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 1-12 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18 would be withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/03/2026. However, claims 13-18 have been canceled per the amendment filed 08/03/2026, making the above moot.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 is directed towards the glass sheet of claim 1, wherein the at least one edge exhibits an annealing- dependent edge strength (KGx) which satisfies KGx = KG / K, wherein KG denotes a strength value in MPa, and K denotes the annealing rate in Kelvin/s, and wherein the annealing-dependent edge strength KGK is selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.2 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 30 µm; greater than 0.5 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 30 µm; greater than 0.5 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 50 µm; greater than 0.9 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 50 µm; greater than 1.5 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 100 µm; greater than 2 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 100 µm; and any combinations thereof.
The closest prior art is Förtsch et al. (US20180022631, hereinafter referred to as Förtsch). Förtsch does not disclose or make obvious the at least one edge exhibits an annealing- dependent edge strength (KGx) which satisfies KGx = KG / K, wherein KG denotes a strength value in MPa, and K denotes the annealing rate in Kelvin/s, and wherein the annealing-dependent edge strength KGK is selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.2 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 30 µm; greater than 0.5 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 30 µm; greater than 0.5 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 50 µm; greater than 0.9 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 50 µm; greater than 1.5 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 100 µm; greater than 2 MPa-s/Kelvin for the glass thickness of at least 100 µm; and any combinations thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Förtsch et al. (US20180022631, hereinafter referred to as Förtsch).
Regarding claim 1, Förtsch makes obvious a glass sheet (see Förtsch at the Abstract and Fig. 1, showing a glass sheet), comprising: a glass thickness between 15 µm and 2 mm between a first surface and a second surface (see Förtsch at [0022], disclosing a thickness of less than 250 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05); a Weibull modulus according to DIN EN 843-5 of more than 7 (see Förtsch at [0022], disclosing of at least 5, which overlaps with the claimed range.); a characteristic stress at break of more than 130 MPa (see Förtsch at [0023], disclosing the median value of the bending stress during the break of the sample is higher than 200 MPa.); and at least one edge along the thickness, the at least one edge having a plurality of rough surface areas of filamentary defects spaced apart from a plurality of flat surface areas without the filamentary defects (see Förtsch at [0077] and Fig. 16, disclosing laser-filamentation).
Regarding claim 2, Förtsch makes obvious the characteristic stress at break is more than 150 MPa (see Förtsch at [0023], disclosing the median value of the bending stress during the break of the sample is higher than 200 MPa.).
Regarding claim 3, while Förtsch does not explicitly disclose a coefficient of thermal expansion of greater than 6 ppm/Kelvin, the coefficient of thermal expansion of a glass is a function of the composition of a glass. Because the glass of Förtsch is substantially identical to the instant glass as detailed in the rejection of claims 9 and 11-12 as detailed in the rejections below, the glass of Förtsch would inherently possess the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Förtsch makes obvious the glass thickness is equal to or less than 100 µm (see Förtsch at [0011], disclosing a thickness of 100 μm or less.).
Regarding claim 5, while Förtsch does not explicitly disclose an area ratio of the flat surface areas to the rough surface areas between 3:10 and 2:1, changing the size, shape, or dimensions of an item as desired is per se obvious per MPEP 2144.04. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, while Förtsch does not explicitly disclose the glass sheets is configured for a use selected from a group consisting of an insulating intermediate substrate, a spacer for an electronic component, an encapsulating optoelectronic component, a substrate for a thin-film cell, a substrate for a thin-film batteries, a substrate for a thin-film solar cell, a composite substrates for a display, and a microfluidic cell, the intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Please note that where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (See MPEP 2112(III)).
Regarding claim 8, while Förtsch does not explicitly disclose the filamentary defect have a mean spacing to one another ranging from 1 µm to 10 µm, changing the size, shape, or dimensions of an item as desired is per se obvious per MPEP 2144.04. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 9, Förtsch makes obvious the glass comprises the following components, in wt%: SiO2 58 to 65 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing SiO2 58-65 weight %) B2O3 6 to 10.5 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing B2O3 14-25 weight %) Al2O3 14 to 25 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing Al2O3 14-25 weight %) MgO 0 to 3 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing MgO 0-3 weight %) CaO 0 to 9 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing CaO 0-9 weight %) BaO 3 to 8 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing BaO 3-8 weight %) ZnO 0 to 2 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing ZnO 0-2, weight %).
While Förtsch does not explicitly disclose the total of the contents of MgO, CaO, and BaO ranging from 8 to 18 wt%, Förtsch at [0090] discloses a range of 0-3% MgO, 0-9% CaO, and 3-8% BaO, for an overlapping disclosed range of MgO+CaO+BaO of 3-20%.
Regarding claim 11, Förtsch makes obvious the glass comprises the following components, in wt%: SiO2 30 to 85 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing SiO2 30-85 weight %) B2O3 3 to 20 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing B2O3 3-20 weight %) Al2O3 0 to 15 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing Al2O3 0-15 weight %) Na2O 3 to 15 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing Na2O 3-15 weight %) K2O 3 to 15 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing K2O 3-15 weight %) ZnO 0 to 12 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing ZnO 0-12 weight %) TiO2 0.5 to 10 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing TiO2 0.5-10, weight %) CaO 0 to 0.1 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing CaO 0-0.1 weight %).
Regarding claim 12, Förtsch makes obvious the glass comprises the following components, in wt%: SiO2 50 to 65 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing SiO2 30-85 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) Al2O3 15 to 20 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing Al2O3 0-15 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) B2O3 0 to 6 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing B2O3 3-20 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) Li2O 0 to 6 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing 0% Li2O) Na2O 8 to 15 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing Na2O 3-15 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) K2O 0 to 5 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing K2O 3-15 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) MgO 0 to 5 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing 0% MgO) CaO 0 to 7 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing CaO 0-0.1 weight %) ZnO 0 to 4 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing ZnO 0-12 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) ZrO2 0 to 4 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing 0% ZrO2) TiO2 0 to 1 (see Förtsch at [0092], disclosing TiO2 0.5-10, weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Förtsch in view of Marjanovic et al. (US20150166391, hereinafter referred to as Marjanovic).
Regarding claim 10, Förtsch makes obvious the glass comprises the following components, in wt%: SiO2 50 – 70 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing SiO2 58-65 weight %) Al2O3 10 – 20 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing Al2O3 14-25 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) B2O3 5 – 15 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing B2O3 14-25 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) CaO 4 – 8 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing CaO 0-9 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) BaO 0.5 – 5 (see Förtsch at [0090], disclosing BaO 3-8 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.)
Förtsch does not disclose SrO from 4-8 wt.% because Förtsch does not disclose SrO.
Marjanovic is directed towards laser cut glass articles (see Marjanovic at the Title). Marjanovic discloses about 1 mol % to about 8 mol % SrO (see Marjanovic at [0057]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Marjanovic teaches much higher (5 to 10 times higher) volumetric pulse energy density (μJ/μm3) is required for perforating alkaline earth boroaluminosilicate glasses with low or no alkali content. This can be achieved, for example, by utilizing pulse burst lasers, preferably with at least 2 pulses per burst and providing volumetric energy densities within the alkaline earth boroaluminosilicate glasses (with low or no alkali) of about 0.05 μJ/μm3 or higher (see Marjanovic at [0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the laser perforated glass of Förtsch to include SrO within the overlapping claimed range as disclosed by Marjanovic with a reasonable expectation of successfully perforating the glass with at least 2 pulses per burst and providing volumetric energy densities of about 0.05 μJ/μm3 or higher as taught by Marjanovic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (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 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights