form a fused glass article wherein the at
least partially coated surface is positioned at an interface between the first glass
article and the second glass article; Col 3 lines 15-18, Sheet 2 element 28 with elements 25 and
26 (faces of ) located on the face of element 28; “The object of this invention to provide a
method of sealing two thermally crystallizable glass parts along adjoining contacting surfaces….”
depositing a nucleation catalyst onto at least a portion of a surface of a first glass article to form
an at least partially coated surface wherein the nucleation catalyst is dissolved in a liquid to
form a solution or suspended in a liquid to form a slurry.
Col 10, Table A; cites a lithium-aluminosilicate glass with 0-6% TiO2. Per the Claim
Interpretation, a glass containing titania (i.e. considered impregnated with titania) does not
distinguish itself from a coating, as the function of providing a coated surface with a
nucleation catalyst is similar to the function of a glass containing (a solution impregnated
with) a nucleation catalyst – to provide a surface that is crystallized. Further, it is known in
the art that titania is a nucleation catalyst. The titania in the glass can be considered in the
solution of the glass.
heating the fused glass article to a nucleation temperature;
holding the fused glass article at the nucleation temperature to diffuse the nucleation catalyst
from the solution or the slurry into one or more portions of the glass article to form locally
crystallized glass article; Col 7 lines 52-55, 63-66, Col 8 lines 1-2
“After fusion, the bonded assembly is subjected to the thermal in situ
nucleation and crystallization heat treatment schedule to bring about the proper amount of
nucleation and subsequent crystallization to produce a low expansion telescope mirror blank”,
‘…the fused assembly can be cooled well below the nucleation step temperature range and
below the annealing point, and even to room temperature, if desired”, ““the nucleation
promotes sealing in some manner, such as by promoting the diffusion rates of ions in the glass
(ions, which would include the nucleating catalyst ions in the glass) (Col 4 lines 35-39).
cooling the locally crystallized glass article.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at some point the locally crystallized glass
article is cooled to room temperature as motivated to transport said article or handle and use
the article.
Regarding Claim 29 – Busdiecker and Rhinehart in the rejection of Claim 22 above teach all of the limitations of claim 22.
Busdiecker teaches wherein,
one or both of the first glass article and the second glass article comprises fused silica; Col 4,
line 3. It is not indicated the SiO2 is made from cullet or has impurities and prior to
crystallization considered fused silica, “[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
test,” 1.c., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2009).
Regarding Claim 31 – Busdiecker and Rhinehart in the rejection of Claim 22 above teach all of the limitations of claim 22.
Busdiecker teaches wherein,
one or both of the first glass article and the second glass article comprises an aluminosilicate
glass; Col 3 lines 15-18, Col 9 lines 47-50, Table A/ Table B, “…the object of this invention to
provide a method of sealing two thermally crystallizable glass parts along adjoining
contacting surfaces without obtaining premature crystallization of the glass parts”, “Broadly,
these are thermally crystallizable glasses having a composition consisting essentially of the
following components, present in the glass in the following weight percentages…”
Regarding Claim 33 – Busdiecker and Rhinehart in the rejection of Claim 22 above teach all of the limitations of claim 22.
Busdiecker teaches wherein,
a composition of the first glass article may be is substantially the same as a composition of
the second glass article; Busdiecker teaches the instant claim previously in Claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 3,464,880 by Rhinehart (herein “Rhinehart”) and in further view of NPL “High photocatalytic efficiency of inkjet printed patterns by formulation of eco-friendly TiO2-based inks” by Yus et. al. (herein “Yus”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Rhinehart teaches,
a method for producing localized crystallization in a glass article; Col 2 lines 55-56, “The present invention is an improvement in the field of strengthening glasses by surface crystallization”.
the method comprising,
depositing a nucleation catalyst onto at least a portion of a surface of the glass article to form an at least partially coated surface; Col 2 lines 65-68, “According to the present invention, strengthened glass articles can be produced by coating the surface of a transparent crystallizable glass with a nucleating compound…”
wherein,
the nucleation catalyst is in a solution or in a slurry; Col 2 lines 71-72, Col 8 lines 10-12, “For example, this may be done by depositing a film of titanium dioxide (a Group IV metal, and a metal oxide) on the surface of the glass…”, “The coating operation can be conducted conveniently by forming a solution, dispersion, etc., of the titanium containing compound or composition…”
heating the glass article to a nucleation temperature; Col 2 lines 65-70, Col 3 lines 2-3, 60-68, “According to the present invention, strengthened glass articles can be produced by coating the surface of a transparent crystallizable glass with a nucleating compound and heating the treated coated glass to effect the surface crystallization…”, “This results in the increase in the number of nucleation sites at the surface of the glass…”, “…coating lithia-alumina-magnesia silica glass containing…a titanium containing material……and heat treating the coated glass at a temperature which is sufficient to effect surface crystallization…the heat treating is conducted at temperatures ranging from 1300 to 1575°F (704°C to 857°C ).”
holding the glass article at the nucleation temperature;
to diffuse the nucleation catalyst into one or more portions of the glass article;
to form a locally crystallized glass article comprising, a crystalline phase and a non-crystalline phase; Col 3 lines 68 , “…for time periods ranging from 5 to 30 minutes to grow surface crystallized zones ranging from 10 to 50 microns in thickness”. As the crystalline zones are 10-50um in thickness, diffusion occurs in this zone, and the remainder of the thickness is a non-crystalline phase, the remainder of the thickness is a non-crystalline phase.
the one or more portions of the locally crystallized glass article into which the nucleation catalyst has diffused comprise the crystalline phase and a remainder of the locally crystallized glass article comprises the non-crystalline phase; Col 11 lines 6-18, Col 3 lines 68 ,“ A method of forming a transparent strengthened glass article having a compression layer contiguous with the surface of said article…comprising forming a coating of a crystal nucleating agent on a base of a crystallizable glass of the lithia-alumina-silica glass family wherein crystals form having a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than said glass upon crystallizing…until a layer of crystals is formed at said glass surface and in a region subjacent thereto…”, “… to grow surface crystallized zones ranging from 10 to 50 microns in thickness”. As the crystalline zones are 10-50um in thickness, diffusion occurs in this zone, and the remainder of the thickness is a non-crystalline phase.
and cooling the locally crystallized glass article; Col 11 lines 16-18, “…until a layer of crystals is formed at said glass surface and in a region subjacent thereto, and thereafter cooling said glass…”.
wherein,
the solution or the slurry has a viscosity from 1 centipoise to 25 centipoise and a surface tension from 20 dynes/centimeter to 50 dynes/centimeter.
In an analogous endeavor of coating FTO glass with a material ink, Yus teaches,
means to immobilize particles on a substrate (Page 1 Col 2 Para. 2), including dip coating.
the ink contains TiO2 (Abstract, lines 1-2).
the TiO2 is used for a catalytic activity (Page 2 Col 1, Para.3)
The above provides a nexus for Yus.
To coat glass withTiO2, , Yus deploys an inkjet technique to print desired patterns (Abstract lines 1-2.
Page 3 Col 2, Para.2). Fig 2b illustrates a 15 wt% inkjettable TiO2 ink with a viscosity of 10 mPa-s (= 10
centipoise); Fig. 2a illustrates a 40 wt% inkjettableTiO2 ink with associated viscosity at H2O: DEG
(diethylene glycol) ratios, including 7:3 ( = 2.3:1 ) and 1:1, and associated surface tension values from
29 to 50 mN/m (= 29 to 50 dynes/centimeter). Yus discloses the claimed invention using inkjet
technology except for the above noted values for viscosity surface tension
for the exact TiO2 formulation of Rhinehart.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to use the inkjet technique of Yus in the method of Rhinehart, as one would
be motivated to do so for the purpose of fabrication of a well-defined TiO2 pattern to improve the
specific active surface of the print, control over deposited material amount, pattern design precision,
and a zero-waste process. As well, for the common industrial reasons of being a cost-effective manner
for mass production, as noted by Yus (Page 2 Col 1, Para. 1).
Continuing, viscosity, surface tension and H2O: DEG ratio are considered result effective variables, in
that the selection of chemicals that provide the inks with ideal properties is relevant for a successful
process, as noted by Yus (Page 2, Col 1, Para. 1, lines 14-15). It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the
viscosity, surface tension, and H2O:DEG ratio for inkjetting the formulation of Rhinehart, since it has
been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in
the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the viscosity, surface tension, and H2O:DEG ratio
for inkjetting the formulation of Rhinehart as non-Newtonian inkjet inks and formulations must be
adapted and optimized by combining different organic solvents and additives to fit the printer
requirements. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a
variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195
USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables
such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing
in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 2 - Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches wherein,
the nucleation catalyst comprises a Group 1 metal, a Group 2 metal, a Group 3 metal, a Group 4
metal, (TiO2 contains Ti metal) or Group 5 metal, or combinations thereof; Rhinehart teaches
the instant claim previously in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches wherein,
the nucleation catalyst comprises one of(i) lithium, sodium, cesium, calcium, magnesium,
strontium, scandium, yttrium, titanium, niobium, or combinations thereof, (ii) a metal
carbonate, a metal nitrate, or combinations thereof, or (iii) a metal oxide; Rhinehart teaches
the instant claim previously in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches a titanium containing material that is organic or inorganic (Col 7 lines 20-34) and
forming a solution/dispersion/etc., for dipping the glass article to coat the glass article or for spraying
the solution on the glass to coat the glass article. Further that the solvent or dispersion medium can be
selected from a wide variety of materials (organic solvents such as methanol, ethanol, propanol, etc.)
in accordance to known methods of providing coatings of the given titanium compound or composition
(Col 8 lines 10-20), as well as a titanium weight concentration range up to 5% or usually up to 2% (Col 8
line 34-36). Further Rhinehart teaches a desire for TiO2 film thickness of .001 to .05um (Col 7 lines 48-
49). While it is known in the art that solutions/slurries/coating mixtures must have certain rheological
properties for the particular coating process, Rhinehart fails to teach wherein,
the solution or the slurry further comprises water and diethylene glycol;
and a weight ratio of water to diethylene glycol is from 2:1 to 1:2;
In an analogous endeavor of coating FTO glass with a material ink, Yus teaches,
a variety of ways to immobilize particles on a substrate (Page 1 Col 2 Para. 2), including dip
coating.
the ink contains TiO2 (Abstract, lines 1-2).
the TiO2 is used for a catalytic activity (Page 2 Col 1, Para.3)
The above provides a nexus for Yus.
To coat glass withTiO2, , Yus deploys an inkjet technique to print desired patterns (Abstract lines 1-2.
Page 3 Col 2, Para.2). Fig 2b illustrates a 15 wt% inkjettable TiO2 ink with a viscosity of 10 mPa-s (= 10
centipoise); Fig. 2a illustrates a 40 wt% inkjettableTiO2 ink with associated viscosity at H2O: DEG
(diethylene glycol) ratios, including 7:3 ( = 2.3:1 ) and 1:1, and associated surface tension values from
29 to 50 mN/m (= 29 to 50 dynes/centimeter). Yus discloses the claimed invention using inkjet
technology except for a weight ratio of water to diethylene glycol from 2:1 to 1:2 for the exact TiO2
formulation of Rhinehart.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to use the inkjet technique of Yus in the method of Rhinehart, as one would
be motivated to do so for the purpose of fabrication of a well-defined TiO2 pattern to improve the
specific active surface of the print, control over deposited material amount, pattern design precision,
and a zero-waste process. As well, for the common industrial reasons of being a cost-effective manner
for mass production, as noted by Yus (Page 2 Col 1, Para. 1).
Continuing, viscosity, surface tension and H2O: DEG ratio are considered result-effective variables, in
that the selection of chemicals that provide the inks with ideal properties is relevant for a successful
process, as noted by Yus (Page 2, Col 1, Para. 1, lines 14-15). It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the
viscosity, surface tension, and H2O:DEG ratio for inkjetting the formulation of Rhinehart, since it has
been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in
the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the viscosity, surface tension, and H2O:DEG ratio
for inkjetting the formulation of Rhinehart as non-Newtonian inkjet inks and formulations must be
adapted and optimized by combining different organic solvents and additives to fit the printer
requirements. Further, the use of a glycol co-solvent with water helps to change the evaporation rate of
the mix to minimize drying at the printer nozzles and supports proper viscosity and surface tension, as
noted by Yus (Page 2, Col 1 lines 10-13, 16-22). A particular parameter must first be recognized as a
result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination. In
re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). It is well settled that determination of optimum
values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing
in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 8 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches wherein,
the glass article comprises fused silica or aluminosilicate glass; Col 4 lines 15-16, “Preferred
crystallizable base glasses contain 54 to 65 weight percent Si02, 17 to 35 weight percent
A1203…”
Regarding Claim 11 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches wherein,
the glass article has one or more of (i) a liquidus temperature from 1,100 °C to 1,750 ° or (ii) a
liquidus viscosity of greater than 35,000 poise; Table I, Composition G converting °F to
°C is 1143°C.
Regarding Claim 15 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches wherein,
the holding the glass article at the nucleation temperature comprises holding the glass article at
the nucleation temperature for a time in a range from 1 minute to 60 minutes; Rhinehart
teaches the instant claim previously in Claim 1 “...from 5 to 30 minutes to grow surface
crystallized zones…”
Regarding Claim 16 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches wherein,
the nucleation temperature is from 650 °C to 1400 °C; Rhinehart teaches the instant claim
previously in Claim 1, ““…and heat treating the coated glass at a temperature which is sufficient
to effect surface crystallization…the heat treating is conducted at temperatures ranging from
1300 to 1575°F (704°C to 857°C ).”
Regarding Claim 18 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches wherein,
a chemical composition of the crystalline phase is substantially the same as a chemical
composition of the non-crystalline phase; Claim18 is considered to be directed to a structural
limitation only; See Claim Interpretation.
Regarding Claim 19 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches wherein
a chemical composition of the crystalline phase is different from a chemical composition of the
non-crystalline phase; Claim19 is considered to be directed to a structural limitation only; See
Claim Interpretation.
Claim 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rhinehart (herein “Rhinehart”) and in further view of U.S. Patent 2,998,675 by Scott et. al. (herein “Scott”).
Regarding Claim 14 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches the lithium-alumino-silicate (LAS) glass compositions with different forming methods
(Col 3 lines 38-40), (Col 4 lines 68-72), (Col 5 lines 18-22) (Col 5 lines 3-6) with heating to induce
crystallization. A PHOSITA at the time of the invention would know drawn or cast glass sheet provides a
thickness 100microns-10mm. Rhinehart also discloses heating the glass article to a nucleation
temperature but does not disclose wherein the heating the glass article comprises heating the glass
article to the nucleation temperature,
at a rate from 1 °C/minute to 10 °C/minute;
In an analogous endeavor of forming a crystallization layer on a layer of glass, Scott teaches,
LAS glass
LAS glass (Table I, batch composition 2, where the SiO2 wt. % , wt % of Al2O3 and LiO2 is similar to
Rhinehart composition G.
a crystallization catalyst from a selection that comprises TiO2 (Col 1 lines 68-72).
heating the glass for crystallization, batch composition 2 (Table II).
The above provides a nexus for Scott.
Scott discloses preferably heating articles at a controlled rate of temperature increase of articles
having a thickness of ¼ inch or more to a maximum of 5ºC/minute for crystallization. (Col 4 lines 55-
59). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to control the rate of heating related to a thickness of ¼ inch of glass or more to, a
maximum of 5ºC/minute, from the method of Scott and use in the method of Rhinehart as one
would have been motivated to optimize the heating rate of the glass article for
the purpose of avoiding excessive thermal gradients and achieving desired surface
crystallization, as noted by Scott (Col 4 lines 58, 64-65). Where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine
experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ
233, 235.
Regarding Claim 20 – Rhinehart and Yus in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Rhinehart teaches there are many processes that can provide for a strengthened glass body with a
compressive stress in the surface (Col 1 lines 32-33, 43-45, Col 2 lines 4-5, 19-25). While not mentioned,
etching of glass surfaces, typically with a type(s) of acid, is a common known in the art method of
enhancing surface strength of glass. Yet, Rhinehart fails to teach wherein,
the method further comprises etching the locally crystallized glass article to remove at least a
portion of the crystalline phase or at least a portion of the non-crystalline phase.
Scott further teaches that the glass may have microscopic cracks in the surface of the glass before heat
treatment that may have a weakening effect on the modulus of rupture of the finished article. To
eliminate the cracks, the glass article is acid washed in aqueous hydrofluoric acid (HF) (Col 4 lines 15-24).
Scott disclosed the claimed invention except for occurring after crystallization. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to use the acid wash of Scott to eliminate surface cracks of the glass article after the
crystallization method of Rhinehart (and remove at least a portion of the crystalline phase), as one
would be motivated to do so for the purpose of further enhancing/preserving surface strength of the
crystallized glass article. Acid etching glass is a commonly known method in the art. A person of ordinary
skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."
KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights