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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-14, 23, 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by USPub20200325066.
Regarding claim 1: 066’ teaches chemically strengthened glasses containing Y2O3, wherein the glass contains a compressive stress layer on the surface (see Tables), which implicitly provides for internal tensile stress as understood in the art. The glass can have a CS as claimed with a Young’s modulus (E) as claimed (see Tables).
While ‘066 may not explicitly discuss a CT_LD or resulting in the relationship claimed, note that ‘066’s glass meets the structure claimed. Additionally, 066’s glasses have a thickness of t=800micron (0155) which is the same as disclosed by Applicants’ (see Applicants’ publication 0111). Further, 066’s glass are made with a composition meeting that disclosed by Applicants’ (see ‘066’s Tables compared Applicants’ claim 11) and ‘066’s glass is made by a first IOX step with sodium nitrate at 450oC for 3hrs and then a second IOX step using potassium nitrate at 450oC for 1.5hrs (0174) which is also substantially the same as Applicants’ two step IOX method (see Applicants’ published specification par 0170-0174).
Given the similarities, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same CT_LD and relationship to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 2: Note that the limitations claimed are conditional (i.e. “when” language) which only requires the prior art glass to have the claimed features “when” treated under the conditions claimed. In the instant case, given the similarities of ‘066 and Applicants’ as previously mentioned, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same features to result when treated similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 4: ‘066’s glass can have a CS as claimed (see CS2 in Ex 3-8 of Table 3 for instance).
Regarding claims 5-6: Given the similarities, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same CT_LD and relationship to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 7: ‘066’s glass can have a YM as claimed (see E in Ex 2-4, 8 in Table 3 for instance).
Regarding claim 8: ‘066’s glasses can have a DOL_1 (DOL2 in Tables) which is a depth of the compressive stress layer formed through sodium-potassium exchange of the surface (0174) meeting the relationship claimed (see DOL2 in Tables and note ‘066’s glasses have a t=800micron (0155)).
Regarding claim 9: Given the similarities of ‘066 and Applicants’ as previously mentioned, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same hardness to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 10: Given the similarities, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same threshold and CT_LD to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 11: As discussed above, 066’s glass can have a composition meeting that claimed (see examples in Tables).
Regarding claims 12-14: 066’s glass can have a composition meeting that claimed (see for instance Example 4 in Table 3).
Regarding claim 23: 066 teaches that a mobile apparatus such as a mobile phone can have their glass as a cover (see 0002, 0153).
Regarding claim 25: 066’s glasses can have a DOL_0 meeting the relationship claimed (see DOL3 in Tables) (see 0174 and Tables as well as note 066’s glasses have a t=800micron as recited in par 0155).
However, additionally note that Applicants’ DOL_0 is the 066’s glasses have a thickness of t=800micron (0155) which is the same as disclosed by Applicants’ (see Applicants’ publication 0111).
Given that the thickness is the same as Applicants and as previously mentioned, both the composition and method in 066’ is also substantially the same as Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same DOL_0 relationship to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 26: 066’s glasses can have a YM and/or CS as claimed (see E and CS2 in Tables)
Regarding claim 27: Given the similarities, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same CT_LD to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 28: 066’s glass can have a composition meeting that claimed (see for instance examples 2-9 in Tables).
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.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPub20200325066.
Regarding claim 16: Note that 066’s glass, which would include that of the internal tensile region, has an M of 11.8 (see composition of Example 4 in Table 3) which in rounded form, M=12 anticipating claim 16.
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue that the claimed limitation would not be considered anticipated with 066’s M=11.8, at the very least, it would be considered so close to M=12 to render it obvious (MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Even further in the alternative, 066 teaches that their glasses can have a composition (see abstract, 0050-0059) which allow for resulting M values overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub20200325066.
Regarding claim 15: Note that 066 teaches a glass providing Li2O/(Na2O+K2O)=1.6 and a Li2O+Na2O+K2O=17.9 (see composition of Example 4 in Table 3).
Note that while the Li+Na+K sum may be slightly outside of the claimed range, it would be considered so close to the 17 end point to render it obvious (MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Alternatively, 066 teaches that their glasses can have a composition (see abstract, 0050-0059) which allow for resulting alkali sum values overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights