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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/25/25 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9, 12-13, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in CN104909578 (citations to the machine translation attached hereto).
Regarding Claim 1-2 and 9: Zhang teaches a glass fibre comprising a glass composition overlapping the claimed composition. Zhang’s Example 3 is particularly noted as corresponding closely to the claimed composition. The teachings of Zhang in terms of the composition of Example 3, the general ranges taught, and how these teachings correspond to the claimed ranges are set forth in the table below
Component
Zhang(general)
Wt%
Zhang(Ex 3)
Wt%
Claim 1
Zhang 3 rel. claim 1
Claim 2 and 9
Zhang 3 rel. claim 2
SiO2
50-60
51
45-53.7
Within
50-53.7
Within
Al2O3
10-20
15.6
0-20
Within
0-20
Within
B2O3
20.2-28
22.4
15-35
Within
15-30
Within
Sum above
80.2-100
91.4
90.5-95
Within
90.5-95
Within
CaO
0-4
2.5
>2
Within
>2
Within
Sum Alkali
0.1-0.8
0.2
0-0.7
Within
0-0.5
Within
MgO+CaO
4-14
7.5
5-12
Within
5-10
Within
TiO2
0-0.5
0
0-0.2
Within
0-0.2
Within
F2
0-2
0.8
0-0.5
Outside
0-0.5
Outside
CaO/MgO
<1
0.5
<1
within
0.25-1
within
As is noted in the chart, Example 3 meets all of the compositional limitations of claims 1, 2 and 12 except for the content of Fluorine. Zhang’s example teaches 0.8 wt% fluorine, wherein the claimed upper limit is 0.5%; however, Zhang teaches that the content of fluorine can be adjusted over a range from 0-2% (See Paragraph beginning ‘The invention introduced in F2). Zhang teaches that the content of F2 can be adjusted over the taught range in order to adjust the glass’s surface tension, clarify the glass and may also serve as a fining agent. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a composition such as the one in Example 3 and adjust the content of fluorine within the general teachings of Zhang in order to provide a glass having suitable qualities in terms of the various properties discussed above. Zhang thus teaches an overlapping range of glass compositions. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5 and 12: Zhang teaches that the content of CaO+MgO may be 7.5 mass% (See Example 3).
Regarding Claim 6, 13, and 16: Zhang teaches that the glass of his teachings has a dielectric constant of less than 4.4 (See Paragraph beginning “Obviously, these embodiments of the present invention has excellent balance[…]”). Zhang teaches that the dielectric constant is measured at 1MHz (See Table), but is silent in terms of the temperature; however, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the properties of the glass of Zhang to be the same as those that are instantly claimed as the glass compositions are of the same composition and structure.
Regarding Claim 7, 17 and 20: Zhang teaches that the glass forming temperature is less than 1330C (See Paragraph beginning “Obviously, these embodiments of the present invention has excellent balance[…]”). Zhang teaches that the forming temperature is equivalent to Tlog n=3, which represents a viscosity of 103 poise, corresponding to 1000 poise claimed (See Paragraph beginning “when Tlog n=3 […]”). Zhang thus teaches a temperature corresponding to 103 dpa*s of 1350 or less.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in CN104909578 (citations to the machine translation attached hereto) in view of Nakamura in US20210139368.
Zhang teaches a method of making a glass fibre comprising a glass composition overlapping the claimed composition. Zhang’s Example 3 is particularly noted as corresponding closely to the claimed composition. The teachings of Zhang in terms of the composition of Example 3, the general ranges taught, and how these teachings correspond to the claimed ranges are set forth in the table below
Component
Zhang(general)
Wt%
Zhang(Ex 3)
Wt%
Claim 8
Zhang 3 rel. claim 8
SiO2
50-60
51
45-53.7
Within
Al2O3
10-20
15.6
0-20
Within
B2O3
20.2-28
22.4
15-35
Within
Sum above
80.2-100
91.4
90.5-95
Within
CaO
0-4
2.5
>2
Within
Sum Alkali
0.1-0.8
0.2
0-0.7
Within
MgO+CaO
4-14
7.5
5-12
Within
TiO2
0-0.5
0
0-0.2
Within
F2
0-2
0.8
0-0.5
Outside
CaO/MgO
<1
0.5
<1
within
As is noted in the chart, Example 3 meets all of the compositional limitations of claims 8 except for the content of Fluorine. Zhang’s example teaches 0.8 wt% fluorine, wherein the claimed upper limit is 0.5%; however, Zhang teaches that the content of fluorine can be adjusted over a range from 0-2% (See Paragraph beginning ‘The invention introduced in F2). Zhang teaches that the content of F2 can be adjusted over the taught range in order to adjust the glass’s surface tension, clarify the glass and may also serve as a fining agent. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a composition such as the one in Example 3 and adjust the content of fluorine within the general teachings of Zhang in order to provide a glass having suitable qualities in terms of the various properties discussed above. Zhang thus teaches an overlapping range of glass compositions. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Zhang teaches that the glass fibers are created by mixing the various raw materials together according to the proportions of the final desired glass. The mixed precursors are then put into a batch furnace and melted, such that a homogenized molten glass is formed. Zhang teaches that a fiber is continuously drawn from the melt using a wire drawing machine to form the molten glass into a fiber form (See Section: “the method for preparing the glass fibre”).
Zhang is silent in terms of the use of a bushing nozzle to form the glass into a fiber.
However, Nakamura also teaches the creation of glass fibers. Nakamura teaches that a common means of creating glass fibers in the art is to forma glass melt and using a shaping tool called a bushing, which are nozzles at the bottom of the melting equipment. Nakamura teaches that bushings are made from a noble metal where they are in contact with the glass melt (See Paragraph 2). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the bushing nozzle of Nakamura in the wire drawing machine of Zhang as it is a conventional means of forming glass fibers. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use conventional equipment in the creation of the glass fibers of Zhang and would have had a reasonable expectation that bushing nozzles would be suitable in the formation of the fibers of Zhang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12-13, 16-17 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to the claims overcomes the previous rejection over Nakamura. A further review of the prior art was made and the claims are now rejected under USC 103 over Zhang. Zhang teaches an exemplary composition with SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3, MgO, CaO, TiO2, alkali oxides, and a CaO/MgO within the claimed ranges. Zhang teaches an overlapping content of F2. It is noted that Nakamura is used as a secondary reference to teach the bushing nozzle of claim 8. Applicant does not set forth a grounds for traverse in terms of this particular teaching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734