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 .
Examiner’s Comment
For examination, the following interpretations are made.
The phrase “designed to” in claim 1 is interpreted as “configured to”
It is clear from Applicants’ specification that the prism coupling for the transverse-magnetic or transverse-electric polarization limitation in claim 1 and the transverse-magnetic and transverse-electric polarizations limitations of 7-11 are all manners of measuring and will be interpreted as such.
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 10 and 11 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.
Claims 10 and 11 recites the limitation "the critical angle" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation will be interpreted as “a critical angle”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Andrews (USPub20200148591)
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14: Andrews teaches a lithium aluminosilicate glass-based article, more specifically a glass-ceramic (see abstract, 0084-0087, Table 1 and Examples).
The article comprises SiO2, Al2O3 and Li2O contents within the ranges claimed (see 60-75mol% SiO2 in par 0084, 1-6mol% Al2O3 in par 0086 and 20-24mol% Li2O in par 0087 as well as Table 1, Composition A which has 70.65mol% SiO2, 4.2mol% Al2O3 with 22.1mol% Li2O).
The article can have a thickness within the range claimed (see for instance par 0098 teaching 500micron (i.e. 0.5mm) or less).
The fracture toughness of the article composition falls within the claimed range (abstract, 0136).
The article has a depth of compression of 0.18t to 0.25t (0133) falling within the range claimed.
While Andrews may not explicitly teach their article having a single guided mode in the recited prism coupling spectrum wavelength range of 360-405nm for TM or TE polarization as recited in claim 1, a single fringe at 360-405nm for both TM and TE as recited in claim 7, or the article having a spacing between one guided mode and a critical angle for TM and/or TE polarizations as recited in claims 8-11, note that as discussed above, Andrews’ glass is a glass-ceramic which is the same as Applicants’ (see Applicants’ claim 4), Andrews’ article has a composition substantially similar and overlapping that disclosed by Applicants’ (see Andrews’ par 0084-0090 and Table 1 compared to Applicants’ published specification par 0066-0076, Applicants’ claims 1 and 14), Andrews’ glass has a thickness meeting that disclosed by Applicants’ (see 0098 compared to Applicants’ claim 1), and Andrews’ glass can be made by a single IOX method using NaNO3, LiNO3 and KNO3 salts at contents overlapping and similar to that disclosed by Applicants (see 0114-0115, 0119-0121, 0143, 0146 compared to Applicants’ claim 16) as temperatures and durations overlapping that disclosed by Applicants (see 0115, 0123 compared to Applicants’ claim 16). Given the similarities, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude Andrews’ article to have the same properties when measured similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 5: Andrews’ glass has a CS of 180-350MPa (0135).
Regarding claim 6: As discussed above, the article has a t of 500micron (i.e. 0.5mm) or less which provides for a maximum of the claimed formula being 70 (i.e. 20+100*0.5mm=70). Given that Andrews’ article has a CSk of 100-150 (0163), the criteria of claim 6 is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 13: Andrews’ article has a CT of at least 60MPa (0134).
Regarding claim 20: Andrews teaches an electronic product having the structure and features claimed (see Figures and 0036).
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.
Claim(s) 12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (USPub20200148591)
Regarding claim 12: Andrews’ article has a CT of 60-100MPa (0134) overlapping the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15: Andrews’ article can comprise 1.7-4.5mol% ZrO2 (0090) and even 2mol% ZrO2 (Table 1 Composition A) as well as 1-4, 0-4, 0-2, or even 1-2mol% Na2O, K2O, or combination thereof (0088) which allows for overlap with that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16: Andrews’ article is strengthened by an IOX process comprising heating an IOX solution to 380-550oC (0115, 0123) overlapping the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05), the solution comprising NaNO3, LiNO3 and KNO3 at amounts overlapping and even falling within the claimed ranges (see 20-30wt% NaNO3 range in par 0119, 70-80wt% KNO3 range in par 0120 and 0.04-0.1wt% LiNO3 range in par 0121, the 0-20wt% NaNO3 range in par 0111, the 80-100wt% KNO3 in par 0112 and the 0.01-0.1wt% LiNO3 range in par 0113 as well as for instance, par 0143 and 0146 showing a salt mixture of 20wt%NaNO3, 0.1wt%LiNO3 and 80wt%KNO3), and contacting the article with the solution for 2-16hours (0115, 0123) overlapping the claimed duration (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (USPub20200148591) as applied to claim 1 above or alternatively, in view of USPub20200055764).
Regarding claims 17-19: While Andrews does not explicitly recite 2D, 2.5D or 3D shapes, note that changes in shape have been held by the courts to be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. (MPEP 2144.04, IV B). In the instant case, it would be well within the skill in the art to choose any shape depending on desired application.
Alternatively, it is noted that while Andrews may not explicitly recite 2D, 2.5D or 3D shapes, Andrews’ article is that of a glass-ceramic used as a cover glass for electronic components (see entire disclosure, 0036 and Figures).
As ‘764, who similarly discloses articles which are glass-ceramic used as a cover glass for electronic components (entire disclosure, 0037, Figures), discloses that such articles can be planar and flat (i.e. 2D) or be shaped into 2.5D or 3D as desired (0113), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Andrews to include their article being planar and flat (i.e. 2D) or be shaped into 2.5D or 3D as desired for the application of a cover glass for electronic components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights