Apple invents method of hardening sapphire screens to reduce cracking
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday published an Apple patent describing a method of implanting ions in a sapphire display structure, strengthening the already hard material without using chemical treatments.
Source: USPTO
As noted in Apple's "Sapphire property modification through ion implantation" patent filing, traditional chemical strengthening techniques used on glass screens may not be effective when applied to other materials such as sapphire.
Thus, Apple proposes a new hardening method of impregnating the crystalline lattice structure of corundum, of which sapphire is a variety, with ions to create a compressive stress layer that enhances stability.
The invention points out that when a sapphire structure fails or breaks, it's usually the result of propagations of surface flaws when the component is put under stress. To prevent against cracks during a drop event, Apple's ion implantation method embeds ions within the sapphire substrate, either between existing crystal lattice sites or naturally occurring voids. In one embodiment, ions may be embedded so as to form an amorphous, or non-crystalline, section within the sapphire substructure.
A variety of technologies can be employed in the ion embedding procedure, including high energy implantation, ion accelerators, plasma immersion techniques, pumping systems and electrical deposition methods, among others. Also variable is the size of implanted ions, their depth and concentration.
In some cases, the strengthening procedure may result in localized tinting of the sapphire material. As coloration is undesirable for a device display, Apple proposes using ions like iron or titanium that would create a specific color, such as black, to intentionally create a masked area. For example, the blacked-out bezels seen on current iPhones would be achieved by embedding ions directly into the display glass instead of laying ink on the interior surface.
The filing goes into great detail on ion impregnation techniques, as well as the creation of selective compressive stress zones that help prevent cracks from propagating.
Apple's sapphire strengthening patent filing was first applied for in March 2013 and credits Dale N. Memering, Christopher D. Prest and Douglas Weber as its inventors.
Source: USPTO
As noted in Apple's "Sapphire property modification through ion implantation" patent filing, traditional chemical strengthening techniques used on glass screens may not be effective when applied to other materials such as sapphire.
Thus, Apple proposes a new hardening method of impregnating the crystalline lattice structure of corundum, of which sapphire is a variety, with ions to create a compressive stress layer that enhances stability.
The invention points out that when a sapphire structure fails or breaks, it's usually the result of propagations of surface flaws when the component is put under stress. To prevent against cracks during a drop event, Apple's ion implantation method embeds ions within the sapphire substrate, either between existing crystal lattice sites or naturally occurring voids. In one embodiment, ions may be embedded so as to form an amorphous, or non-crystalline, section within the sapphire substructure.
A variety of technologies can be employed in the ion embedding procedure, including high energy implantation, ion accelerators, plasma immersion techniques, pumping systems and electrical deposition methods, among others. Also variable is the size of implanted ions, their depth and concentration.
In some cases, the strengthening procedure may result in localized tinting of the sapphire material. As coloration is undesirable for a device display, Apple proposes using ions like iron or titanium that would create a specific color, such as black, to intentionally create a masked area. For example, the blacked-out bezels seen on current iPhones would be achieved by embedding ions directly into the display glass instead of laying ink on the interior surface.
The filing goes into great detail on ion impregnation techniques, as well as the creation of selective compressive stress zones that help prevent cracks from propagating.
Apple's sapphire strengthening patent filing was first applied for in March 2013 and credits Dale N. Memering, Christopher D. Prest and Douglas Weber as its inventors.
Comments
Of course, patents can be invalidated. Process patents are harder to fight in court since they are concrete and real, not like software patents that are very abstract.
Is there any prior art in its application to sapphire glass?
There is no such thing as sapphire glass. Just sapphire.
i wonder if we will hear another statement about why Gorilla Glass is better from Corning concerning this
It seems a reasonable descriptive term though to differentiate the sapphire usage. After all they do say Gorilla Glass to avoid confusion
Source: USPTO
What is being called out with the 110 label? Does the documentation say "110: everything that isn't part of the invention" or perhaps "ignore the small insect that flew into view just as we created this diagram."
i wonder if we will hear another statement about why Gorilla Glass is better from Corning concerning this
Undoubtedly, but only after Apple makes an announcement about how they will be using it--especially if they do a head-to-head comparison (either a demo or a slide saying 'x% stronger than...').
This describes old techniques used in materials science and semi-conductor R&D to control material strenghts, zone shaping, electrical band-gaps etc etc. Gem colorization by atomic impurities even happen spontaneously in nature. One such ex is ruby, which consists of chromium doped corrundum. I think Apple needs to be much more specific in their claims than what this article describes (and possibly also the patent application). -Not saying this to diz them, but rather to serve them the morning coffee. It's not enough to get the patent approved. They need to be able to defend it too, especially when put against prior art.
you'd beed get ahold of apple's patent counsel, QUICK! he needs to hear this!
I've been seeing people say "sapphire glass" without engaging with the terminology. I guess now it's time. (Not directed at you, obviously.)
Attention!: Sapphire is a crystalline substance, meaning its atoms are ordered in a regular lattice. Many crystalline substances are transparent, such as quartz, diamond and sapphire.
Glass can also be transparent, but the atoms are in no particular order. Glass is considered a liquid that is too cool to flow.
Therefore "sapphire glass" is impossible on an atomic level. We have to figure out another way to talk about it. Watchmakers have long used the word "crystal."
All this is off the top of my head, by the way. I'm sure the physicists in the field can improve on it.
Gorillas aren't transparent, sorry. I've been meaning to write Corning about that.
"Ion Implantation" sounds a whole lot like "chemical treatment" to me. If these ions aren't chemicals, then what are they? Psychic energy?
Although, as the article mentions, inject enough foreign atoms or ions and you lose the ordered crystalline structure. Whether the resulting material still qualifies to be called sapphire, or meets the full definition of glass, could be questionable though, so you are probably correct.
It's not regarded as a chemical treatment because it does not involve a chemical reaction per se, just physical bombardment.
Or, the ions fill in openings in the top lattice layers, in effect making a glass-crystal hybrid near the surface? Maybe there's language in the patent filing.
By the way, is this still an application, or was there a patent granted?
. . . bombardment and implantation? Ions of what? Did they say?
It's analogous to doping, which is not considered chemistry, is it? Seems we're in the realm of solid state physics, not chemistry. Fascinating stuff.
"Ion Implantation" sounds a whole lot like "chemical treatment" to me. If these ions aren't chemicals, then what are they? Psychic energy?
Think acid washing versus sand blasting, they accomplish the same thing, one uses a chemical reaction to breakdown particulates from a surface, the other uses brute physical force.
They mention iron and titanium.
The article says "published", which I took to mean it was granted.
It's not regarded as a chemical treatment because it does not involve a chemical reaction per se, just physical bombardment.
A chemical treatment does not require a reaction. That would be a chemical modification.