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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-25, drawn to an alkali aluminosilicate glass article, classified in C03C3/085.
II. Claim 26, drawn to a consumer electronic device, classified in Y02W30/60.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as mutually exclusive species in an intermediate-final product relationship. Distinctness is proven for claims in this relationship if the intermediate product is useful to make other than the final product, and the species are patentably distinct (MPEP § 806.05(j)). In the instant case, the intermediate product is deemed to be useful as window glass and the inventions are deemed patentably distinct because there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jacob Wagner on 08/10/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-25. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 26 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 and 11-13, are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-7 and 11 recite “equal or equal to”.
Claims 12 and 13, while rejected under 112(b) below, are not rejected over prior art and contain subject matter that would be allowed if rewritten in independent format and if the 112(b) rejections below were overcome.
Claim 12 is directed towards (RO + R2O) - Al2O3 is greater than or equal to 2.0 mol% and less than or equal to 5.0 mol%, wherein RO comprises one or more of MgO, CaO, BaO, or ZnO, and R2O comprises one or more of Li2O, Na2O, or K2O.
Claim 13 is directed towards a ratio of (RO + R2O)/Al2O3 is greater than or equal to 1.20 and less than or equal to 1.60, wherein RO comprises one or more of MgO, CaO, BaO, or ZnO, and R2O comprises one or more of Li2O, Na2O, or K2O.
The closest prior art is Dejneka et al. (US20200189962, hereinafter referred to as Dejneka). Dejneka discloses an example of a glass comprising 69.32 mol% SiO2, 11.03 mol% Al2O3, 5.50 mol% B2O3, 6.70 mol% Li2O, 2.50 mol% Na2O, 0% P2O5, and 1 mol% La2O3. However, per instant claim 12, Dejneka fails to disclose or make obvious (RO + R2O) - Al2O3 is greater than or equal to 2.0 mol% and less than or equal to 5.0 mol%. Claim 13 depends upon claim 12, and thereby avoids Dejneka as prior art.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 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.
Regarding claims 1, 23, and 24 recite the phrase “RemOn”, however, this variable is not defined within the body of the claims. Examiner notes “RemOn” likely means rare earth oxides, however, it is unclear if this is any rare earth oxide or the sum of rare earth oxides. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as meaning any rare earth oxide unless otherwise clarified by Applicant during the course of prosecution.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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) 1-11, 14-15, 17-19, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (US20200189962, hereinafter referred to as Dejneka) Example 35 of Table 3.
Regarding claim 1, Dejneka discloses an alkali aluminosilicate glass article (see Dejneka at the Title, disclosing a lithium-containing aluminosilicate glass) comprising: greater than or equal to 70.0 mol% and less than or equal to 78.0 mol% SiO2 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 69.23 mol% SiO2, 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); greater than or equal to 7.0 mol% and less than or equal to 12.0 mol% Al2O3 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 11.03 mol% Al2O3); greater than or equal to 3.0 mol% and less than or equal to 7.0 mol% B2O3 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.50 mol% B2O3); greater than or equal to 2.0 mol% and less than or equal to 7.0 mol% Li2O (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.70 mol% Li2O); greater than or equal to 3.0 mol% and less than or equal to 6.0 mol% Na2O (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.50 mol% Na2O, which is close to touching the claimed range.); greater than or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 2.0 mol% P2O5 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% P2O5); and greater than or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.5 mol% REmOn (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 mol% La2O3).
Regarding claim 2, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.0 mol% K2O (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% K2O).
Regarding claim 3, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 3.0 mol% MgO (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.00 mol% MgO).
Regarding claim 4, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.0 mol% CaO (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.00 mol% CaO).
Regarding claim 5, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.0 mol% BaO (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% BaO).
Regarding claim 6, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 2.0 mol% ZnO (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZnO).
Regarding claim 7, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 1.0 mol% and less than or equal to 5.0 mol% RO, wherein RO comprises one or more of MgO, CaO, BaO, or ZnO (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 mol% MgO).
Regarding claim 8, Dejneka discloses further comprising less than or equal to 1.0 mol% TiO2 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% TiO2).
Regarding claim 9, Dejneka discloses further comprising less than or equal to 1.0 mol% ZrO2 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 10, Dejneka discloses further comprising less than or equal to 0.5 mol% SnO2 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% SnO2).
Regarding claim 11, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 10.0 mol% and less than or equal to 14.0 mol% of RO + R2O, wherein RO comprises one or more of MgO, CaO, BaO, or ZnO, and R2O comprises one or more of Li2O, Na2O, or K2O (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.70 mol% Li2O, 2.50 mol% Na2O, 1 mol% MgO, and 1 mol% CaO, for a sum total RO+R2O of 11.2 mol%).
Regarding claim 14, Dejneka discloses further comprising a ratio of MgO/RO that is greater than or equal to 0.4 and less than or equal to 0.8, wherein RO comprises Mg and one or more of CaO, BaO, or ZnO (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 mol% MgO, and 1 mol% CaO, for a sum total RO of 2 mol% providing a ratio of MgO/RO of 0.5).
Regarding claim 15, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass has a melt temperature that is greater than or equal to 1600 °C and less than or equal to 1750 °C (see Dejneka at [0137], disclosing a melting temperature of less than or equal to 1750°C which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 17, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass has a liquidus temperature that is greater than or equal to 850 °C and less than or equal to 1200 °C (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing a liquidus temperature of 1135°C).
Regarding claim 18, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass has a liquidus viscosity that is greater than or equal to 100 kPoise and less than or equal to 3500 kPoise (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing a log of a liquidus viscosity of 4.2, which corresponds to a liquidus viscosity of 158.49 kP).
Regarding claim 19, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is greater than or equal to 40.0 * 10-7/°C and less than or equal to 60.0 * 10-7/°C (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing a coefficient of thermal expansion CTE of 50.8 * 10-7/°C).
Regarding claim 23, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass article comprises: greater than or equal to 72.0 mol% and less than or equal to 74.5 mol% SiO2 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 69.23 mol% SiO2, which is close to touching the claimed range.); greater than or equal to 7.5 mol% and less than or equal to 11.1 mol% Al2O3 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 11.03 mol% Al2O3); greater than or equal to 3.4 mol% and less than or equal to 6.7 mol% B2O3 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.50 mol% B2O3); greater than or equal to 3.4 mol% and less than or equal to 6.6 mol% Li2O (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.70 mol% Li2O, which is close to touching the claimed range.); greater than or equal to 3.2 mol% and less than or equal to 5.1 mol% Na2O (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.50 mol% Na2O, which is close to touching the claimed range.); greater than or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 2.0 mol% P2O5 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% P2O5); and greater than or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.5 mol% REmOn (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 mol% La2O3).
Regarding claim 24, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass article comprises: greater than or equal to 72.0 mol% and less than or equal to 74.5 mol% SiO2 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 69.23 mol% SiO2, which is close to touching the claimed range.); greater than or equal to 7.5 mol% and less than or equal to 11.1 mol% Al2O3 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 11.03 mol% Al2O3); greater than or equal to 3.4 mol% and less than or equal to 6.7 mol% B2O3 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.50 mol% B2O3); greater than or equal to 3.4 mol% and less than or equal to 6.6 mol% Li2O (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.70 mol% Li2O, which is close to touching the claimed range.); greater than or equal to 3.2 mol% and less than or equal to 5.1 mol% Na2O (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.50 mol% Na2O, which is close to touching the claimed range.); greater than or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 2.0 mol% P2O5 (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% P2O5); greater than or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.5 mol% REmOn (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 mol% La2O3); greater than or equal to 0.2 mol% and less than or equal to 0.7 mol% K2O (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% K2O, which is close to touching the claimed range. See also Dejneka at [0042] disclosing 0.0 mol% to about less than or equal to 1.0 mol% K2O, which overlaps with the claimed range. Dejneka at [0096] teaches the amount of K2O present in the glass compositions also relates to the ion exchangeability of the glass composition. Specifically, as the amount of K2O present in the glass composition increases, the compressive stress in the glass obtainable through ion exchange decreases as a result of the exchange of potassium and sodium ions. Also, the potassium oxide, like the sodium oxide, may decrease the liquidus temperature and increase the liquidus viscosity, but at the same time decrease the elastic modulus and fracture toughness and/or decrease the annealing and strain points. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts when practicing the invention of Example 35 of Dejneka to vary the K2O content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully decreasing the liquidus temperature and increasing the liquidus viscosity as taught by Dejneka.); greater than or equal to 1.1 mol% and less than or equal to 2.4 mol% MgO (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.00 mol% MgO); greater than or equal to 0.2 mol% and less than or equal to 0.8 mol% CaO (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.00 mol% CaO); and greater than or equal to 0.3 mol% and less than or equal to 0.7 mol% ZnO (See Dejneka at Table 3, Example 35, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZnO. See also Dejneka at [0103], disclosing ZnO is less than or equal to 1.0 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range. Dejneka at [0103] teaches ZnO may increase the liquidus temperature and reduce the liquidus viscosity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts when practicing the invention of Example 35 of Dejneka to vary the ZnO content throughout the entire disclosed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing the liquidus temperature and reducing the liquidus viscosity as taught by Dejneka.).
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-17, 19-20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka.
Regarding claim 1, Dejneka discloses an alkali aluminosilicate glass article (see Dejneka at the Title, disclosing a lithium-containing aluminosilicate glass) comprising: greater than or equal to 70.0 mol% and less than or equal to 78.0 mol% SiO2 (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 65.96 mol% SiO2, which is close to touching the claimed range.); greater than or equal to 7.0 mol% and less than or equal to 12.0 mol% Al2O3 (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 13.38 mol% Al2O3, which is close to touching the claimed range.); greater than or equal to 3.0 mol% and less than or equal to 7.0 mol% B2O3 (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 7.07 mol% B2O3); greater than or equal to 2.0 mol% and less than or equal to 7.0 mol% Li2O (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 7.07 mol% Li2O); greater than or equal to 3.0 mol% and less than or equal to 6.0 mol% Na2O (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.77 mol% Na2O); greater than or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 2.0 mol% P2O5 (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% P2O5); and greater than or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.5 mol% REmOn (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.199 mol% La2O3).
Regarding claim 2, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.0 mol% K2O (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% K2O).
Regarding claim 3, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 3.0 mol% MgO (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 mol% MgO).
Regarding claim 4, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.0 mol% CaO (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.99 mol % CaO).
Regarding claim 5, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 1.0 mol% BaO (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% BaO).
Regarding claim 6, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 0.0 mol% and less than or equal to 2.0 mol% ZnO (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZnO).
Regarding claim 7, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 1.0 mol% and less than or equal to 5.0 mol% RO, wherein RO comprises one or more of MgO, CaO, BaO, or ZnO (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 mol% MgO).
Regarding claim 8, Dejneka discloses further comprising less than or equal to 1.0 mol% TiO2 (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% TiO2).
Regarding claim 9, Dejneka discloses further comprising less than or equal to 1.0 mol% ZrO2 (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 10, Dejneka discloses further comprising less than or equal to 0.5 mol% SnO2 (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.4944 mol% SnO2).
Regarding claim 11, Dejneka discloses further comprising greater than or equal or equal to 10.0 mol% and less than or equal to 14.0 mol% of RO + R2O, wherein RO comprises one or more of MgO, CaO, BaO, or ZnO, and R2O comprises one or more of Li2O, Na2O, or K2O (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 7.07 mol% Li2O, 2.77 mol% Na2O, 0% K2O, 1% MgO, 0.99% CaO, 0% BaO, and 0% ZnO for a sum total of RO+R2O of 11.83 mol%).
Regarding claim 14, Dejneka discloses further comprising a ratio of MgO/RO that is greater than or equal to 0.4 and less than or equal to 0.8, wherein RO comprises Mg and one or more of CaO, BaO, or ZnO (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1% MgO, 0.99% CaO, 0% BaO, and 0% ZnO for a ratio of MgO/RO of 1/1.99= 0.502).
Regarding claim 15, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass has a melt temperature that is greater than or equal to 1600 °C and less than or equal to 1750 °C (see Dejneka at [0137], disclosing a melting temperature of less than or equal to 1750°C which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 16, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass has an annealing point that is greater than or equal to 540 °C and less than or equal to 630 °C (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising an annealing point of 626 °C).
Regarding claim 17, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass has a liquidus temperature that is greater than or equal to 850 °C and less than or equal to 1200 °C (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing a liquidus temperature of 1110°C).
Regarding claim 19, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is greater than or equal to 40.0 * 10-7/°C and less than or equal to 60.0 * 10-7/°C (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a coefficient of thermal expansion CTE of 50.0 * 10-7/°C).
Regarding claim 20, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass has a Youngs modulus that is greater than or equal to 70.0 GPa and less than or equal to 80.0 GPa (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a Young's modulus of 77.3).
Regarding claim 25, Dejneka discloses the alkali aluminosilicate glass article comprises greater than or equal to 0.03 mol% and less than or equal to 0.05 mol% SnO2 (see Dejneka at Table 3, Example 31, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.4944 mol% SnO2).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka in view of Mauro et al. (US20130136909, hereinafter referred to as Mauro).
Regarding claim 21, while Dejneka is directed towards an aluminosilicate glass (See Dejneka at the Title) and Dejneka discloses ion exchange and a compressive stress (see Dejneka at [0004]), Dejneka does not explicitly disclose a compressive stress that is greater than or equal to 500 MPa and less than or equal to 900 MPa, because Dejneka does not disclose the compressive stress. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the arts would naturally look to the prior art to determine an appropriate compressive stress.
Mauro is directed towards an aluminosilicate glass (see Mauro at the Title) which is ion exchanged (see Mauro at the Abstract). Mauro discloses a compressive stress of at least about 500 MPa, which overlaps with the claimed range (see Mauro at [0011]). 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 Dejneka to select a compressive stress within the range disclosed by Dejneka with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing an ion exchanged aluminosilicate glass as per Dejneka and Mauro.
Regarding claim 22, while Dejneka is directed towards an aluminosilicate glass (See Dejneka at the Title) and Dejneka discloses ion exchange and a compressive stress (see Dejneka at [0004]), Dejneka does not explicitly disclose a depth of layer that is greater than or equal to 4.0 µm and less than or equal to 15.0 µm because Dejneka does not disclose the depth of layer. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the arts would naturally look to the prior art to determine an appropriate depth of compression.
Mauro is directed towards an aluminosilicate glass (see Mauro at the Title) which is ion exchanged (see Mauro at the Abstract). Mauro discloses a depth of layer (DOL) of at least about 15 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range (see Mauro at [0011]).
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 Dejneka to select a depth of layer within the range disclosed by Dejneka with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing an ion exchanged aluminosilicate glass as per Dejneka and Mauro.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20180127302.
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