DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/01/2024 and 08/19/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US 20190300422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Guo et al teaches an ion-exchange strengthened glass that comprises SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3, MgO, CaO, Li2O, Na2O, and ZrO2 in amount ranges that each overlap the corresponding range of the instant claim (see claims 1 and 4). Guo et al teaches embodiments wherein the contents of SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3, MgO, CaO, Li2O, and Na2O each fall within the ranges of the instant claim, and wherein the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO)/(Al2O3+ZrO2) is within the range of 0.98-1.2 (see Table 1, sample W, wherein the ratio (Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO)/(Al2O3+ZrO2) is 0.99; Table 1, sample BR, wherein the ratio is 0.98; Table 1, sample BT, and wherein the ratio is 0.98).
Guo et al does not teach an exemplary embodiment wherein the ZrO2 content is within the range of the instant claims. However, Guo et al teaches that the content range for this component overlaps and is very similar to that of the instant claims (0-2.5 mol%, see claim 4). Because of this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to produce glasses having these amounts of ZrO2 through routine optimization and experimentation within the Guo et al inventive range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, when general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by changing the size, the proportion, the shape, and/or the sequence of added ingredients through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) - In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 and MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) - In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
As such, each limitation of the instant claim 1 is met by the teachings of Guo et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned Guo et al samples W, BR, and BT each contain MgO in amounts falling within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned Guo et al samples W and BR each contain CaO in amounts falling within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 4-5, Guo et al teaches that the inventive glasses can comprise ZnO in a non-zero amount that overlaps the ranges of the instant claims (see claim 17). Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. The further limitations of claims 4-5 are thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned Guo et al samples W, BR, and BT each contain Li2O in amounts falling within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned Guo et al samples W and BR each contain Na2O in amounts falling within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned Guo et al sample W contains K2O in amounts falling within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Guo et al does not teach an exemplary embodiment containing Y-2O3 in an amount falling within the instant claim range. However, Guo et al teaches that Y2O3 is contained in the inventive glasses in an amount of 0-2 mol% (see claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Each limitation of claim 9 is thus met by the Guo et al teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10, as above, Guo et al teaches that the Y2O3 content of the inventive glasses is 0-2 mol%; this overlapping range therefore renders obvious the further limitation of said instant claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the aforementioned Guo et al samples W, BR, and BT each contain SnO2 in amounts falling within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Guo et al does not teach an exemplary embodiment containing TiO2 in an amount falling within the instant claim range. However, Guo et al teaches that TiO2 is contained in the inventive glasses in an amount of 0-2 mol% (see claim 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Each limitation of claim 12 is thus met by the Guo et al teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, in the aforementioned Guo et al samples W, BR, and BT have (Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO)/(Al2O3+ZrO2) ratios falling within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Guo et al does not teach an exemplary embodiment wherein the amount of each component falls within the corresponding range of the instant claim. However, Guo et al teaches that the inventive glass comprises SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3, MgO, CaO, Li2O, Na2O, ZnO, Y2O3, and ZrO2 in amount ranges that each overlap the corresponding range of the instant claim (see claims 1, 4, and 6). Guo et al further teaches that the glass can contain K2O (see claim 7) in an amount overlapping the instant claim range (see paragraph 0068). As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to produce glasses having contents of the aforementioned components selected from the Guo et al ranges through routine optimization and experimentation, and such optimization would thus lead to glasses wherein each component falls within the range of the instant claim. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim 14 is therefore obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15, Guo et al does not teach an exemplary embodiment wherein the amount of each component falls within the corresponding range of the instant claim. However, Guo et al teaches that the inventive glass comprises SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3, MgO, CaO, Li2O, Na2O, ZnO, Y2O3, and ZrO2 in amount ranges that each overlap the corresponding range of the instant claim (see claims 1, 4, and 6). Guo et al further teaches that the glass can contain K2O (see claim 7) in an amount overlapping the instant claim range (see paragraph 0068). As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to produce glasses having contents of the aforementioned components selected from the Guo et al ranges through routine optimization and experimentation, and such optimization would thus lead to glasses wherein each component falls within the range of the instant claim. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim 15 is therefore obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, Guo et al teaches that the fracture toughness of the inventive glasses is greater than 0.7 (see Table 1, example W and claim 16).
Regarding claim 17, Guo et al does not teach a 107.6 P softening point of the inventive glass. However, as discussed above, Guo et al teaches glasses that would be compositionally equivalent to those of the instant claims. It necessarily follows that these compositionally equivalent glasses would also have equivalent properties, and as such would have a 107.6 P softening point of 750-850 °C. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 18, Guo et al does not teach a liquidus viscosity of the inventive glass. However, as discussed above, Guo et al teaches glasses that would be compositionally equivalent to those of the instant claims. It necessarily follows that these compositionally equivalent glasses would also have equivalent properties, and as such would have a liquidus viscosity of 200-4000 poise.
Regarding claim 19, Guo et al teaches an ion-exchange strengthened glass and article comprising the same. The glass substrate of said article comprises SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3, MgO, CaO, Li2O, Na2O, and ZrO2 in amount ranges that each overlap the corresponding range of the instant claim (see claims 1 and 4). Guo et al teaches embodiments wherein the contents of SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3, MgO, CaO, Li2O, and Na2O each fall within the ranges of the instant claim, and wherein the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO)/(Al2O3+ZrO2) is within the range of 0.98-1.2 (see Table 1, sample W, wherein the ratio (Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO)/(Al2O3+ZrO2) is 0.99; Table 1, sample BR, wherein the ratio is 0.98; Table 1, sample BT, and wherein the ratio is 0.98).
Guo et al does not teach an exemplary embodiment wherein the ZrO2 content is within the range of the instant claims. However, Guo et al teaches that the content range for this component overlaps and is very similar to that of the instant claims (0-2.5 mol%, see claim 4). Because of this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to produce glasses having these amounts of ZrO2 through routine optimization and experimentation within the Guo et al inventive range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, when general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by changing the size, the proportion, the shape, and/or the sequence of added ingredients through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) - In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 and MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) - In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
The Guo et al glass article comprises a substrate having a compressive stress layer and central tensile region.
As such, each limitation of the instant claim 19 is met by the teachings of Guo et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 20, Guo et al teaches that the inventive glass is used as a substrate in a consumer electronic device comprising a housing with a front surface, back surface, and side surfaces, electronic components within said housing, and a glass substrate. The electronic components comprise a controller, a memory, and a display (see paragraph 0107).
Conclusion
8. No claim is allowed.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW17 September 2026
Prosecution Insights