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 .
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 06/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 13-18 were amended. Claim 31-37 were added. Claims 13-18 and 31-37 remain pending.
Applicant' s arguments and Amendments, filed 06/05/2026, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 5-6 , filed 06/05/2026, with respect to Claim 13 and 17 Objections and Claim 16-17 Rejections.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 6-8, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to Claim 13-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 8-9, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to Claims 14 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
NOTE: While the Applicant submits that Claim 13 has been Amended in accordance with the Office’s requirement of form in Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks,( see page 5 Para.1) filed 06/05/2026, the Examiner disputes this assertion. For Claim 13, the relevant wording and the Examiner suggested wording from the Claims (Preliminary Amendment Page 3) dated 05/22/2025, in the Non-Final Rejection dated 03/16/2026 , and Claim 13 from the Amended Claims dates 06/05/2026 are below:
Relevant wording from Claim 13 from the Claims dated 05/22/2025: rapidly cooling molten glass.
Relevant Examiner suggested wording in the Non-Final Rejection dated 03/16/2026: a rapidly cooling of a molten glass.
Relevant wording from Claim 13 from the Amended Claims dated 06/05/2026: cooling a molten glass to form a glass.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Objections to Claim 13 and 17 have been resolved by Amendment, the Examiner in response,
Respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Below is the Objection (read)/ and the Examiner suggestion that was not Amended to the Claims:
Claim 13 - imparting compressive stress / imparting a compressive stress; during heating by compacting the glass / during the heating of the glass to the glass temperature by a compacting of the glass.
Claim 17 - wherein the compacting further comprises/ wherein the compacting of the glass further comprises.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Rejections to Claim 16 and 17 have been resolved by Amendment, the Examiner in response,
Respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Claims 16 and 17 were directed to indefinite limitations related Claim 1, as below, where the Claims remain unchanged in the Claims dated 06/05/2026:
Claim 16 cites “the (glass) temperature is above 200°C” wherein a temperature range is defined in independent Claim 13 (the (glass) temperature is above 100°C and below a softening temperature of the glass). It is unclear which limitation is proper, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands the instant claim as “the (glass) temperature is above 200°C and below the softening temperature of the glass”.
Claim 17 cites “keeping (maintaining) the glass at or above the (glass) temperature”, wherein a (glass) temperature is defined in Claim 16 ( 200°C ) and a temperature range is defined in independent Claim 13 (the (glass) temperature is above 100°C and below a softening temperature of the glass). It is unclear which limitation is proper, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands the instant claim as “keeping (maintaining) the glass at or above the (glass) temperature of 200°C and below the softening temperature of the glass”.
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant argues that (emphasis added by Applicant)
In regard to a method of making a strengthened glass-based article, comprising:
cooling a molten glass to form a glass; bonding the glass to a cladding; heating the glass to a glass temperature greater than 1000 C and below a softening temperature of the glass, while bonded to the cladding, to increase density of the glass by at least 10 mg/cm3, and
imparting compressive stress on the cladding during the heating by compacting the glass bonded thereto, pulling the cladding into compression. Further, that Harris, Amosov and Kiczenski alone or in combination disclose the above emphasized features.
Kiczenski discloses the heating is at a temperature from 4000C to 6000C. Harris discloses that the temperature range for the heating is from 7500C to 9000C. (Harris, [0069]). These ranges do not overlap. So, it is unclear how a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine these incompatible teachings. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, and all teachings in the prior art must be considered to the extent that they are in analogous arts. Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another.(MPEP § 2143.01(11)) (Applicant emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 14, none of the cited references provide a teaching the molten glass decreases by at least 300°C in less than 2 minutes. Rapid cooling leads to higher fictive temperatures which results in compressive stress being generated as a result of the heating as noted in the Application [0060-0062]. Further that Amosov is focused on the temperature of the already formed glass laminate, not directed to the glass before it is bonded.
Claim 15 recited the fictive temperature of the glass which is achieved through cooling.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner replies,
Respectful disagreement. Harris teaches glass compositions are melted (molten) in a fusion process where the glass sheets are fused together that form a glass ribbon that cools to form a laminate sheet that is cut to form a glass article [0058] [0059] [0061]. Here, a molten glass, in the broadest reasonable interpretation is the glasses of the laminate, is cooled. The laminate is used for an article made of glass. The molten glass is cooled and is presented in glass laminate form. Hence, the argument is moot. The rejection for Claim 13 is maintained. Further, as Claims 14-18 depend on Claim 1, the rejection for Claims 14-18 is maintained.
To be clear, the cooling of a glass, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, ends when the glass structure (fictive temperature) is unchanged and thermal cycling processes cease. A molten glass cooled, and then reheated and cooled as a means to obtain a fictive temperature, would be the end of the cooling of a glass. The Harris temperature range from 7500C to 9000C is used, as part of the overall cooling process, to impart thermal history or a fictive temperature, as well as to cite the 750°C temperature is below the softening temperature of the glass. Kiczenski is specifically cited to heat the laminated glass sheet at about 675° C for about 56 min, (not in the general range of 400°C to 600°C in the abstract), and cooling the laminated glass sheet to room temperature over about 2 min to increase the density. As the softening temperature was set by Harris to be 750°C, Kiczenski’s 675° C temperature is below the softening temperature. Hence, the argument is moot.
Respectful disagreement. Amosov clearly discloses the molten glass decreases by at least 300°C in less than 2 minutes and Amosov is not focused on the temperature of the already formed glass laminate. “The strength of the final product can also be changed by changing the cooling properties in the forming process ([0100] lines 1-2). Further, a cooling rate of 10°C/sec is disclosed ([0100] lines 8-11), where in 30 seconds the glass would have cooled 300°C. In addition, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence the argument is moot.
As cited in b) above, the cooling of a glass, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, ends when the glass structure (fictive temperature) is unchanged and thermal cycling processes cease. A molten glass cooled, and then reheated and cooled as a means to obtain a fictive temperature, would be the end of the cooling of a glass. A molten glass cooled, and then reheated and cooled as a means to obtain a fictive temperature, would be the end of the cooling of a glass. The Harris temperature range from 7500C to 9000C is used, as part of the overall cooling process, to impart thermal history or a fictive temperature. Also, the applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Hence the argument is moot.
Claim Interpretation The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 32 be found allowable, claim 35 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(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 16-17 is/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.
Regarding Claim 16 cites “the (glass) temperature is above 200°C” wherein a temperature range is defined in independent Claim 13 (the (glass) temperature is above 100°C and below a softening temperature of the glass). It is unclear which limitation is proper, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands the instant claim as “the (glass) temperature is above 200°C and below the softening temperature of the glass”.
Regarding Claim 17 cites “keeping (maintaining) the glass at or above the (glass) temperature”, wherein a (glass) temperature is defined in Claim 16 ( 200°C ) and a temperature range is defined in independent Claim 13 (the (glass) temperature is above 100°C and below a softening temperature of the glass). It is unclear which limitation is proper, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of prosecution and prior art, the Examiner understands the instant claim as “keeping (maintaining) the glass at or above the (glass) temperature of 200°C and below the softening temperature of the glass”.
All dependent claims not cited but dependent on the independent and dependent claims above are also hereby rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 13, 15-18, 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
WO2020219290A1 (Original English version provided herewith and referenced herein) by Harris et. al
(herein “Harris”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20170361574 (as submitted in the IDS dated
05/22/2025) by Kiczenksi et. al. (herein “Kiczenksi”).
Regarding Claim 13, Harris teaches,
a method of making a strengthened glass-based article; [0002], [0005], [0006], “The present specification generally relates to glass articles and, more particularly, to laminated glass articles including a plurality of glass layers and methods for forming the same.”, “…a laminated glass article comprises a core layer…and a clad layer directly adjacent to the core layer…such that the clad layer is in compression and the core layer is in tension. A compressive stress of the clad layer increases with increasing distance from the outer surface of the clad layer…”
comprising,
cooling a molten glass to form a glass; [0058] [0059] [0061], “a first glass composition is melted..”, “a second glass is melted…”, the first glass and second glass is contacted…in the viscous state to form a laminated sheet…(that)is part of a glass ribbon…the glass ribbon cools…the laminated sheet is cut from the glass ribbon…the laminated sheet can be processed to form the glass article…” Here, a molten glass is cooled for an article made of glass.
bonding the glass to a cladding; [0005],[0055], FIG. 1, FIG.2 “…a laminated glass article comprises a core layer and a clad layer directly adjacent to the core layer…”, “, the first clad layer 104 is fused to the first major surface of the core layer 102…”. FIG. 2 illustrates a double fusion draw where the clad glass 104/106 is fused to the core glass 102.
heating the glass to a temperature greater than 100°C and below a softening temperature of the glass while bonded to the cladding; [0051],[0069] , “…”fictivation refers to imposing a specified fictive temperature or thermal history on a glass through appropriate heat treatment…In the glasses described herein, the fictive temperature is from 50°C to 200°C greater than the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the glass article”, “…a first temperature that is from 50°C to 200°C greater than the glass transition temperature (Tg)…followed by equilibrating the glass article at the first temperature for a pre-determined time period an then quickly quenching the glass article to second temperature…which is about room temperature”, “ …in some embodiments, the first temperature is higher than the Tg of the clad layer and the Tg of the core layer…”, “the glass article is heated to first temperature that is greater than or equal to 750°C and less than or equal to 900°C”. Here, for thermal tempering, Harris teaches a first temperature of 750°C which is quickly quenched, i.e. 750°C is also the fictive temperature. As such, one skilled in the art would know that the fictive temperature of a glass is below the softening temperature of the glass.
imparting compressive stress on the cladding during heating by compacting the glass bonded thereto, pulling the cladding into compression ; [0073], “Referring to the thermal mechanical stress profile, the compressive region extends to…about 50um and has a surface compressive stress of at least 200MPa. The compressive stress increases continuously with increasing distance from the outer surface of the clad layer from the surface compressive stress…”
While Harris teaches imparting compressive stress on the cladding during heating of the laminated glass articles where the core and clad glass layers (produced by a double fusion process) have different coefficient of thermal expansion, Harris fails to discloses,
imparting compressive stress on the cladding during heating by compacting the glass bonded thereto
In a similar endeavor of strengthening a laminated glass article, Kizcenski teaches,
a laminated glass article with a core/clad glass structure where the core glass and clad glass have different CTE where the core glass CTE is greater than the clad glass CTE; [0006].
a laminated glass article produced by double fusion draw process; [0023[, FIG. 3.
the first and second cladding layer glass is fused to the core glass; [0021].
a reheating process of the glass laminate; [0036].
movement of atoms within the cooling glass when a molten glass is cooled rapidly from a high temperature.
The above provides a nexus for Kiczenksi.
Further, Kizcenski teaches when a molten glass is cooled rapidly from a high temperature, the movement of atoms within the cooling glass slows down with decreasing temperature and eventually diminishes to oscillations about fixed positions due to normal thermal population of vibrational states. As a consequence, when a glass article that was rapidly quenched during forming is reheated to intermediate temperatures, the thermally-populated vibrational states allow for relaxation of atoms…”. As part of a technical background, “Such relaxation typically is accompanied by an irreversible decrease in the physical dimensions of a glass article, and therefore, thermal relaxation upon reheating is said to produce compaction of the glass article”, “… compaction is a dimensional change of a glass article (core glass with clad glass) in response to subjecting the glass article to a specified thermal cycle”, [0003], [0019]. Here, compaction is measured by dimensional change ([0019], CM = (D2 -D1)/ D1) where the dimension D1 is reduced to D2 by compaction, i.e. the volume is reduced = density is increased. The prior art provides a heating process for glass relaxation, or compaction. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As indicated in MPEP 2112.01 When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With the nexus of Kizcenski, Kizcenksi further teaches,
to increase density of the glass by at least 10 mg/cm3.
Kizcenksi cites heating the laminated glass sheet to about 675°C over about 4 min, holding the laminated glass sheet at about 675° C. for about 56 min, and cooling the laminated glass sheet to room temperature over about 2 min using a fan reduced the compaction (increased the density) of the laminated glass sheets following the heat treatment to about 41.77 ppm from 50ppm ([0055], [0056]). Hence the density increased 8.23 ppm, or increased 16.5%.
Kizcenksi discloses the claimed invention except for the increase in density in units of g/cm3 of and the specific increase in density of 10 g/cm3 . Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the increase in density, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the increase in density for the purpose of provide a density of the laminate that is comparable or less than that of conventional glass substrates used in display applications, as noted by Kizcenski [0058].
Regarding Claim 15, Harris and Kizcenski teach in the rejection of claim 13 above teach all of the limitations of claim 13.
Harris teaches wherein,
the cooling of the molten glass produces the glass having a fictive temperature of at least 600°C; Harris teaches the instant claim in Claim 1 previously.
Regarding Claim 16, Harris and Kizcenski teach in the rejection of claim 13 above teach all of the limitations of claim 13.
Harris teaches wherein,
the temperature is above 200°C; Harris teaches the instant claim in Claim 1 previously.
Regarding Claim 17, Harris and Kizcenski teach in the rejection of claim 16 above teach all of the limitations of claim 16.
Kizcenski teaches wherein,
the compacting further comprises maintaining the glass at or above the glass temperature for at least an hour in aggregate; [0056], “heating the laminated glass sheet to about 675°C over about 4 min, holding the laminated glass sheet at about 675° C. for about 56 min, and cooling the laminated glass sheet to room temperature over about 2 min using a fan reduced the compaction”.
Kizcenski discloses the claimed invention except for maintaining the laminated glass sheet at about 675° C for 1 hr. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to maintain the temperature for 1 hr. (60 minutes) since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to deploy a time that is of an ordinary value interval (on the hour). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, while Kizcenski does not disclose the heating temperature of 750°C of Harris of Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to quickly cool the laminated glass sheets from 675°C to room temperature of Kizcenksi, as this would still provide for a fictive temperature of at least 600°C (i.e. the fictive temperature would be 675°C). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 18, Harris and Kizcenski teach in the rejection of claim 16 above teach all of the limitations of claim 16.
Harris further teaches wherein,
prior to the heating the glass, but after the cooling, a temperature of the glass is below 50°C.; [0069], lines 23- 24; regarding the process of obtaining a fictive temperature [0069], “the glass is …cooled to a second temperature which is about room temperature (25°C +/-10°C).
Harris not disclose ,
prior to the heating the glass, but after the cooling, a temperature of the glass is below 50°C.;
Kiczenski further teaches that as part of the process of densifying the glass [0056], the laminated sheet has “the total diagonal distance determined at room temperature before subjecting the sample to the thermal cycle” ([0019] lines 30-32). Further, “ The glass article can be formed using a suitable process such as, for example, a fusion draw, down draw, slot draw, up draw, or float process”, “…Disclosed herein is a method comprising forming a glass article comprising a glass core layer and a glass cladding layer adjacent to the glass core layer. The glass article is maintained within a hold temperature range from about 400°C to about 600°C….The glass article is cooled to a quench temperature of at most about 50° C”, “Disclosed herein is a method comprising heating a glass article to a first temperature of at least about 400° C. The glass article comprises a glass core layer and a glass cladding layer adjacent to the glass core layer. The glass article is maintained within a temperature range from about 400° C. to about 600° C.” [0023],[0007], [0008]. Here, Kizcenski teaches that after the glass laminate is formed and quenched off the draw to a temperature of at most 50°C (i.e. 50°C or less), the glass laminate is heated. Therefore, the glass laminate must have been at 50°C or less prior to the heating. As well, it is common and well known I the art that heating processes start and end from/to room temperature (~25°C). The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 36 - Harris and Kiczenski in the rejection of claim 15 above teach all of the limitations of claim 15.
the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating is less than 6000C.
Harris discloses a fictive temperature of 7500C [0069] but does not disclose the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating is less than 6000C in the instant claim. As fictive temperature is a known results effective variable by a PHOSITA, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the fictive temperature, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the fictive temperature for the purpose of, as a PHOSITA would know, different glass compositions as different glass compositions within similar forming and cooling processes produce different fictive temperatures. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) . It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 37- Harris and Kiczenski in the rejection of claim 15 above teach all of the limitations of claim 15.
Harris discloses a fictive temperature of 750°C [0069], which as a PHOSITA would know is below the softening point temperature, but does not disclose,
the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating is less than 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass; Harris discloses a fictive temperature of 7500C that below the softening temperature by some amount, but does not disclose the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating is less than 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass in the instant claim. As fictive temperature is a known results effective variable by a PHOSITA, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating to less than 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating to less than 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass for the purpose of, as a PHOSITA would know, different glass compositions as different glass compositions within similar forming and cooling processes produce different fictive temperatures that would be below the softening by some amount.. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) . It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 14, 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et. al. and
Kiczenksi et. al. and in further view of USPGPUB 20150210583A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated
05/22/2025) by Amosov et. al. (herein “Amosov”).
Regarding Claim 14, Harris and Kizcenski in the rejection of claim 13 above teach all of the limitations of claim 13.
Harris discloses a double fusion process where a glass ribbon that cools as it travels away from the distributor 220 and then the glass ribbon is cut to separate a laminated sheet (FIG. 2, [0061]), but fails to disclose,
the cooling the molten glass decreases a temperature of the molten glass by at least 300°C in less than 2 minutes.
In a similar endeavor of cooling glass, making laminates sheets, using a double fusion draw process, engineering coefficients of thermal expansion, and a reheating process after forming a laminate [0013], [0014], [0036], [0058], Amosov further teaches a cooling rate of the laminate during the fusion draw process (Claims 9-14) in the range of 0-500°C/sec [0101]. Specifically, Amosov teaches a faster cooling rate of 10°C/second, as compared to a slower cooling rate of 2°C/second [0100] for Example 4 with a core glass of Glass A and clad glass of Glass B [0102], Table 1. After 30 seconds (less than 2 minutes) the temperature would have been reduced 300°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the faster cooling rate of Amosov in the method of Harris, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of increasing strength of the glass laminate after drawing, as noted by Amosov ([0102], lines 6-10).
Regarding Claim 31 - Harris, Kiczenski and Amosov in the rejection of claim 14 above teach all of the limitations of claim 14.
Harris discloses a fictive temperature of 750°C [0069], which as a PHOSITA would know is below the softening point temperature, but does not disclose,
the glass temperature is from greater than 2000C to less than or equal to 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass.
Kizcenksi cites heating the laminated glass sheet to about 675°C, which is some amount below the softening point.
While Kizcenksi does not disclose the glass temperature is from greater than 2000C to less than or equal to 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass, the glass temperature (for densification) is a known results effective variable by a PHOSITA. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the glass temperature from greater than 2000C to less than or equal to 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the glass temperature from greater than 2000C to less than or equal to 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass for the purpose of, as a PHOSITA would know, different glass compositions as different glass compositions within similar forming and cooling processes produce glasses of different densities. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) . It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claims 32 and 35 - Harris, Kiczenski and Amosov in the rejection of claim 14 above teach all of the limitations of claim 14.
Harris does not disclose,
the heating increases the density of the glass by at least 15 mg/cm3.
Kizcenksi discloses reduced the compaction (increased the density) of the laminated glass sheets following the heat treatment to about 41.77 ppm from 50ppm ([0055], [0056]). Hence the density increased 8.23 ppm, or increased 16.5%. Kizcenksi discloses the claimed invention except for the increase in density in units of g/cm3 of and the specific increase in density of 15 mg/cm3 . Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the increase in density, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the increase in density for the purpose of provide a density of the laminate that is comparable or less than that of conventional glass substrates used in display applications, as noted by Kizcenski [0058]. Further, the unit of measure of density is a choice, not an invention.
Regarding Claim 33 - Harris, Kiczenski and Amosov in the rejection of claim 31 above, which depends on claim 14, teach all of the limitations of claim 31.
a fictive temperature of the glass after the heating is less than 6000C.
Harris discloses a fictive temperature of 7500C [0069] but does not disclose the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating is less than 6000C in the instant claim. As fictive temperature is a known results effective variable by a PHOSITA, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the fictive temperature, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the fictive temperature for the purpose of, as a PHOSITA would know, different glass compositions as different glass compositions within similar forming and cooling processes produce different fictive temperatures. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) . It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 34 - Harris, Kiczenski and Amosov in the rejection of claim 31 above which depends on claim 14, teach all of the limitations of claim 31.
Harris teaches wherein,
a fictive temperature of the glass after the heating is less than 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass.
Harris discloses a fictive temperature of 7500C [0069], that is below the softening temperature by some amount, but does not disclose the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating is less than 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass in the instant claim. As fictive temperature is a known results effective variable by a PHOSITA, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating to less than 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the fictive temperature of the glass after the heating to less than 3000C below the softening temperature of the glass for the purpose of, as a PHOSITA would know, different glass compositions as different glass compositions within similar forming and cooling processes produce different fictive temperatures. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) . It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights