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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claims 7 and 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Claim 7 differs from claim 2 insomuch as claim 2 recites the intended use “for chemical strengthening”. However, as both claims 2 and 7 recite a substantially identical chemical composition, then the intended use limitation does not impart a structural limitation because substantially identical compositions have substantially identical properties and functions. See MPEP § 2111.02(II) and § 2112.01.
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 recites wherein [Na2O]+[K2O] is 0 to 8%. However, claim 16 requires a minimum Na2O content of 2.5% and more than 0% of K2O. Therefore, the sum cannot be as low as 0% and the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 24 recites wherein [Na2O]+[K2O] is 0 to 8%. However, claim 22 requires a minimum Na2O content of 2.5% and more than 0% of K2O. Therefore, the sum cannot be as low as 0% and the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
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.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Murayama et al. (US 2021/0009462).
Claim 1: Murayama teaches a glass for chemical strengthening (para. 0001) where specific example 8 includes (in terms of mole percentage on an oxide basis as stated in para. 0136): 60.0% SiO2, 15.0% Al2O3, 3.0% B2O3, 1.0% CaO, 2.0% ZrO2, 12.0% Li2O, 3.0% Na2O, 3.0% K2O, about 0% each of P2O5, ZnO, MgO, and BaO (Table 2). The composition does not list Y2O3 and TiO2 and therefore these amounts are considered to be substantially 0%. The composition lists a non-zero amount of SrO, but the presence of additional components is not excluded due to the open limitation of “comprising”. These amounts equate to [Li2O]/([Na2O]+[K2O]) being about 2 and ([Al2O3]+[Li2O]) being about 27% (i.e. each calculated by putting the percentage content into the relationship equations). Each of these above ranges lie within the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Murayama teaches a glass for chemical strengthening generally including in terms of mole percentage on an oxide basis: 55-70% SiO2, 10-25% Al2O3, 0-10% B2O3, 0-5% total of ZnO, MgO, and BaO, 0-8% CaO, 1-20% Li2O, 3-11% total of Na2O and K2O, 0-5% ZrO2 (paras. 0011-0023). The glass may also have P2O5 of 0.5-6% when contained (i.e. the lower limit is actually 0) (para. 0076), TiO2 of 0.02-1% when contained (i.e. the lower limit is actually 0) (para. 0074). An amount of Y2O3 is not specified by Murayama, but the instantly claimed range includes 0%, and therefore this component is not required to be present. Each of these ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Murayama teaches that the content ratio of [Li2O]/([Na2O]+[K2O]) is preferably 3 or less and 0.5 or larger (i.e. 0.5 to 3) (para. 0057), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Murayama does not state the sum concentration of Al2O3 and Li2O (i.e. the instantly claimed [Al2O3]+[Li2O]); however, the sum of their ranges is approximately 11-45% (i.e. sum of 10-25% plus 1-20% by adding the endpoints), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Although the general ranges are not identical to the instantly claimed ranges, the courts have held overlapping ranges to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2, 7, and 11: The composition of specific example 8 outlined above taught by Murayama includes 12.0% Li2O, 3.0% Na2O, 3.0% K2O, etc. (Table 2), and these amounts equate to a value of the instantly claimed entropy function S value being about 0.38 (i.e. calculated using the contents of Li2O, Na2O, and K2O of specific example 8 in the equations of instant claim 2), which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03. Since the values for specific example 8 are within the general ranges for the composition taught by Murayama, then the general ranges also result in a value of the instantly claimed entropy function S value that overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 3 and 8 (rejected under U.S.C. 103 only): Murayama teaches the composition of specific example 8 as including 60.0% SiO2, 15.0% Al2O3, 3.0% B2O3, 1.0% CaO, 2.0% ZrO2, 12.0% Li2O, 3.0% Na2O, 3.0% K2O, about 0% each of P2O5, ZnO, MgO, and BaO (Table 2). These amounts equate to a sum of [SiO2]+[B2O3]+[P2O5] being about 63%, a sum of [Li2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O] being about 18%, a sum of [Al2O3]+[B2O3] being about 18%, and a sum of [B2O3]+[P2O5] being about 3%. Each of these ranges lie within the instantly claimed ranges except for the sum of [Al2O3]+{B2O3]. However, the general ranges of Al2O3 (i.e. 10-25%; para. 0013) and of B2O3 (i.e. 0-10%; para. 0022) equate to a sum of about 10-35%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 4 and 9: Murayama teaches that the glass has a Young’s modulus of preferably 80 GPa or higher and 110 GPa or less (para. 0098), which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03. Specific Example 8 has a Young’s modulus (E) of 83 GPa (Table 2). Murayama teaches that the temperature T2 at which the glass has a viscosity of 102 dPa∙s is especially preferably 1,650°C or lower (para. 0087), and the temperature T4 at which the glass has a viscosity of 104 dPa∙s is more preferably 1,250°C or lower (para. 0086). Specific example 8 has T2 of 1615°C and T4 of 1156°C (Table 2, described in para. 0141). These values of T2 and T4 (both generally taught and for specific example 8) lie within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03. Regarding the condition A2, it is noted that the recited limitations are contingent limitations (i.e. in a case of a sheet thickness of 0.7 mm; i.e. when the glass is subjected to the recited chemical strengthening). It is noted that Murayama teaches the glass being chemically strengthened by immersing in 450°C sodium nitrate for 3 hours and then in 450°C potassium nitrate for 1.5 hours has a surface compressive stress of especially preferably 200 MPa or larger and 400 MPa or less and a depth of compressive stress layer of 100 µm or larger (paragraphs 0117-0118). Murayama also does not specify the fracture toughness. However, as outlined above, Murayama teaches a substantially identical composition for the glass, and therefore the instantly claimed properties of fracture toughness and the contingent limitation are considered to be present because substantially identical compositions are considered to have substantially identical properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II).
Claims 5-6: Murayama teaches that the thickness of the glass is preferably 1.5 mm or less, more preferably 1 mm or less, and more preferably 0.4 mm or larger (para. 0132) (i.e. 0.4-1.5 mm regarding instant claim 5, or 0.4-1 mm regarding instant claim 6), which lies within the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claim 7 is a substantial duplicate of instant claim 2, which is outlined above.
Claim 12: Murayama teaches a glass for chemical strengthening (para. 0001) where specific example 8 includes (in terms of mole percentage on an oxide basis as stated in para. 0136): 60.0% SiO2, 15.0% Al2O3, and 12.0% Li2O (i.e. a Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2-based glass) including 3.0% B2O3, etc. (Table 2). The amount of B2O3 lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03. The Young’s modulus (E) of Specific example 8 is 83 GPA which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03. Murayama teaches specific example 8 has T2 of 1615 °C (Table 2), wherein T2 is the temperature at which the glass has a viscosity of 102 dPa∙s (para. 0141). Regarding the surface compressive stress and compressive stress layer, it is noted that the recited limitations are contingent limitations (i.e. when the glass is subjected to the recited chemical strengthening). Murayama teaches a substantially identical composition for the glass (i.e. as outlined above regarding claims 1 and 7), and therefore the instantly claimed properties of the contingent limitations are considered to be present because substantially identical compositions are considered to have substantially identical properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). It is noted that Murayama teaches the glass being chemically strengthened by immersing in 450°C sodium nitrate for 3 hours and then in 450°C potassium nitrate for 1.5 hours has a surface compressive stress of especially preferably 200 MPa or larger and 400 MPa or less and a depth of compressive stress layer of 100 µm or larger (paragraphs 0117-0118).
Murayama teaches a glass for chemical strengthening generally including in terms of mole percentage on an oxide basis: 55-70% SiO2, 10-25% Al2O3, and 1-20% Li2O (i.e. a Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2-based glass), and 0-10% B2O3 (paras. 0011-0023). This amount of B2O3 overlaps the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Murayama teaches that the glass has a Young’s modulus of preferably 80 GPa or higher and 110 GPa or less (para. 0098), which lies within and overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that Murayama teaches the glass being chemically strengthened by immersing in 450°C sodium nitrate for 3 hours and then in 450°C potassium nitrate for 1.5 hours has a surface compressive stress of especially preferably 200 MPa or larger and 400 MPa or less and a depth of compressive stress layer of 100 µm or larger (paragraphs 0117-0118). The conditions of chemical strengthening of Murayama are close to the instantly claimed contingent limitations (i.e. when chemical strengthening is performed using 100% sodium nitrate at 380°C for 4 hours as recited in instant claim 12), and the resulting compressive stress and compressive stress layer overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05. Furthermore, Murayama teaches a substantially identical composition for the glass (i.e. as outlined above regarding claims 1 and 7), and therefore the instantly claimed properties of the contingent limitations are considered to be present because substantially identical compositions are considered to have substantially identical properties. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). Murayama teaches that the temperature T2 at which the glass has a viscosity of 102 dPa∙s is especially preferably 1,650°C or lower (para. 0087). Although the general ranges are not identical to the instantly claimed ranges, the courts have held overlapping ranges to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13: Murayama teaches a glass for chemical strengthening (para. 0001) where specific example 8 includes (in terms of mole percentage on an oxide basis as stated in para. 0136): 60.0% SiO2, 15.0% Al2O3, 3.0% B2O3, 1.0% CaO, 2.0% ZrO2, 12.0% Li2O, 3.0% Na2O, 3.0% K2O, about 0% each of P2O5, ZnO, MgO, and BaO (Table 2). The composition does not list Y2O3 and TiO2 and therefore these amounts are considered to be substantially 0%. The composition lists a non-zero amount of SrO, but the presence of additional components is not excluded due to the open limitation of “comprising”. These amounts equate to [Li2O]/([Na2O]+[K2O]) being about 2 and ([Al2O3]+[Li2O]) being about 27% (i.e. each calculated by putting the percentage content into the relationship equations). Each of these above ranges lie within the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03. The Young’s modulus (E) of Specific example 8 is 83 GPA which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Murayama teaches a glass for chemical strengthening generally including in terms of mole percentage on an oxide basis: 55-70% SiO2, 10-25% Al2O3, 0-10% B2O3, 0-5% total of ZnO, MgO, and BaO, 0-8% CaO, 1-20% Li2O, 3-11% total of Na2O and K2O, 0-5% ZrO2 (paras. 0011-0023). The glass may also have P2O5 of 0.5-6% when contained (i.e. the lower limit is actually 0) (para. 0076), TiO2 of 0.02-1% when contained (i.e. the lower limit is actually 0) (para. 0074). An amount of Y2O3 is not specified by Murayama, but the instantly claimed range includes 0%, and therefore this component is not required to be present. Each of these ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Murayama teaches that the content ratio of [Li2O]/([Na2O]+[K2O]) is preferably 3 or less and 0.5 or larger (i.e. 0.5 to 3) (para. 0057), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Murayama does not state the sum concentration of Al2O3 and Li2O (i.e. the instantly claimed [Al2O3]+[Li2O]); however, the sum of their ranges is approximately 11-45% (i.e. sum of 10-25% plus 1-20% by adding the endpoints), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Murayama teaches that the glass has a Young’s modulus of preferably 80 GPa or higher and 110 GPa or less (para. 0098), which lies within and overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Although the general ranges are not identical to the instantly claimed ranges, the courts have held overlapping ranges to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 14 and 20: The composition of specific example 8 outlined above taught by Murayama includes 12.0% Li2O, 3.0% Na2O, 3.0% K2O, etc. (Table 2), and these amounts equate to a value of the instantly claimed entropy function S value being about 0.38 (i.e. calculated using the contents of Li2O, Na2O, and K2O of specific example 8 in the equations of instant claim 2), which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03. Since the values for specific example 8 are within the general ranges for the composition taught by Murayama, then the general ranges also result in a value of the instantly claimed entropy function S value that overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 15 and 21 (rejected under U.S.C. 103 only): Murayama teaches the composition of specific example 8 as including 60.0% SiO2, 15.0% Al2O3, 3.0% B2O3, 1.0% CaO, 2.0% ZrO2, 12.0% Li2O, 3.0% Na2O, 3.0% K2O, about 0% each of P2O5, ZnO, MgO, and BaO (Table 2). These amounts equate to a sum of [SiO2]+[B2O3]+[P2O5] being about 63%, a sum of [Li2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O] being about 18%, a sum of [Al2O3]+[B2O3] being about 18%, and a sum of [B2O3]+[P2O5] being about 3%. Each of these ranges lie within the instantly claimed ranges except for the sum of [Al2O3]+{B2O3]. However, the general ranges of Al2O3 (i.e. 10-25%; para. 0013) and of B2O3 (i.e. 0-10%; para. 0022) equate to a sum of about 10-35%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 16 and 22 (rejected under U.S.C. 103 only): Murayama teaches a glass for chemical strengthening generally including in terms of mole percentage on an oxide basis: 55-70% SiO2, 10-25% Al2O3, 0-10% B2O3, 0-5% total of ZnO, MgO, and BaO, 0-8% CaO, 1-20% Li2O, 3-11% total of Na2O and K2O, 0-5% ZrO2, and 0-8% SrO (paras. 0011-0023). The glass may also have P2O5 of 0.5-6% when contained (para. 0076), TiO2 of 0.02-1% when contained (para. 0074). An amount of Y2O3 is not specified by Murayama, but the instantly claimed range includes 0%, and therefore this component is not required to be present. Each of these ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Murayama teaches that the content ratio of [Li2O]/([Na2O]+[K2O]) is preferably 3 or less and 0.5 or larger (i.e. 0.5 to 3) (para. 0057), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Murayama does not state the sum concentration of [MgO]+[CaO]+[SrO]+[BaO]+[ZnO]; however, the sum of their ranges is approximately 0-21% (calculated by adding the endpoints of the corresponding ranges). Murayama does not state the content ratio of [Li2O]/([Ki2O]+[Na2O]+[K2O]); however, the most preferable ranges for Li2O is 9-13% (para. 0053) and for ([Na2O]+[K2O]) is 5-7% (para. 0056), and these most preferable ranges result in a content ratio that overlaps about 0.6 (calculated using all low endpoints or all high endpoints), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The content ratio of Murayama does not state the sum concentration of Al2O3 and Li2O (i.e. the instantly claimed [Al2O3]+[Li2O]); however, the sum of their ranges is approximately 11-45% (i.e. sum of 10-25% plus 1-20% by adding the endpoints), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Although the general ranges are not identical to the instantly claimed ranges, the courts have held overlapping ranges to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 17 and 23 (rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 only): Murayama teaches that the glass may have TiO2 of 0.02-1% when contained (para. 0074), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 18 and 24 (rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 only): Murayama teaches that the total content of Na2O and K2O (i.e. [Na2O]+K2O]) is preferably 0-11%, more preferably 3% or higher and 8% or less (para. 0056). These ranges overlap the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 19 and 25 (rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 only): Murayama teaches the glass includes 0-5% total of ZnO, MgO, and BaO, 0-8% CaO, and 0-8% SrO, etc. (paras. 0011-0023), which sums to about 0-21% (calculated by adding the endpoints of the corresponding ranges), and this sum overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Double Patenting
Copending Application No. 18/663,165 (reference application) was considered for possible nonstatutory double patenting due to substantial overlap of the composition of the glass. However, the claims of the ‘165 application are directed to a chemically strengthened glass instead of a glass intended for chemical strengthening, and therefore the glass is considered to have different properties due to having already undergone chemical treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koike et al. (US 2019/0352227) discloses a glass for chemically strengthening having an overlapping composition (para. 0035). The glass has a plate thickness of 2000 µm or less (para. 0021), a surface compressive stress after chemically strengthening of 200 MPa or more, a DOL of 30 µm or more including 70 µm or more (para. 0023), a critical stress intensity factor KIC (i.e. a fracture toughness) of 0.75 MPa∙m1/2 or more (para. 0027), and a Young’s modulus of 70 GPa or more including 80 GPa or more (para. 0028).
Guo et al. (US 2019/0300422) discloses a glass having an overlapping composition (paras. 0009-0010) and having good ion exchangeability (i.e. for chemically strengthening) (para. 0058). The KIC fracture toughness is at least 0.75 (para. 0084). The Young’s modulus is 75GPa to 100 GPa (para. 0087).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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, 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights