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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1/17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1/17 Line 5-6 recites “contouring at one but not both of the first major surface and the second major surface” which should be “contouring at one but not both of the first major surface or the second major surface”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1/17 recites “a planar configuration”, “a warped configuration” and “transition from the warped configuration closer to the planar configuration”. Broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation is supported by Fig. 12, wherein the instant specification does not use this language.
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.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 does not specify which “unmolded configuration” is relied upon. The claim should be rewritten as “the unmolded warped configuration of the empirical glass substrate is determined…”.
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.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17, 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al (US-20140331716-A1) and further in view of Gu (US-20110129648-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ahmed teaches a method of manufacturing [0008] comprising a molding step comprising molding a glass substrate [0010] with a molding surface (molding surface 208) to transition from a planar configuration to a warped configuration [0049, 95] (Fig. 2), the glass substrate comprising a first major surface, a second major surface facing away from the first major surface, and contouring at one but not both of the first major surface or the second major surface (Fig. 1, 2); and an ion-exchange step comprising subjecting the glass substrate with the warped configuration to an ion-exchange strengthening process [0011], the ion-exchange step causing the glass substrate to transition from the warped configuration closer to the planar configuration [0109], wherein the molding surface comprises a shape designed to offset an unmolded warped configuration of an empirical or modeled glass substrate subjected to an empirical or modeled ion-exchange step [0110] (Table 2).
Ahmed teaches of an embodiment in which the initial glass-based substrate is saucer shaped (Fig. 3) which has a warp after ion exchange [0058] (Fig. 4) used for validating modeling/calculation results at the edges and non-uniform geometries [0085]. Ahmed does not expressly teach the first major surface and second major surface result in a non-uniform thickness and surface areas of the first major surface and the second major surface being unequal. In related strengthened glass cover art, Gu teaches of processing a glass-based substrate to form a non-uniform thickness glass-based substrate [0069] and surface areas of the first major surface and the second major surface being unequal (Fig. 2, 4, 5) prior to ion exchange strengthening [0069]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to process a glass-based substrate to form the first major surface and second major surface to result in a non-uniform thickness and surface areas of the first major surface and the second major surface being unequal prior to the ion exchange strengthening step as it is a known shape to model for stress distributions under ion-exchange [0059-60].
Regarding claim 2, depending from claim 1, Ahmed teaches of using a mesh on finite element model [0033-34] as well as inputting the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio [0092] of the modeled glass substrate, reading on the dimensions and compositions; and using conditions of the modeled ion-exchange step based on ion diffusion and its lattice dilation coefficient related strain with thermal diffusivity [0053-55, 84-92].
Regarding claim 3/5, depending from claim 1, the combination of prior art relies on Gu’s glass substrate comprises a body portion having a body thickness and a secondary portion having a secondary thickness that is less than the body thickness (Fig. 2/4/5 tapered edge having the secondary portion/thickness less than the body thickness) wherein the non-uniform thickness/secondary thickness is located at a perimeter edge of the glass substrate.
Regarding claims 6-7, depending from claim 1, the combination of prior art relies on the shape of Gu’s glass tapered edge glass substrates (Fig. 2/4/5). Gu does not expressly teach the nominal ranges of the thicknesses of the glass substrates. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum range and relative difference of the body thickness and secondary thickness of the glass substrate through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 9, depending from claim 1, Ahmed teaches after the ion-exchange step, the glass substrate is substantially free of warp [0094].
Regarding claim 10, depending from claim 1, Ahmed teaches the empirical or modeled ion-exchange step is an empirical ion-exchange step, and the empirical or modeled glass substrate is an empirical glass substrate [0043, 108-109].
Regarding claim 12, depending from claim 1, Ahmed teaches the empirical or modeled ion-exchange step is an empirical ion-exchange step, and the empirical or modeled glass substrate is an empirical glass substrate [0075-76].
Regarding claim 13, depending from claim 12, Ahmed teaches of using a mesh on finite element model [0033-34] as well as inputting the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio [0092] of the modeled glass substrate, reading on physical parameters of the modeled glass substrate into a computer model; and using conditions of the modeled ion-exchange step based on ion diffusion and its lattice dilation coefficient related strain with thermal diffusivity [0053-55, 84-92], reading on running the computer model using theoretical equations relating stress in a glass to a diffused ion concentration.
Regarding claim 15, depending from claim 13, Ahmed teaches the computer model simulates a thermal model to produce thermal model results [0088-90] and using the thermal model results as input for a structural model as a predefined field to calculate a three-dimensional structural response based on a network dilation coefficient [0090-92, 53-55].
Regarding claim 17, Ahmed teaches a method of manufacturing [0008] comprising a molding step comprising molding a glass substrate [0010] with a molding surface (molding surface 208) to transition from a planar configuration to a warped configuration [0049, 95] (Fig. 2), the glass substrate comprising a first major surface, a second major surface facing away from the first major surface, and contouring at one but not both of the first major surface or the second major surface (Fig. 1, 2); and an ion-exchange step comprising subjecting the glass substrate with the warped configuration to an ion-exchange strengthening process [0011], the ion-exchange step causing the glass substrate to transition from the warped configuration closer to the planar configuration [0109], wherein the molding surface comprises a shape designed to offset an unmolded warped configuration of an empirical or modeled glass substrate subjected to an empirical or modeled ion-exchange step [0110] (Table 2). Ahmed teaches of using a mesh on finite element model [0033-34] as well as inputting the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio [0092] of the modeled glass substrate, reading on physical parameters of the modeled glass substrate into a computer model; and using conditions of the modeled ion-exchange step based on ion diffusion and its lattice dilation coefficient related strain with thermal diffusivity [0053-55, 84-92], reading on running the computer model using theoretical equations relating stress in a glass to a diffused ion concentration.
Ahmed teaches of an embodiment in which the initial glass-based substrate is saucer shaped (Fig. 3) which has a warp after ion exchange [0058] (Fig. 4) used for validating modeling/calculation results at the edges and non-uniform geometries [0085]. Ahmed does not expressly teach the first major surface and second major surface result in a non-uniform thickness and surface areas of the first major surface and the second major surface being unequal. In related strengthened glass cover art, Gu teaches of processing a glass-based substrate to form a non-uniform thickness glass-based substrate [0069] and surface areas of the first major surface and the second major surface being unequal (Fig. 2, 4, 5) prior to ion exchange strengthening [0069]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to process a glass-based substrate to form the first major surface and second major surface to result in a non-uniform thickness and surface areas of the first major surface and the second major surface being unequal prior to the ion exchange strengthening step as it is a known shape to model for stress distributions under ion-exchange [0059-60].
Regarding claim 19, depending from claim 17, Ahmed teaches the computer model simulates a thermal model to produce thermal model results [0088-90] and using the thermal model results as input for a structural model as a predefined field to calculate a three-dimensional structural response based on a network dilation coefficient [0090-92, 53-55].
Regarding claim 20, depending from claim 17, Ahmed teaches the empirical or modeled ion-exchange step is an empirical ion-exchange step, and the empirical or modeled glass substrate is an empirical glass substrate [0075-76].
Claim 1/3/4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al (US-20140331716-A1) and further in view of Luzzato et al (US-20190023611-A1).
Regarding claim 1/3/4, Ahmed teaches a method of manufacturing [0008] comprising a molding step comprising molding a glass substrate [0010] with a molding surface (molding surface 208) to transition from a planar configuration to a warped configuration [0049, 95] (Fig. 2), the glass substrate comprising a first major surface, a second major surface facing away from the first major surface, and contouring at one but not both of the first major surface or the second major surface (Fig. 1, 2); and an ion-exchange step comprising subjecting the glass substrate with the warped configuration to an ion-exchange strengthening process [0011], the ion-exchange step causing the glass substrate to transition from the warped configuration closer to the planar configuration [0109], wherein the molding surface comprises a shape designed to offset an unmolded warped configuration of an empirical or modeled glass substrate subjected to an empirical or modeled ion-exchange step [0110] (Table 2).
Ahmed teaches of an embodiment in which the initial glass-based substrate is saucer shaped (Fig. 3) which has a warp after ion exchange [0058] (Fig. 4) used for validating modeling/calculation results at the edges and non-uniform geometries [0085]. Ahmed does not expressly teach the first major surface and second major surface result in a non-uniform thickness and surface areas of the first major surface and the second major surface being unequal. In related strengthened glass cover art, Luzzato teaches of molding, ion-exchanging, and modeling the compressive stress developed for a glass substrate with a non-uniform thickness offset from the perimeter edge of the glass substrate wherein the secondary thickness is surrounded and is less than the body thickness (Fig. 34AB) [243-251]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to process a glass-based substrate to form the first major surface and second major surface to result in a non-uniform thickness such that the body portion having a body thickness and secondary thickness wherein the secondary thickness is surrounded by the body thickness and the non-uniform thickness is offset from a perimeter edge of the glass substrate as it is a known shape for a cover glass [0002].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al (US-20140331716-A1) and Gu (US-20110129648-A1) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Luzzato et al (US-20190023611-A1).
Regarding claim 8, depending from claim 3, Ahmed does not expressly teach of central tension. The combination of prior art relies on Gu’s glass substrate which has a first thickness and second thickness different wherein the secondary thickness is less than the body thickness (Gu Fig. 2/4/5 tapered edge having the secondary portion/thickness less than the body thickness). In related ion-exchange of glass art, Luzzato teaches the central tension is limited/controlled by thickness [0231]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the ion-exchanged glass substrate with a body thickness larger than the secondary thickness would result in a central tension being proportion to the thickness of the relative region as taught by Luzzato (Fig. 32B) [0231].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al (US-20140331716-A1) and Gu (US-20110129648-A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Murata et al (US-20130017380-A1).
Regarding claim 11, depending from claim 1, Ahmed measures the empirical glass substrate warped configuration (Table 2). Ahmed does not expressly teach how the warp is measured. In related ion exchange of glass art, Murata teaches of using a laser interferometer to measure warp of an ion-exchanged glass substrate [0125]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to measure the warped configuration with a laser interferometer as a known technique in the art to measure warp of an ion-exchanged glass.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al (US-20140331716-A1) and Gu (US-20110129648-A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Oram et al (US-20170355640-A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ahmed teaches the glass substrate of claim 1 is intended for a consumer electronic product [0002-3]. Ahmed does not elaborate on the consumer electronic product. In the same field of endeavor, Oram teaches of using ion-exchanged glass substrate for the housing of a consumer electronic product [0060] having a front surface, back surface, and side surfaces (Fig. 9), electrical components provided at least partially within the housing, the electrical components including at least a controller, a memory, and a display, the display being provided at or adjacent to the front surface of the housing and a cover disposed over the display [0060]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the glass substrate of modified Ahmed in a consumer electronic product as suggested by Oram.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14/18 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.
Regarding claims 14/18, a primary reason why it is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record Ahmed et al (US-20140331716-A1) and Gu (US-20110129648-A1) is that the prior art does not teach inputting a weight percent of an alkali-containing salt as the physical parameters of the modeled ion-exchange step.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20140242390-A1 teaches measuring warp after ion-exchange and calculating the composition and dimension effect on the warp
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2645. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Mon-Thurs.
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.
/STEVEN S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741