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 1-5, 20-27 in the reply filed on 08/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-4, 19, 23-27 require silicic acid aggregates.
Merriam-Webster © in 2009 states an “aggregate” defined as:
:formed by the collection of units or particles into a body, mass, or amount
: clustered in a dense mass or head
:taking all units as a whole
Bergna et al. Surfactant Science Series Volume 131, COLLOIDAL SILICA Fundamentals and Applications, 1918-1998
Defines an aggregate in colloidal science on page 15 as:
PNG
media_image1.png
139
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Defines an aggregate of particles on page 16 as:
Coagulated or close packed clumps of precipitated or powdered silicas
Throughout the 926 pages of the book an aggregate can refer to a gel, powder or any other particulate. The present specification has not specifically defined the aggregate as referring to a cluster or collection of specific molecules, atoms, powder particulate, number of specifically sized particle per aggregate, number of particles per aggregate, any collection of unit or specific unit, thus for the purpose of this examination any silicic acid may generally be considered an aggregate.
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 1-4, 19, 23-27 are rejected as being indefinite because as indicated above it is unclear how the claims intend to define a silicic acid aggregate.
Claims 2-4, 19, 24-27 are rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear if the silicic aggregates referred to in these claims are prior to addition to the salt bath composition. It does not appear the properties of the aggregates claimed in claims 2-4 would remain constant during ion-exchange or even within the molten bath because the aggregates naturally aggregate and it is unclear precisely what the present invention deems an aggregate, at what point is the line drawn that the aggregation of silicic acid is too large to be within the claimed aggregate during the salt bath composition?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-5 and 19-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin (US 20180327305) and further in view of Hart et al. (US 20160194235) and Bergna et al. Surfactant Science Series Volume 131, COLLOIDAL SILICA Fundamentals and Applications, 1918-1998
Regarding claims 1-4, Amin discloses a salt bath composition for strengthening glass articles (abstract), the salt bath composition comprising:
99 wt% alkali metal salt thus overlapping the claim range of from 90 wt.% to 99.9 wt.% of one or more alkali metal salts based on the total weight of the salt bath composition [0099];
.5 wt% silicic acid thus overlapping the claimed range of from 0.1 wt.% to 10 wt.% of silicic acid based on the total weight of the salt bath composition [0099], MPEP 2144.05 indicates overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious
Amin does not specifically state the silicic acid are aggregates and wherein the silicic acid aggregates have an average size of from 50 pm to 200 micrometers.
Amin recognizes the issue of lithium poisoning of a molten salt bath and regenerating the bath to prolong the use and make the ion exchange process more efficient [0030].
In an analogous art of chemically strengthening glass with ion exchange [0048]-[0049] Hart recognizes that basic dopants in glass, such as phosphates and other high pH basic substances are known in the art to enhance glass corrosion and this corrosion while adding acidic additives such as silicic acid, as is well-known in the art to be included in salt baths, does not promote surface crystallization [0050].
In an analogous art of silicic acid studies Bergna discloses silicic acid agglomerate as depicted in Fig 12.2 and this process can continue at any corner thus in three dimensions (page 133, first column and Fig 12.2 page 134)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of chemistry of ion exchange to optimize the size of the silicic aggregate and the surface area as motivated to achieve the desired acidity from the aggregate because the free hydrogens (lower pH of the salt bath) are directly related to where the silicic acid molecules polymerize.
A skilled artisan is motivated to modify the pH of the salt bath of Amin to avoid glass corrosion as taught by Hart.
Regarding claim 5, Amin discloses the one or more alkali metal salts comprise potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate, lithium nitrate (at least [0031], [0094], [0097]-[0098].
Regarding claims 19, 23-25, Amin process of strengthening glass articles, the process comprising:
heating a salt bath composition to an ion exchange temperature to form a molten salt bath composition, the salt bath composition comprising one or more alkali or alkaline earth metal salts;
Amin discloses circulating the molten salt bath with silicic acid, thus through a neutralization zone comprising silicic acid aggregates [0099] wherein any zone of the molten salt is considered a neutralization zone give3n the broadest reasonable interpretation
submerging a glass article into the molten salt bath composition such that an ion exchange between the molten salt bath composition and the glass article occurs, at least [0044].
Amin does not specifically state the silicic acid are aggregates and wherein the silicic acid aggregates have an average size of from 50 pm to 200 micrometers.
Amin recognizes the issue of lithium poisoning of a molten salt bath and regenerating the bath to prolong the use and make the ion exchange process more efficient [0030] and avoiding surface defects [0048].
In an analogous art of chemically strengthening glass with ion exchange [0048]-[0049] and discussion of avoiding surface defect, or corrosion, Hart recognizes that basic dopants in glass, such as phosphates and other high pH basic substances are known in the art to enhance glass corrosion and this corrosion while adding acidic additives such as silicic acid, as is well-known in the art to be included in salt baths, does not promote surface crystallization [0050].
In an analogous art of silicic acid studies Bergna discloses silicic acid agglomerate as depicted in Fig 12.2 and this process can continue at any corner thus in three dimensions (page 133, first column and Fig 12.2 page 134)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of chemistry of ion exchange to optimize the size of the silicic aggregate and the surface area as motivated to achieve the desired acidity from the aggregate because the free hydrogens (lower pH of the salt bath) are directly related to where the silicic acid molecules polymerize.
A skilled artisan is motivated to modify the pH of the salt bath of Amin to avoid glass corrosion as taught by Hart.
Regarding claim 20, Amin discloses the one or more alkali metal salts comprise potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate (at least [0031], [0094], [0097]-[0098].
Regarding claim 21, Amin discloses the amount of sodium nitrate may be greater than the amount of potassium nitrate [0040].
Regarding claim 22, the amount of potassium nitrate is greater than the amount of sodium nitrate [0040], [0097]-[0098].
Regarding claim 26-27, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the amount of silicic acid aggregates to optimize the pH of the salt bath during ion exchange.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feng (US 20120210749)
Feng discloses a salt bath composition for strengthening glass articles (abstract), the salt bath composition comprising:
99.5 wt% alkali metal salt thus overlapping the claim range of from 90 wt.% to 99.9 wt.% of one or more alkali metal salts based on the total weight of the salt bath composition [0027];
.5 wt% silicic acid
(US 20170088455) [0033].01-1 wt% silicic
(US 20150239772) [0154] silicic acid to prevent etching
(US 20130004758) [0020], [0042] silicic acid
(US 20030110802) [0010]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights