DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/19/24 comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statements.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 19 recite “a light diffusion of 8% or more.” Claims 12 and 20 recite “a light diffusion of 5% or less.” The term “light diffusion” does not appear anywhere in the specification as filed. The disclosure provides no definition of the term, no method of measurement, no measuring instrument, no test standard, no specimen geometry, no illuminant, no measurement angle, and no reported value, neither in the written description nor in Tables 1 and 2.
“Light diffusion” has no single settled meaning as applied to a textured glass substrate; it could denoted diffuse transmittance, diffuse reflectance, a scattering coefficient, or a diffusion ratio measured over an angular cone, each governed by a different standard and each yielding a different value for the same specimen. One of ordinary skill could not determine whether a given substrate falls within “8% or more” or “5% or less.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amin et al. (US 20210070652).
Regarding claim 1, Amin teaches a method of forming an anti-sparkle substrate (fig. 1 and 5, article 100, substrate 10, surface 12, textured region 30a, made by method 200; ¶2, textured glass articles “with low sparkle and distinctness of image (DOI) characteristics.”), chemically strengthening an existing first major surface (¶78, a compressive stress region 50 can be developed in the glass substrate 10 prior to development of the textured region 30a; ¶75, molten
K
N
O
3
immersion; ¶77, 380-450
℃
, 15 min -16 h, 200-800 MPA – strengthening); abrading the existing first major surface to form an intermediate first major surface (¶85, step 202 “can include etching with a sand blast medium and a low pH solution as the etchant, e.g., in separate, subsequent steps”, the blasted, pre-solution surface is the intermediate surface.) and etching the intermediate first major surface to form a first major surface of the anti-sparkle substrate (¶85, The step 202 can be conducted with an etching process that employs one or more of a low pH solution as the etchant, sand particles as the etchant and grit as the etchant; ¶86, step 204, pH≤4, ambient to 110
℃
), wherein the anti-sparkle substrate exhibits a haze from 3% to 40% (claim 11, a transmittance haze from about 3% to about 90%) and a sparkle from 1% to 4% (claim 8, a sparkle of less than 3% as measured by pixel power distribution (PPD); Table 1, Ex. 1A3 = 1.4%).
Regarding claim 2, Amin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the chemically strengthening comprises exposing the existing first major surface to a molten salt solution maintained a first temperature from 370°C to 500°C for a first period of time from 5 minutes to 8 hours, and the chemically strengthening forms an intermediate compressive stress region extending from the existing first major surface with an intermediate maximum compressive stress from 25 MegaPascals to 1500 MegaPascals. (¶75 and ¶77,
K
N
O
3
, 380-450
℃
, 15 min-16 h, 200-800 MPa).
Regarding claim 9, Amin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the etching comprises contacting the intermediate first major surface with an acidic solution (¶86, step 204, the step 204 can be conducted with an etchant having a pH of about 4 or less. Suitable etchants include hydrofluoric acid-free etchants (e.g., citric acid; hydrochloric acid) and hydrofluoric containing etchants. Suitable hydrofluoric acid-free etchants include hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, citric acid, ascorbic acid, oxalic acid and acetic acid.”; claim 18, the second etchant is a solution with a pH of less than 4; The etchant contacts primary surface 12, which bears the blasted texture from step 202) maintained at a temperature from 20°C to 45°C (¶86, the etching step 204 is conducted at about 25° C., 30° C., 35° C., 40° C., 45° C., 50° C., 55° C., 60° C., 65° C., 70° C., 75° C., 80° C., 85° C., 90° C., 95° C., 100° C., 105° C., 110° C., and all temperatures between these values; Five enumerated values, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45
℃
, fall within the claimed window, and 45
℃
is its exact upper endpoint) for from 2 minutes to 2 hours (¶86, the etching step 204 can be conducted from about 15 minutes to about 100 hours; ¶87, the etching step 204 can be conducted with an additive salt from about 15 minutes to about 5 hours, from about 30 minutes to about 5 hours, or even from about 30 minutes to 2 hours; the last range lies entirely within the claimed 2 minutes to 2 hours).
Regarding claim 10, Amin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the etching comprises contacting the intermediate first major surface with an alkaline solution (¶89, step 206: a step 206 of treating the primary surface 12 of the substrate 10 with an aqueous solution having a pH of greater than 9; the high pH aqueous solution employed during the step 206 is an aqueous, alkaline solution having a pH that ranges from about 10 to about 13 (e.g., NaOH); claim 22, treating the primary surface of the glass substrate with an aqueous solution having a pH of greater than 9 at a temperature above ambient temperature. The solution contacts primary surface 12, which bears the blasted texture from step 202) maintained at a temperature from 95°C to 165°C (¶89, treating step 206 is conducted at about 25° C., 30° C., 35° C., 40° C., 45° C., 50° C., 55° C., 60° C., 65° C., 70° C., 75° C., 80° C., 85° C., 90° C., 95° C., 100° C., 105° C., 110° C., and all temperatures between these values; Four enumerated values, 95, 100, 105, and 110
℃
, fall within the claimed window, and 95
℃
is its exact lower endpoint) for from 10 minutes to 4 hours (¶89, the treating step 206 can be conducted from about 15 minutes to about 100 hours; 15 minutes to 4 hours falls within the claimed 10 minutes to 4 hours).
Regarding claim 14, Amin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a surface roughness Ra of the first major surface (¶58, the average surface roughness can be measured as surface roughness,
R
a
, using an interferometer or an AFM,” referring to textured region 30a defined by primary surface 12. Instrument: “a ZYGO NEWVIEW 7300 Optical Surface Profiler manufactured by ZYGO Corporation.) is from 0.03 micrometers to 0.09 micrometers (¶58, specific enumerated values: “the average surface roughness
R
a
associated with the textured region 30a can be about 1000, 900, 800, 700, 600, 500, 400, 300, 200, 100, 50, 25, 10 ,5, 1, 0.5, 0.1 nanometers, and all surface roughness values between these levels.” 50nm = 0.05µm, squarely within the claimed 0.03-0.09 µm window; ¶58, ranges: “from about 10 nanometers to about 1000 nanometers, from about 10 nanometers to about 500 nanometers, from about 20 nanometers to about 1000 nanometers, from about 20 nanometers to about 500 nanometers, from about 50 nanometers to about 500 nanometers”; each encompasses the claimed range; claim 1 and claim 5 recite
R
a
“from about 10 nm to about 1000 nm.”).
Regarding claim 15, Amin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a root mean square height Sq
of the first major surface is from 0.05 micrometers to 0.17 micrometers (¶58 discloses textured region 30a having
R
a
values including “50” nanometers and ranges “from about 50 nanometers to about 500 nanometers,” measured on a ZYGO NEWVIEW 700 profiler per the ISO 4287/4288 standards cited at ¶96).
Regarding claim 16, Amin teaches an anti-sparkle substrate (¶2, textured glass articles “with low sparkle and distinctness of image (DOI) characteristics,” glass article 100 comprising glass substrate 10) comprising, a first major surface comprising a textured surface (textured region 30a defined by primary surface 12; ¶53, the glass article 100 also includes a textured region 30a, as defined by the primary surface 12), a surface roughness Ra of the first major surface is from 0.03 micrometers to 0.09 micrometers (“average surface roughness (
R
a
) from about 10 nanometers to about 1000 nanometers (nm),” and “from about 10 nanometers to about 500 nanometers”), wherein the anti-sparkle substrate is a glass-based substrate or a ceramic-based substrate (¶67, the glass substrate 10 is a glass-based substrate, including but not limited to, glass-ceramic materials that comprise a glass component at about 90% or greater by weight and a ceramic component; claim 6, aluminosilicate glass, a borosilicate glass, a phosphosilicate glass, a soda lime glass, an alkali aluminosilicate glass, and an alkali aluminoborosilicate glass), and the anti-sparkle substrate exhibits a haze from 3% to 40% (claim 11, the glass article comprises a transmittance haze from about 3% to about 90%) and a sparkle from 1% to 4% (claim 8, a sparkle of less than 3% as measured by pixel power distribution (PPD); Table 1, Ex. 1A3 = 1.4%).
Regarding claim 17, Amin teaches the anti-sparkle substrate of claim 16, wherein the anti-sparkle substrate comprises a compressive stress region extending from the first major surface (¶76, the replacement of small metal ions by larger metal ions in the ion exchange process creates a compressive stress region 50 in the glass substrate 10 that extends from the primary surface 12 to a depth 52 (referred to as the ‘depth of layer’) that is under compressive stress.” Claim 7, the glass substrate further comprises a compressive stress region that extends from the primary surface to a selected depth.) comprising a maximum compressive stress from 25 MegaPascals to 1200 MegaPascals (¶77, ion exchange treatments “result in a compressive stress region 50 having a depth 52 (depth of layer) ranging from about 10 µm up to at least 50 µm with a compressive stress ranging from about 200 MPa up to about 800 MPa, and a central tension of less than about 100 MPa.” ¶76, “the primary surface 12 of the glass substrate 10 described herein, when strengthened by ion exchange, has a compressive stress of at least 350 MPa, and the region under compressive stress extends to a depth 52, i.e., depth of layer, of at least 15 μm below the primary surface 12.”).
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 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin et al. (US 20210070652) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Ravichandran et al. (US 20150175478).
Regarding claim 4, Amin further teaches wherein the abrading comprises impinging the existing first major surface with particles (¶85, step 202: the etching process “employs one or more of a low pH solution as the etchant, sand particles as the etchant and grit as the etchant,” and “can include etchant, e.g., in separate, subsequent steps” and claim 16, “the first etchant comprises a sand blast etchant and a low pH solution etchant.” Sand blasting is impingement of the surface with propelled particles.). Amin does not specifically teach comprising a median particle size of 3 micrometers to 15 micrometers. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ravichandran teaches the method, wherein the abrading comprises impinging the existing first major surface with particles comprising a median particle size of 3 micrometers to 15 micrometers (¶46, the grit particle size in the dry or the wet method can be, for example, from about 10 to about 200 microns, from 10 to 50 microns, 5 to 50 microns, 2 to 50 microns, including intermediate values and ranges; ¶85, the inventive process parameters are: 10 micron white alumina, blasting air pressure of 29 psi and a grit flow rate of 100 g/min; claim 2, the diameter of the grit in the grit blasting is from 2 to 40 microns). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the method of Amin with a median particle size of 3 micrometers to 15 micrometers of Ravichandran, for the purpose of the desired reduced gloss or glare levels (¶71).
Regarding claim 5, Amin further teaches wherein the particles are propelled (¶85, step 202, “etching with a sand blast medium”; claim 16, the first etchant comprises a sand blast etchant, note: sand blasting necessarily propels the particles against the surface.) and Ravichandran further teaches with a pressure from 200 kiloPascals to 550 kiloPascals (¶90, the blasting pressure was 0.2 MPa; ¶85, the inventive process parameters are, 10 micron white alumina, blasting air pressure of 29 psi, and a grit flow rate of 100 g/min; note: 29 psi = 200 kiloPascals; the comparative process used “air pressure 40 psi” note: 40 psi = 275.79). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Amin further teaches wherein the particles (¶85, step 202, the process “employs one or more of a low pH solution as the etchant, sand particles as the etchant and grit as the etchant”; “a sand blast medium” claim 16, the first etchant comprises a sand blast etchant and a low pH solution etchant.”) and Ravichandran further teaches comprise SiC, Al2O3, or combinations thereof (¶46, “grit blasting can be accomplished by, for example, a wet blasting process that uses particle grit comprising or consisting of, for example, alumina particles, silicon carbide particles, or a mixtures thereof” ; “In dry blasting, grits can include, for example, alumina, silicon carbide, glass beads, or mixtures thereof.”; ¶47, the grit particles can be comprised of, for example, silicon carbide particles; claim 3, the frit in the grit blasting is SiC having particle size of from 2 to 50 microns.” Working examples, ¶104,gritblasted with 130 mesh SiC grit; ¶85, 10 micron white alumina). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Amin in view of Ravichandran teaches the invention as set forth above and Amin further teaches the method, wherein the etching removes a thickness of from 5 micrometers to 100 micrometers (¶91, Example 1, samples of Corning Gorilla Glass 3 “having a thickness of about 0.6 mm” were sand blasted and etched, and “all of the samples were measured with a thickness of about 0.55 mm after completion of the sand blasting and etching step” note: a reduction of 50 µm, within the claimed range) from the intermediate first major surface (¶86, step 204, etching primary surface 12 with a second etchant; ¶88, after the etching steps, “excess etchant from these steps, along with any loose and remnant constituents from the substrate 10, are then removed by rinsing,” the etching removes material from the substrate).
Regarding claim 8, Amin teaches the method, wherein the etching removes the thickness from the intermediate first major surface (¶86, step 204, etching primary surface 12; ¶91, Example 1, 0.6 mm reduced to about 0.55 mm after the sand blasting and etching step). Amin does not specifically teach from 9 micrometers to 40 micrometers. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ravichandran teaches the method, from 9 micrometers to 40 micrometers (¶86, FIG 3 shows an exemplar of acceptable glass thickness loss in the disclosed process during etching, e.g., about 9 microns, note: the exact lower endpoint of the claimed range; ¶105, Glass thickness loss for this process is acceptable at about 9 microns, and as seen in Fig. 3; ¶94, the method “can etch away, for example, from about 1 to about 50 micrometers of the substrate being etched … from about 1 to about 30 micrometers of the substrate, from about 1 to about 20 micrometers; fig. 9 plots glass loss against etch time, showing values of approximately 5, 9, 13, 15, 20, and 23 microns for the two etchant concentrations.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the method of Amin with from 9 micrometers to 40 micrometers of Ravichandran, for the purpose of the desired reduced gloss or glare levels (¶71).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 13, and 18 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 prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not disclose the claimed method specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the first major surface of the anti-sparkle substrate is substantially unstrengthened.”
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not disclose the claimed method specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the anti-sparkle substrate exhibits a transmittance of 92% or more, a gloss from 55% to 150%, and a distinctness of image from 75.1% to 100%.”
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not disclose the claimed an anti-sparkle substrate specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the first major surface of the anti-sparkle substrate is substantially unstrengthened.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 09/04/26
Prosecution Insights