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 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.
Claims 4-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 15 recite “the chemically-toughened microcrystalline glass comprises a primary crystalline phase and a secondary crystalline phase,” which implies that a secondary phase is required by the claim. Claim 4 further recites “a ratio of a mass fraction of the primary crystalline phase to a mass fraction of the secondary crystalline phase is greater than or equal to 5,” which does not have an upper limit. The failure to recite an upper limit suggests that the secondary phase is not required. Moreover, the limitation in claims 5 and 16 of “the mass fraction of the secondary crystalline phase is less than or equal to 10%,” includes zero as a lower; this also implies the secondary crystalline phase is not required. Therefore, claims 4 and 15 are indefinite because it is unclear whether a secondary crystalline phase is, or is not, required by the claims. Claims 5-9, 16 and 17 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claim 4.
Claim 10 recites “chemical composition of the glass matrix comprises SiO2, A12O3, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, P2O5, and ZrO2,” which implies that the glass matrix must include each of the recited ingredients. Claim 10 subsequently recites the “a sum of a mass fraction of SiO2 and a mass fraction of Al2O3 is greater than or equal to 65% and less than or equal to 80%.” This limitation does not require the presence of either Al2O3 or SiO2 so long as their sum is 65 to 85 mass percent. Similarly, “a sum of a mass fraction of Na2O and a mass fraction of KO is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 10%” does not require the presence of both Na2O and K2O so long as the sum is greater than 0 to 10%. And, “a sum of a mass fraction of P2O5 and a mass fraction of ZrO2 is greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 15%” does not require the presence of both P2O5 and a mass fraction of ZrO2 so long as the sum is 5% to 15%. Thus, claim 10 is indefinite as to whether it requires both of SiO2 and Al2O3, both of Na2O and K2O, and both of P2O5 and ZrO2; or it requires one of SiO2 and Al2O3, one of Na2O and K2O, and one and P2O5 and ZrO2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 13, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 11847885 A)(Wang).
The citations below are to the attached translation. The examiner added paragraph numbering to the translation but otherwise did not alter it.
As to claims 1, 13 and 18, Wang discloses a reinforced microcrystalline glass for use as a “glass cover plate protection screen for intelligent mobile phone. See paragraph [0008]. The reinforced microcrystalline glass has a stress curve. See Figures 2 and 7.
For the reason that follow, Wang discloses microcrystalline glasses having a stress profile which inherently possesses an area enclosed by the stress curve and by straight lines at x=50 µm and y=0, which is greater than 36000t2-21600+3150 MPa*µm when t is 0.700 mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang does not expressly disclose the area bounded by (1) the stress curve, (2) the straight line at x=50 µm, and (3) the straight line at y=0 (hereafter claimed area). The claimed area is the same as the integral under the stress curve between a depth of 50 µm and the depth of compression (see instant Figure 4). One can estimate the claimed area using a triangle as shown below in the annotated Figure 2 of Wang:
The area of the triangle identified above is a close approximation to the claimed area and can be calculated by the formula of a right triangle, 1/2 b*h, i.e., ½ (DOL – 50 µm)*(CS50). One arrives at this formula as follows. Wang discloses the compressive stress at 50 µm which corresponds to the magnitude of the line corresponding to x=50 from the x-axis to the stress curve. Wang further discloses the depth of layer where the stress is zero, which corresponds to the magnitude of the line from x=50 to the depth of compression when 50 µm is subtracted. Thus, the area of the straight line approximation triangle is ½ (DOL – 50 µm)*(CS50).
The table below shows the results of the calculation for Examples 1-6 of Wang:
1
2
3
4
5
6
DOL
138.48
136.53
124.55
130.12
132.43
127.53
CS50
101.62
98.94
89.98
91
94.76
90.52
Area calculated using a triangle approximation MPa*µm
4500
4300
3400
3600
3900
3500
t (mm)
0.58
0.575
0.558
0.55
0.585
0.577
Area using claimed formula1 MPa*µm
2732
2633
2306
2160
2834
2672
DOC/t
0.24
0.24
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.22
The DOC, CS50 and t values in the table were sourced from the Table of Wang in the original document. In each case, the estimated area is much greater than the area described by the claimed formula.
An example falling within a range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
As shown in the table above, Examples 1-6 of Wang have a DOC/t ratio falling within the claim 2 range.
As to claim 3, 14, 19 and 20, Example 3 has a central tension of 84.25 MPa which falls within the claimed range. Wang does not disclose the dimensions of the fractured article as recited in the claims, however, the property is presumed to be inherent to Example 3 because the article has a stress profile identical to the claimed stress profile, and the stress profile determines the manner in which an article fractures.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tan et al. (US 2024/0217871 A1)(Tan).
As to claims 1, 13 and 18, Tan discloses a tempered (i.e., reinforced) microcrystalline glass for use as a front cover for portable electronic devices. See paragraph [0003]. The reinforced microcrystalline glass has a stress curve. See Figure 3.
In the same manner as described above, the examiner estimated the claimed area using the triangle estimate recited above for Examples 7 and 12 of Tan. The table below shows the result:
7
12
DOL-zero
142
127.5
CS50
111.32
119.1
Area calculated using a triangle approximation MPa*µm
5120.72
4615.125
t (mm)
0.65
0.65
Area using claimed formula2 MPa*µm
4320
4320
DOC/t
0.218462
0.196154
The DOL, CS50 and t values in the table were sourced from Tables 1- 2 and paragraph [0080] of Tan. In each case, the estimated area is much greater than the area from the formula of the claims.
An example falling within a range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
As shown in the table above, Examples 7 and 12 of Tan have a DOC/t ratio falling within the claim 2 range.
As to claims 3, 14, 19 and 20, the CT and fragment property recited in the claims are presumed to be inherent to Examples 7 and 15 because the article has the same stress profile and crystalline phases as presently claimed and the stress profile and crystal phases determine these properties.
As to claim 4, 5, 15 and 16, Wang discloses the microcrystalline glass has a crystallinity of 70-98%. See paragraph [0059]. Wang discloses the crystal phase is one or more of lithium disilicate, lithium petalite, B-quartz solid solution, and spinel (i.e., a primary crystalline phase), and the crystal phase may further contain up to 5% lithium silicate (i.e., a secondary crystalline phase. See paragraphs [0059]-[0060]. Such a microcrystalline glass will always have “a ratio of a mass fraction of the primary crystalline phase to a mass fraction of the secondary crystalline phase … greater than or equal to 5.”
As to claim 6, Tan discloses lithium disilicate as a primary phase in Examples 7 and 15. See Tables 1 and 2.
As to claims 9 and 17, the Young’s modulus of Examples 7 and 15 is presumed to be inherent to Examples 7 and 15 because the article has the same stress profile and crystalline phases as presently claimed and the stress profile and crystal phases determine the Young’s modulus.
The compositions of Embodiments 7 and 15 fall within the ranges of components disclosed by instant claim 10. See Tables 1-2.
The heating temperature and time of Embodiment 15 fall within the ranges recited in claim 11. See Tables 1 and 2.
As to claim 12, Tan discloses 3D forming the microcrystalline glass in paragraph [0004].
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (US 2024/0217871 A1)(Tan) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above and further in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0156994 A1)(Li).
Tan anticipates claims 1 and 4 for the reasons recited above. Tan fails to disclose the average size of the crystallites in the glass.
However, Tan teaches the microcrystalline glass is employed as a front cover for an electronic device. As is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, front covers of electronic devices (i.e., mobile phones) need to be transparent so that the user can view of the underlying display. As is further known to one of ordinary skill in the art, for a microcrystalline glass (i.e., glass ceramic or crystal glass) to be transparent, the crystallite (or grain size) needs to be much smaller than the wavelength of light such as less than 100 nm. For example, Li teaches a strengthened crystallized glass (i.e., microcrystalline glass) should have an average crystal particle size of less than 100 nm or less in order to minimize the haze of the resultant article. See paragraphs [0072], [0079] and [0091] of Li. Crystallite size is controlled by the composition (see paragraph of [0055] of Tan) and processing of the glass ceramic (see paragraph [0141] of Li).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have processed the microcrystalline glass of Tan such that it has an average crystallite size of less than 100 nm because such a microcrystalline glass would have a low haze (i.e., increased transparency).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
1 36000t2-21600t+3150 MPa*µm
2 36000t2-21600t+3150 MPa*µm
Prosecution Insights