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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 32-45, in the reply filed on July 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 46-50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 2, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 36 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 36, Line 8 “a mass ratio of (1-3):4” should read “a mass ratio of (1:4)-(3:4)” for consistency between recitations of ratios.
In Claim 41, Line 2, “a hydrofluoric acid solution” should read “the hydrofluoric acid solution”.
In Claim 41, the recitations of “after contacting with hydrofluoric acid” should read “after contact with the hydrofluoric acid solution”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32-35, 38-39, 42, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conzone et al (PGPub 2004/0106018 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 32, Conzone teaches a method for forming a glass composite (Abstract), comprising:
providing a first glass member and a second glass member ([0035]- any phosphate glass can be joined);
activating at least a part of a surface of the first glass member to form a first activated surface, with unsaturated chemical bonds formed on the first activated surface of the first glass member ([0042]; [0103]-[0107]- discussing the activation mechanism);
activating at least a part of a surface of the second glass member to form a second activated surface, with unsaturated chemical bonds on the second activated surface of the second glass member [0042]; [0103]-[0107]; and
connecting at least partially the first glass member and the second glass member with each other on a contact interface at a contacting position of the first glass member and the second glass member to form the glass composite ([0035]- discussing joining glasses),
wherein: the contact interface is formed by the first activated surface and the second activated surface at the contacting position, and the first activated surface of the first glass member and the second activated surface of the second glass member are directly bonded with each other by saturated chemical bonds formed by the unsaturated chemical bonds on the first activated surface of the first glass member and the unsaturated chemical bonds on the second activated surface of the second glass member [0042]; [0103]-[0107].
Regarding Claim 33, Conzone further teaches an unsaturated chemical bond being a metal atom linked with an oxygen atom having a lone pair of electrons [0042]; [0103]-[0107].
Regarding Claim 34, Conzone further teaches the activating at least a part of a surface of the first glass member to form a first activated surface further includes at least one of: making an activation treatment on the surface with an activation solution [0057], the activation solution being acid or alkaline [0057]-[0058] and making an activation treatment on the surface with a UV treatment ([0054]- the process occurs in a clean room environment thus meeting the instant limitation).
Regarding Claim 35, Conzone further teaches a pH of the activation solution is not greater than 4 ([0057]- The phosphorus-containing solution can be acidic (pH<7.0)), or the pH of the activation solution is 10-14 ([0057]- The phosphorus-containing solution can basic (pH>7.0)), and the activation solution comprises: an acid [0057]; [0059] or an alkali [0058]; and an auxiliary agent ([0057]-[0059]- discussing other components, specifically hydrochloric acid), wherein the auxiliary agent comprising at least one of an oxidizing agent, an alcohol, an organic acid, a carbohydrate, an amino acid, and a surfactant, wherein: the acid comprises at least one of sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, ammonium bifluoride, nitric acid and acetic acid; the alkali comprises at least one of sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide and aqueous ammonia; and the oxidizing agent comprises at least one of potassium dichromate, potassium permanganate, hydrogen peroxide and nitric acid ([0057]-[0059]- discussing other components, specifically hydrochloric acid).
Regarding Claim 38, Conzone further teaches the activating is performed at room temperature to 200°C [0021].
The instant specification discloses the activated surface has a water contact angle equal to or less than 10 degrees and a surface roughness of at least one of the first glass member and the second glass member is equal to or less than 0.2 µm is achieved by the claimed method [0074]. Because the method disclosed by the art is substantially the same as that disclosed in the instant specification (See above), the product necessarily and inherently achieves these properties, as evidenced by Paragraphs [0074] of the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 39, Conzone further teaches visually observing the glass composite to have no crevices at the contact interface under 100x magnification, under 300x magnification, and/or 500x magnification (Fig. 1, [0084]).
Regarding Claim 42, Conzone further teaches the glass composite has a light transmittance equal to or higher than 95% of the light transmittance of the one, with the lower light transmittance, of the first glass member and the second glass member [0085]-[0089]; [0097].
Regarding Claim 45, Conzone further teaches the first glass member and the second glass member are positioned in a vacuum environment in a period of time from the completion of the activating to the completion of the connecting [0064]; the connecting is performed in a first predetermined temperature condition, wherein the first predetermined temperature does not exceed softening points of the first glass member and the second glass member ([0109]- the curing temperature is above 25°C but below the glass transition temperature of the glass, preferably 70°C-550°C), wherein: the first predetermined temperature is 200-900°C ([0109]- the curing temperature is above 25°C but below the glass transition temperature of the glass, preferably 70°C-550°C), or the first predetermined temperature is 250-750°C ([0109]- the curing temperature is above 25°C but below the glass transition temperature of the glass, preferably 70°C-550°C); and the connecting is performed under pressure ([0064]- composite may be placed under an external compressive force or vacuum)), wherein the pressure is 0.05-10 MPa ([0064]- discussing a compressive force, atmospheric pressure is 0.1 MPa, thus compressive force is necessarily greater than 0.1 MPa, meeting the instant limitation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conzone et al (PGPub 2004/0106018 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 43, Conzone does not specify at least one of the first glass member and the second glass member is formed by a plurality of sub-glass members, and at least part of the surfaces of two adjacent sub-glass members are connected. However, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Since no new and unexpected result has been demonstrated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additional sub-glass members in order to form the desired glass composite.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conzone et al (PGPub 2004/0106018 cited in IDS) in view of Kalkowski et al (PGPub 2013/0327093 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 34, Conzone does not specify making an activation treatment on the surface with a plasma treatment.
Kalkowski teaches an alternative method for forming a glass composite (Abstract) comprising making an activation treatment on the surface with a plasma treatment [0014]-[0015] in order to prepare for bond connection so that a very high planarity and a very small roughness of the bonding surface is achieved so that they are in direct touching contact with at least 80% of their bonding surfaces at an acting compression force [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method on Conzone to include plasma treatment as taught by Kalkowski with reasonable expectation of success to prepare for bond connection so that a very high planarity and a very small roughness of the bonding surface is achieved so that they are in direct touching contact with at least 80% of their bonding surfaces at an acting compression force [0014].
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conzone et al (PGPub 2004/0106018 cited in IDS) in view of Yamamoto et al (PGPub 2017/0320294).
Regarding Claim 44, Conzone does not specify forming an anti-reflection film on at least one surface of the first glass member or the second glass member.
Yamamoto teaches an alternative method of forming a composite comprising forming an anti-reflection film on at least one surface of the first glass member or the second glass member (Fig. 1; [0020]-[0021] in order to give depth to the color of the final glass laminate [0055]-[0056].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method on Conzone to include plasma treatment as taught by Yamamoto with reasonable expectation of success to give depth to the color of the final glass laminate [0055]-[0056].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36-37 and 40-41 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 36 is Conzone et al (PGPub 2004/0106018 cited in IDS) as set forth above. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the specific composition of the activation solution comprising at least one of: a raw material of the activation solution, comprising: hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid, wherein the activation solution comprises a mixed solution of hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid in a volume ratio of (1:3)-(3:7); a raw material of the activation solution, comprising: potassium dichromate and sulfuric acid, wherein the activation solution comprises a mixture of potassium dichromate and sulfuric acid in a mass ratio of (1-3):4; a raw material of the activation solution, comprising: hydrofluoric acid and ammonium bifluoride, wherein the hydrofluoric acid and ammonium bifluoride both having a mass concentration of 5%-40% in the activation solution; a raw material of the activation solution, comprising: aqueous ammonia and hydrogen peroxide, wherein the activation solution comprises a mixed solution of aqueous ammonia and hydrogen peroxide in a volume ratio of (1:1)-(1:5); and a raw material of the activation solution, comprising: sodium hypochlorite and aqueous ammonia, wherein the activation solution comprises a mixture of 5-20 wt% of sodium hypochlorite, 5-30 wt% of aqueous ammonia and 50-90 wt% of deionized water. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the method of Conzone to include the claimed activation solution composition. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 37 is Conzone et al (PGPub 2004/0106018 cited in IDS) and Kalkowski et al (PGPub 2013/0327093 cited in IDS) as set forth above. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the specific UV and plasma treatment parameters comprising directly irradiating the surfaces of the first glass member and the second glass member for 0.5-15 h with ultraviolet light ([0054]- the process occurs in a clean room environment thus meeting the instant limitation); or irradiating the surfaces of the first glass member and the second glass member for 5-20 min with ultraviolet light in the presence of ozone ([0054]- the process occurs in a clean room environment thus meeting the instant limitation) and the plasma treatment comprises: treating the surfaces of the first glass member and the second glass member for 10-30 min by at least one of O2 plasma and N2/H2 plasma.
Conzone teaches the method occurring in a clean room (thus treated with UV) [0054] but does not teach the claimed parameters.
Kalkowski teaches a plasma treatment carried out between 10-300 seconds [0044] but does not teach the claimed plasma treatment time.
Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the methods of Conzone or Kalkowski to include the claimed UV or plasma treatment parameters. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
The closest prior art to dependent Claim 40 is Conzone et al (PGPub 2004/0106018 cited in IDS) as set forth above. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the specific step of bringing the glass composite into contact with a hydrofluoric acid solution with a mass concentration of 5-40% for 30 s to 20 min to form crevices with a width of 0.1-300 µm on the glass composite at the contact interface. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the method of Conzone or Kalkowski to include the claimed hydrofluoric acid treatment. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Claim 41 would also be allowable by virtue of its dependence on Claim 40.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boek et al (PGPub 2016/0152006) teaches suitable etchants but does not specify a ratio among mixtures of possible etchants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 9/2/26
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights