DETAILED ACTION
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imakita et al., US 2020/0109083 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Imakita teaches a chemically tempered glass having a tensile stress area to improve breakage resistance (Abstract, [0006]). Imakita teaches that although a high tensile stress is desirable to improve breakage resistance, too high of a value causes the glass to fracture vigorously and scatter fragments upon breaking, corresponding to the claimed “explosion threshold value” ([0003-[0006]). Although Imakita does not specifically discuss the tensile stress area of the glass in terms of an FIOX ratio value as in the current claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the glass of Imakita with the greatest possible value of tensile stress area without exceeding the explosion threshold value because doing to would maximize the glass’ resistance to breaking while preventing the glass from exploding upon breakage, in accordance with the teachings of Imakita. Providing the glass with greatest possible value of tensile stress area without exceeding the explosion threshold value would result in an FIOX value that was as close as possible to 1.00 without exceeding 1.00. For that reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the glass of Imakita with an FIOX value of .75 to 1.00.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the glass of Imakita with the highest possible value of tensile square area because, as discussed above, doing so would make the glass resistant to breaking.
Regarding claim 3, Imakita teaches a fracture toughness of 0.8 MPa m1/2 or higher ([0119]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Imakita teaches a DOC of 0.15 x the thickness of the glass and teaches a glass thickness of 400 microns or more (Abstract), equating to a DOC of 60 microns or more (ie, 0.15 x 400 or more), and teaches a CT value of tensile stress of 100 MPa or less ([0090]), with CS values corresponding to the claimed ranges (Fig. 1-5). Note also the specific examples of Imakita’s Table 3.
Regarding claim 6, although Imakita does not explicitly teach a value for the depth of the potassium ion diffusion layer, Imakita’s Fig. 1 and 2 indicate a potassium diffusion depth of greater than 4 microns based on the stress vs depth profile. Additionally, the potassium ion tempering treatment taught be Imakita would result in a depth of 4 microns or greater.
Regarding claim 7, Imakita teaches a stress vs depth profile having the claimed profile and inflection characteristics (Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claims 8-10, Imakita teaches a glass composition that overlaps in scope with the claimed composition ([0035]-[0043], Table 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imakita et al., US 2020/0109083 A1 as applied above, in view of Yuan et al., US 2022/0204389 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Imakite teaches a tempered glass as discussed above. The teachings of Imakita differ from the present invention in that Imakita does not teach that the glass is crystalline. Yuan, however, teaches that crystalline glass possesses better mechanical properties than conventional glass ([0002]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the glass of Imakita be crystalline because making the glass crystalline would result in better mechanical properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights