DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending before the Office for review.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUSHIAKE et al (WO 2014/129345 as evidenced by the machine translation) in view SAIJO et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0224589) and ENICKS et al (U.S. Patent 9,561,982).
With regards to claim 1, Mushiake a method for making a glass article, the method comprising: etching at least one surface of a glass article with an etchant solution comprising hydrofluoric acid (HF) to produce an etched glass article, the glass article comprising a high index glass, the high index glass comprising transition metal oxides and having an index of refraction of greater than or equal to about 1.60 at a wavelength of 589.3 nm, the at least one surface comprising surface and subsurface defects (Pages 4-5 discloses etching a glass substrate using a chemical treatment with a acid, the acid being on kind or two or more kinds selected from the group of HF wherein the glass substrate has a refractive index of 1.60 or more).
Mushiake does not explicitly disclose wherein the etching improves a B10 surface strength of the at least one surface of the etched glass article by removing or rounding the surface and subsurface defects; and the etching causes the deposition of transition metal fluorides onto the at least one surface of the etched glass article; and cleaning the at least one surface of the etched glass article with a high pH cleaning solution having a pH of greater than or equal to about 10.0, wherein the cleaning solution removes the transition metal fluorides from the at least one surface of the etched glass article.
However Mushiake discloses wherein the surface treatment forms a roughened surface using a chemical treatment wherein the glass substrate is etch such that the smooth glass substrate does not break and has an desired in-plane strength of the glass (Pages 4-6) rendering obvious wherein the etching improves a B10 surface strength of the at least one surface of the etched glass article by removing or rounding the surface and subsurface defects.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mushiake to include the improving strength as rendered obvious by general teachings of Mushiake because the one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired making a glass article using the etching for removing or rounding while strengthening as rendered obvious by Mushiake. MPEP 2143D
Saijo discloses a method for etching glass substrate comprising etching the glass substrate with an etchant comprising hydrogen fluoride wherein the etching generates a precipitate depending on the composition on the glass wherein the ions which dissolve form the gas combine the F ions present in the ion to yield a metal fluoride (Paragraphs [0036]-[0041]). Mushiake discloses where in the glass substrate may comprise a transition metal such as zinc, titanium and lanthanum (se Pages 7-9). As such Mushiake as Saijo renders obvious wherein the etching causes the deposition of transition metal fluorides onto the at least one surface of the etched glass article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mushiake to include the hydrogen fluoride etching as rendered obvious by Saijo because the refence of Saijo teaches that such etching attains high etching rates and capable of inhibiting has generation on the glass surface (Paragraph [0016]) one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired making a glass article using the etching as rendered obvious by Saijo. MPEP 2143D
Enicks discloses a method of cleaning a glass substrate the method comprising treating a surface with a based solution for cleaning the surface wherein the cleaning solution has a pH of greater than about 10; wherein the cleaning may be performed after exposing the substrate to a second acid solution comprising hydrogen fluoride (Col. 3 lines 40-47, 60-Col. 4 line 12); wherein the cleaning is effective for removing particle contamination (Col. 6 line 55 – Col. 7 line 61) rendering obvious wherein the cleaning solution removes the transition metal fluorides from the at least one surface of the etched glass article. As such Mushiake as modified by Saijo and Enicks renders obvious wherein the etching improves a B10 surface strength of the at least one surface of the etched glass article by removing or rounding the surface and subsurface defects; and the etching causes the deposition of transition metal fluorides onto the at least one surface of the etched glass article; and cleaning the at least one surface of the etched glass article with a high pH cleaning solution having a pH of greater than or equal to about 10.0, wherein the cleaning solution removes the transition metal fluorides from the at least one surface of the etched glass article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mushiake to include the cleaning as rendered obvious by Enicks because the refence of Enicks teaches that such cleaning allows for the removal of unwanted ions in the surface layer which may interfere with the operation of electronic components subsequently deposited on the class substrate (Col. 5 lines 18-22) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired making a glass article using the cleaning as rendered obvious by Enicks. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claims 2-4, the modified teachings Mushiake renders obvious wherein the etchant solution comprises HF having a concentration 1-5 wt% and HC concertation of 1 wt% or higher as etchant (Saijo Paragraphs [0029]-[0035]) rendering obvious wherein the etchant solution comprises from about 1 molar (M) to about 8.0 M HF; wherein the etchant solution further comprises one or more of HCl and wherein the etchant solution comprises HF and HCl in a molar ratio of HF to HCl of from about 1.0 to about 3.0. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 5, the modified teachings of Mushiake renders obvious wherein the high pH cleaning solution comprises ammonium hydroxide, a high pH glass cleaning detergent, or combinations thereof. (Enicks Col. 3 lines 40-47)
With regards to claims 6 and 12, the modified teachings of Mushiake discloses etching the glass substrate with an etchant comprising hydrogen fluoride wherein the etching generates a precipitate depending on the composition on the glass wherein the ions which dissolve form the gas combine the F ions present in the ion to yield a metal fluoride (Saijo Paragraphs [0036]-[0041]) and wherein the glass comprises a lanthanum (Mushiake Page 9) which renders obvious wherein the transition metal fluorides comprise LaF3 and the contacting the etched glass article with the high pH cleaning solution removes the LaF3 deposited onto the at least one surface of the etched glass article. (Enicks Col. 3 lines 40-47, 60-Col. 4 line 12, Col. 6 line 55 – Col. 7 line 61 discloses wherein the cleaning is effective for removing particle contamination).
With regards to claim 9, the modified teachings of Mushiake renders obvious wherein the transition metal oxides comprise one or more metal oxides selected from lanthanum oxide, niobium oxide, or combinations thereof. (Mushiake Pages 8-9).
With regards to claim 10, the modified teachings of Mushiake renders obvious wherein the high index glass comprises from greater than or equal to 0 mol% to about 30.0 mol% Nb2O5, from greater than or equal to 0 mol% to about 25.0 mol% La2O3, and from greater than or equal to 0 mol% to about 15.0 mol% ZrO2 based on the total moles of the high index glass. (Mushiake Pages 8-9)
With regards to claim 11, the modified teachings of Mushiake renders obvious wherein the high index glass comprises 0-25 % La2O3 (Page 9) which renders obvious greater than about 15.0 mol% La2O3. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 13, the modified teachings of Mushiake discloses wherein the high index glass comprises silica wherein silica is a component forming a network of class wherein if too large the meltability and formability are deteriorated or the refractive index because too low; if the content of silica is too small vitrification becomes difficult, chemical resistance decreases and in-plane strength tends to decree (Mushiake Page 7). 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. "[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). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of silica to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of less than or equal to about 1 mol% of silica in order to form a high index glass with suitable meltability, formability, refractive index and in-plane strength as taught by the modified teachings of Mushiake. (Mushiake Page 7, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has rejected the subject matter of independent claim 1 under Mushiake in view of Saijo and Enicks. However the cited prior art fails to teach or render obvious “… wherein the surface and subsurface defects on the at least one surface of the glass article before etching limits the B10 surface strength of the at least one surface of the glass article to less than or equal to about 250 N, as determined from a ring-on-ring (RoR) test according to ASTM: C1499-09.” and “… wherein the etching increases the B10 surface strength, as determined from a ring-on-ring (RoR) test according to ASTM: C1499-09, of the at least one surface of the etched glass article by at least about 50% compared to the glass article before the etching.” A further search of the prior art has failed to produce analogous art which teaches or renders obvious Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights