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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2026 has been entered.
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, and 6-12 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 claims 1-4, and 6-12, the content of SiO2 can not be more than 86.9 mole%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20140335331A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 10-12, US20140335331A1 discloses a glass sheet comprising from about 50 mol % to about 75 mol % SiO2; from greater than 0 mol % to about 20 mol % Al2O3; from greater than 0 mol % to about 35 mol % B2O3; from greater than 0 mol % to about 20 mol % P2O5; up to about 5 mol % MgO; up to about 10 mol % CaO; up to about 5 mol % SrO; up to about 0.5 mol % Fe2O3; and up to about 0.1 mol % ZrO2 wherein the glass is substantially free of alkali metal modifiers. Thus, BaO/ P2O5 is zero. See claim 1 and [0015].
US20140335331A1 discloses examples 1, 2, 4,6, and 8. Those examples disclose the claimed constitutes content.
Although the prior art is silent about “an average thermal expansion coefficient in a temperature range of from 30°C to 380°C of 29.1x10-7/°C or less”, it has been held 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). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the alterative, the reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
The Examiner respectfully submits that although the prior art does not disclose the claimed properties, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art, since the prior art teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully submits that the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the substantial ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Regarding claim 2, US20140335331A1 discloses up to about 5 mol % SrO. See claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 6 and 10, US20140335331A1 discloses from greater than 0 mol % to about 35 mol % B2O3. Example 1 discloses the claimed amount.
Regarding claims 4 and 7-9, alkali-free glasses have strain points of less than 800° C. See [0024] and examples 1, 2, 4,6, and 8.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US20180044223A1.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, and 10-11, US20180044223A1 discloses a glass substrate such as a glass sheet, which comprises as a glass composition, in terms of mol %, 65% to 75% of SiO2, 11% to 15% of Al2O3, 0% to 5% of B2O3, 0% to 5% of MgO, 0% to 10% of CaO, 0% to 5% of SrO, 0% to 6% of BaO, and 0.01% to 5% of P2O5, and has a molar ratio (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 of from 0.7 to 1.5. The BaO/P2O5 ratio is in the claimed range. The thermal expansion coefficient is preferably from 28×10−7/° C. to 45×10−7/° C. See abstract, [0033] and [0068]. The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “close” ranges, and overlapping or close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 4, 7-9, the substrate has a strain point of 710° C. or more See [0023].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art (US20180044223A1) examples fail to teach the claimed ranges.
The Examiner respectfully submits that US20180044223A1 discloses a glass substrate such as a glass sheet, which comprises as a glass composition, in terms of mol %, 65% to 75% of SiO2, 11% to 15% of Al2O3, 0% to 5% of B2O3, 0% to 5% of MgO, 0% to 10% of CaO, 0% to 5% of SrO, 0% to 6% of BaO, and 0.01% to 5% of P2O5, and has a molar ratio (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 of from 0.7 to 1.5. The BaO/P2O5 ratio is in the claimed range. The thermal expansion coefficient is preferably from 28×10−7/° C. to 45×10−7/° C. See abstract, [0033] and [0068]. The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “close” ranges, and overlapping or close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, a reference is not limited to the teaching in its preferred embodiment (A reference is good not only for what it teaches but also for what one of ordinary skill might reasonably infer from the teachings. In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (CAFC 1989); In re Bode USPQ 12; In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278; In re Bozek 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969); In re Van Mater 144 USPQ 421; In re Jacoby 135 USPQ 317; In re LeGrice 133 USPQ 365; In re Preda 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968). In addition, "A reference can be used for all it realistically teaches and is not limited to the disclosure in its preferred embodiments" See In re Van Marter, 144 USPQ 421).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights