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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO 2019/054342A1, see English machine translation provided for mapping).
Regarding claim 1, Ono discloses a chemically strengthened glass (abstract) comprising:
a glass having a composition comprising, in mol % based on oxides, 60% or more of SiO2 and 15% or less of Al2O3 ([52], SiO2 can be 78 mass % which when converted to mol% is in the claimed range, Al2O3 can be 0% which reads on the claim requirements),
wherein the glass has a thickness of more than 2 mm ([50]), a surface compressive stress CSo of 400 MPa to 1,200 MPa ([28] and Table 1), a depth of compressive stress layer DOL- tail of 2.7 µm to 30.0 µm ([28] and Table 1), and a tensile stress CT of 1.0 MPa to 60 MPa ([49]).
Ono does not disclose the specifically claimed range of a tensile stress CT of 1.0 MPa to 16 MPa; however, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Ono does not explicitly disclose that an absolute value of an average slope of a stress profile from a surface to the DOL-tail is 20 MPa/µm to 500 MPa/µm.
Since the chemically strengthened glass of Ono has all of the other claimed properties and has the same thickness claimed and disclosed in the instant specification, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed has a reasonable expectation that the chemically strengthened glass of Ono will necessarily display the claimed properties of “an absolute value of an average slope of a stress profile from a surface to the DOL-tail is 20 MPa/µm to 500 MPa/µm”.
As discussed in MPEP 2112.01, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, modified Ono discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since the chemically strengthened glass of modified Ono has the same composition, properties and thickness as claimed above including a thickness of more than 2 mm ([50]), a surface compressive stress CSo of 400 MPa to 1,200 MPa ([28] and Table 1), a depth of compressive stress layer DOL- tail of 2.7 µm to 30.0 µm ([28] and Table 1), and a tensile stress CT of 1.0 MPa to 16 MPa ([49]), one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed has a reasonable expectation that the chemically strengthened glass of modified Ono will necessarily display the claimed properties of “having an absolute value of an average slope of the stress profile from a position 50 µm from the surface to a DOC of 0.00 MPa/µm to 0.90 MPa/µm” and “having an integrated value (MPa-µm) of the tensile stress of 20,000 or less”.
As discussed in MPEP 2112.01, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ono discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ono additionally discloses that the glass is a lithium- containing aluminosilicate glass ([41] and [57]).
Regarding claims 6-9, modified Ono discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since the chemically strengthened glass of modified Ono has the same composition, properties and thickness as claimed above including a thickness of more than 2 mm ([50]), a surface compressive stress CSo of 400 MPa to 1,200 MPa ([28] and Table 1), a depth of compressive stress layer DOL- tail of 2.7 µm to 30.0 µm ([28] and Table 1), and a tensile stress CT of 1.0 MPa to 16 MPa ([49]), one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed has a reasonable expectation that the chemically strengthened glass of modified Ono will necessarily display the claimed properties of “wherein an absolute value of a difference between a maximum arrest line depth and a minimum arrest line depth is 650 µm or more”, “wherein an absolute value of a difference between a maximum arrest line depth and a maximum crack depth is 40 µm or more”, “wherein a crack occurrence rate evaluated according to a strength test method in ISO 20567-1 Test Method B is 20% or less” and “wherein a drop ball strength with a 500 g iron ball is 64 cm or more”.
As discussed in MPEP 2112.01, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ono discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ono additionally discloses that the thickness is more than 2 mm and 10 mm or less ([50], [58] and Table 1), and the depth of compressive stress layer DOL-tail is 0.03T or less in the case where the thickness is T ([28] and Table 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ono discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ono additionally discloses that the thickness is more than 2 mm and 10 mm or less ([50], [58] and Table 1), and the DOL-tail is 10 µm or less (Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ono discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ono additionally discloses that the tensile stress CT is 1.0 MPa to 60 MPa ([49]).
Ono does not disclose the specifically claimed range of a tensile stress CT of 1.0 MPa to 4.0 MPa; however, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 14-16, modified Ono discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since the chemically strengthened glass of modified Ono has the same composition, properties and thickness as claimed above including a thickness of more than 2 mm ([50]), a surface compressive stress CSo of 400 MPa to 1,200 MPa ([28] and Table 1), a depth of compressive stress layer DOL- tail of 2.7 µm to 30.0 µm ([28] and Table 1), and a tensile stress CT of 1.0 MPa to 16 MPa ([49]), one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed has a reasonable expectation that the chemically strengthened glass of modified Ono will necessarily display the claimed properties of “wherein the absolute value of the average slope of the stress profile from the surface to the DOL-tail is 50 MPa/µm to 200 MPa/µm”, “wherein collision energy measured by a ball drop test with a 500 g iron ball is 3 J or more” and “wherein in an ice ball test, the chemically strengthened glass does not crack when colliding with an ice ball having a diameter of 55 mm at a speed of 33.9 m/s, wherein the ice ball test is performed by the following method: method: an ice ball is collided with a 100 mm x 100 mm glass”.
As discussed in MPEP 2112.01, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”.
Regarding claim 20, modified Ono discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ono additionally discloses a building comprising the chemically strengthened glass as set forth above as an outer surface member ([64]).
Claims 3, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO 2019/054342A1, see English machine translation provided for mapping), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Alder et al. (US 2020/0299186).
Regarding claims 3, 17 and 18, modified Ono discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ono does not disclose that a difference between an average concentration of Na from a depth of 25 µm to 30 µm from the surface and a concentration of Na at a thickness center portion is 1% or less as represented by mol% based on oxides, a solar power generation module comprising a light receiving surface plate and a solar cell substrate laminated in this order from a light receiving surface side to a back surface side, wherein the light receiving surface plate is the chemically strengthened glass as set forth above, wherein a content of Sn in a range from a surface to a depth of 5 µm on a light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate is 10 times or more a content of Sn in a range from a surface to a depth of 5 µm on a facing surface against the light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate and an absolute value of a difference between CSo on a light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate and CSo on a facing surface against the light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate is 10 MPa or more.
Alder discloses a chemically strengthened glass in Figure 5 wherein a difference between an average concentration of Na from a depth of 25 µm to 30 µm from the surface and a concentration of Na at a thickness center portion is 1% or less as represented by mol% based on oxides ([190]-[192]), a solar power generation module ([12]) comprising a light receiving surface plate and a solar cell substrate laminated in this order from a light receiving surface side to a back surface side ([12]), wherein the light receiving surface plate is a chemically strengthened glass ([12]), wherein a content of Sn in a range from a surface to a depth of 5 µm on a light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate is more than a content of Sn in a range from a surface to a depth of 5 µm on a facing surface against the light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate ([99] and [196]), one side has a greater tin concentration), and an absolute value of a difference between CSo on a light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate and CSo on a facing surface against the light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate is 10 MPa or more ([225]-[226] and Table).
Alder does not explicitly disclose that the difference is tin content is 10 times or more; however, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e. greater Sn content on one surface), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of modified Ono such that a difference between an average concentration of Na from a depth of 25 µm to 30 µm from the surface and a concentration of Na at a thickness center portion is 1% or less as represented by mol% based on oxides and such that the glass is used in a solar power generation module comprising a light receiving surface plate and a solar cell substrate laminated in this order from a light receiving surface side to a back surface side, wherein the light receiving surface plate is the chemically strengthened glass as set forth above, wherein a content of Sn in a range from a surface to a depth of 5 µm on a light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate is 10 times or more a content of Sn in a range from a surface to a depth of 5 µm on a facing surface against the light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate and an absolute value of a difference between CSo on a light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate and CSo on a facing surface against the light receiving surface of the light receiving surface plate is 10 MPa or more, as taught by Alder, because it would amount to the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (WO 2019/054342A1, see English machine translation provided for mapping), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Aitken et al. (US 2014/0158201).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ono discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ono additionally discloses wherein a hydrogen concentration Y in a region at a depth X from an outermost surface of the glass satisfies the following relational equation (I) within X = 0.1 to 0.4 (µm), and the surface is free of a polishing scratch: Y = aX+b (I), wherein meanings of each symbol in the equation (I) are as follows: Y: hydrogen concentration (in terms of H20, mol/L) X: depth (µm) from outermost surface of glass a: -0.150 to 0.010 b: 0.000 to 0.220 (Ono does not disclose any hydrogen in the glass and a and b in equation I can both be 0, therefore a hydrogen content of 0 satisfies the claim limitation).
Ono does not disclose that the glass has a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.20 nm or more.
Aitken discloses a glass having a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.20 nm (2 angstroms) or more ([21] and [108]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the glass of modified Ono such that the glass has a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.20 nm or more, as taught by Aitken, because it would amount to the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, modified Ono discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ono does not disclose a solar power generation module comprising: a light receiving surface plate; a solar cell substrate; and a back surface plate laminated in this order from a light receiving surface side to a back surface side, wherein the light receiving surface plate is the chemically strengthened glass as set forth above and the back surface plate is made of a glass having a thickness 1 mm or more smaller than a thickness of the light receiving surface plate.
Aitken discloses a solar power generation module in Figure 8 comprising a light receiving surface plate (60); a solar cell substrate (16); and a back surface plate (40) laminated in this order from a light receiving surface side to a back surface side ([111]), wherein the light receiving surface plate (60) is glass ([111]) and the back surface plate (40) is made of a glass having a thickness 1 mm or more smaller than a thickness of the light receiving surface plate ([112]-[113], [116], [118] and [102]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the glass of modified Ono in a solar power generation module comprising: a light receiving surface plate; a solar cell substrate; and a back surface plate laminated in this order from a light receiving surface side to a back surface side, wherein the light receiving surface plate is the chemically strengthened glass as set forth above and the back surface plate is made of a glass having a thickness 1 mm or more smaller than a thickness of the light receiving surface plate, as taught by Aitken, because it would amount to the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/10/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,304,855 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments have not been found to be persuasive. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments 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.
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 LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728