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 3 and 18-19 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.
Claim 3 is directed towards the glass-based article of claim 1, wherein the composition crystalizes to have a primary crystal phase comprising anorthoclase or a feldspar solid solution after being heated at 1050°C for 24 hours.
Claim 18 is directed towards the glass-based article of claim 17, wherein the compressive stress layer comprises a compressive stress spike extending from the surface of the glass-based article to a depth of the compressive stress spike, and a ratio a compressive stress at the depth of the compressive stress spike to the maximum compressive stress is from greater than or equal to 0.08 to less than or equal to 0.25.
Claim 19 is directed towards the glass-based article of claim 17, wherein the compressive stress layer comprises a compressive stress spike extending from the surface of the glass-based article to a depth of the compressive stress spike, and the depth of the compressive stress spike is from greater than or equal to 3 µm to less than or equal to 10 µm, and a stress in the depth of the compressive stress spike is less than or equal to 210 MegaPascals.
The closest prior art is Cui et al. (US20210155530, hereinafter referred to as Cui). Per instant claim 3, Cui does not disclose or make obvious the composition crystalizes to have a primary crystal phase comprising anorthoclase or a feldspar solid solution after being heated at 1050°C for 24 hours. Per instant claim 18, Cui does not disclose or make obvious he compressive stress layer comprises a compressive stress spike extending from the surface of the glass-based article to a depth of the compressive stress spike, and a ratio a compressive stress at the depth of the compressive stress spike to the maximum compressive stress is from greater than or equal to 0.08 to less than or equal to 0.25. Per instant claim 19, Cui does not disclose or make obvious the compressive stress layer comprises a compressive stress spike extending from the surface of the glass-based article to a depth of the compressive stress spike, and the depth of the compressive stress spike is from greater than or equal to 3 µm to less than or equal to 10 µm, and a stress in the depth of the compressive stress spike is less than or equal to 210 MegaPascals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites “from greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% to less than or equal to 1 mol% K2O”, however, claim 12 depends upon claim 1 which recites a more narrow range of “from greater than or equal to 0.25 mol% to less than or equal to 1 mol% K2O”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US20210155530, hereinafter referred to as Cui).
Regarding claim 1, Cui discloses a glass-based article comprising a composition, based on an oxide basis of the glass-based article (see Cui at the Abstract, disclosing a glass), comprising: from greater than or equal to 60 mol% to less than or equal to 69 mol% SiO2 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 62.50 mol% SiO2); from greater than or equal to 10 mol% to less than or equal to 18 mol% Al2O3 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 15.20 mol% Al2O3); from greater than or equal to 2.3 mol% to less than or equal to 6.9 mol% Li2O (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.87 mol% Li2O); from greater than or equal to 2.1 mol% to less than or equal to 6.7 mol% Na2O (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.06 mol% Na2O); from greater than or equal to 0.25 mol% to less than or equal to 1 mol% K2O (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.22 mol% K2O, which is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph); and from greater than or equal to 1.1 mol% to less than or equal to 9 mol% RO, where RO is a sum of amounts of MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, and ZnO (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.96 mol% MgO, 0.23 mol% CaO, 1.86 mol% SrO, 0% ZnO, and 0% BaO, for a sum total RO content of 3.05 mol%), wherein a liquidus viscosity of the composition is greater than or equal to 150 kiloPoise (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a liquidus viscosity of 152 kP).
Regarding claim 2, while Example 109 of Table 1 of Cui does not explicitly disclose the liquidus viscosity is greater than or equal to 175 kiloPoise, Cui at [0022] discloses the glass composition has a liquidus viscosity in the range from greater than or equal to 5.0 kP to less than or equal to 175.0 kP. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Cui to vary the liquidus viscosity over the entire range disclosed by Cui with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving a desired liquidus viscosity.
Regarding claim 4, Cui discloses a value of MgO + Li2O - (CaO + SrO + Na2O + K2O) in mol% is from greater than or equal to -4 to less than or equal to -0.5 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.96 mol% MgO, 6.87 mol% Li2O, 0.23 mol% CaO, 1.86 mol% SrO, 5.06 mol% Na2O, and 0.22 mol% K2O, which provides a value of MgO + Li2O - (CaO + SrO + Na2O + K2O) of 0.46).
Regarding claim 5, Cui discloses the composition comprises: from greater than or equal to 10 mol% to less than or equal to 16 mol% Al2O3 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 15.20 mol% Al2O3); greater than or equal to 0.5 mol% to P2O5 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.01 mol% P2O5).
While Cui at Table 1, Example 109, does not disclose an example of a glass comprising 0.5 mol% to less than or equal to 3.6 mol% B2O3, Cui at [0292] teaches B2O3 may be added to the glass composition as a network former, thereby reducing the meltability and formability of the glass composition. Thus, B2O3 may be added in amounts that do not overly decrease these properties. Cui at [0292] discloses the glass composition may comprise from 1.0 to 7.0 mol % B2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Cui to vary the B2O3 value to within the entire disclosed range, including the overlapping range, with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with B2O3 as a network former reducing the meltability and formability of the glass composition as taught by Cui.
Regarding claim 6, while Cui at Table 1, Example 109, does not disclose an example of a glass comprising 2 mol% to less than or equal to 3.6 mol% B2O3, Cui at [0292] teaches B2O3 may be added to the glass composition as a network former, thereby reducing the meltability and formability of the glass composition. Thus, B2O3 may be added in amounts that do not overly decrease these properties. Cui at [0292] discloses the glass composition may comprise from 2.0 to 6.0 mol % B2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Cui to vary the B2O3 value to within the entire disclosed range, including the overlapping range, with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with B2O3 as a network former reducing the meltability and formability of the glass composition as taught by Cui.
Regarding claim 7, while Cui does not explicitly disclose a volume electrical resistivity is greater than or equal to 2 x 1015 Ohm-centimeters, the volume resistivity of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the PGPub of the instant application at [0013] which states providing RO can increase a volume resistivity. Because the RO of the glass of Cui is substantially identical to the instantly claimed RO as detailed by the rejection of claim 1 above, the glass of Cui would inherently possess the claimed volume resistivity. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Cui discloses the composition comprises: from greater than or equal to 60 mol% to less than or equal to 66 mol% SiO2 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 62.50 mol% SiO2); from greater than or equal to 14 mol% to less than or equal to 16 mol% Al2O3 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 15.20 mol% Al2O3); from greater than or equal to 5 mol% to less than or equal to 6.9 mol% Li2O (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.87 mol% Li2O); from greater than or equal to 4 mol% to less than or equal to 6 mol% Na2O (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.06 mol% Na2O); from greater than or equal to 0.5 mol% to less than or equal to 3 mol% P2O5 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.01 mol% P2O5); and from greater than 0 mol% to less than or equal to 1 mol% TiO2 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.17 mol% TiO2).
Regarding claim 9, Cui discloses the composition comprises: from greater than or equal to 6 mol% to less than or equal to 6.7 mol% Li2O (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.87 mol% Li2O, which is close to touching the claimed range); and from greater than or equal to 5 mol% to less than or equal to 5.8 mol% Na2O (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.06 mol% Na2O).
Regarding claim 10, Cui discloses a molar ratio of Li2O/Na2O is from greater than or equal to 1.2 to less than or equal to 2.1 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.87 mol% Li2O and 5.06 mol% Na2O, which provides a ratio of Li2O/Na2O of 6.87/5.06= 1.36).
Regarding claim 11, Cui discloses the glass-based article is substantially free of Ta2O5, HfO2, La2O3,Y2O3, ZnO, and ZrO2 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising no Ta2O5, HfO2, La2O3,Y2O3, ZnO, and ZrO2.).
Regarding claim 12, Cui discloses further comprising: from greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% to less than or equal to 0.5 mol% TiO2 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.17 mol% TiO2); and from greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% to less than or equal to 1 mol% K2O (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.22 mol% K2O).
Regarding claim 13, Cui discloses the composition comprises: from greater than or equal to 1.5 mol% to less than or equal to 3.3 mol% RO (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.96 mol% MgO, 0.23 mol% CaO, 1.86 mol% SrO, 0% ZnO, and 0% BaO, for a sum total RO content of 3.05 mol%).
Regarding claim 14, Cui discloses the composition comprises: from greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% to less than or equal to 0.9 mol% MgO (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.96 mol% MgO, which is close to touching the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 15, Cui discloses the composition comprises: from greater than or equal to 0.6 mol% to less than or equal to 1.5 mol% SrO (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.86 mol% SrO, which is close to touching the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 16, Cui discloses the glass-based article has a KIC fracture toughness greater than or equal to 0.75 MPa*m0.5 (see Cui at Table 1, Example 109, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a KIC of 0.747 MPa*m0.5, which is 0.75 MPa*m0.5 when accounting for the claimed significant figures).
Regarding claim 17, Cui discloses further comprising: a compressive stress layer extending from a surface of the glass-based article to a depth of compression, the compressive stress layer comprising a maximum compressive stress; and a central tension region comprising a maximum central tension, wherein the composition corresponds to a material at a center of the glass-based article, and the glass-based article comprises a thickness t, and the maximum compressive stress of the compressive stress layer is from greater than or equal to 500 MPa to less than or equal to 1500 MPa (See Cui at [0339], disclosing a compressive stress of greater than or equal to 600 MPa, which overlaps with the claimed range. [0339] further discloses a central tension, a depth of compression, and a thickness.).
Regarding claim 20, Cui discloses a consumer electronic product, comprising: a housing having a front surface, a back surface and side surfaces; 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 the front surface of the housing; and a cover substrate disposed over the display, wherein at least a portion of at least one of the housing and the cover substrate comprises the glass-based article (see Cui at [0060], disclosing a consumer electronic device, comprising a housing having a front surface, a back surface, and side surfaces 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 the front surface of the housing. See also Cui at Figs. 6A and 6B.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20170197869 to Beall et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights