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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castle (USPub20150307392) in view of Fechner (USPub20070172661) or alternatively, in further view of Mauro (USPub20150239777), Schneider (USPub20180105461) and/or Borelli (USPub20120034435).
Regarding claims 1-2: Castle teaches an anti-microbial glass article comprising first and second opposing major surfaces (Figures).
A first surface region extends 1micron or less into the article from the first major surface (0056) and comprises 5-70wt%, 1-50wt% or even 1-40wt% Ag2O (0060-0061).
The above 1micron or less depth range overlaps the claimed 1micron depth providing for a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
The above taught wt% Ag2O content, when converted to mol%, would allow for Ag2O content in mol% overlapping (MPEP 2144.05) and even falling within the range claimed.
Alternatively, in the instant Applicants argue against the above, the Examiner would like to additionally note that Castle is teaching an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties. As Mauro, who similarly teaches an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, discloses it being desirable for such an article to have in the first major surface 10-30mol% Ag2O for antimicrobial properties (0006, 0019, 0024), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Castle to include specifically, 10-30mol% Ag2O in the first surface for antimicrobial properties.
While Castle may not teach a surface roughness, Castle’s article is an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties.
Given that Fechner, who similarly teaches an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, discloses that the surface can be modified to have a roughness overlapping or even falling within the range claimed as desired for adjusting antimicrobial efficacy (see 0113-0114), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Castle to include a surface roughness overlapping or even falling within the range claimed for obtaining desired antimicrobial efficacy.
Castle’s article has a transmittance within the claimed range (0007, 0077).
Castle’s article comprises a base composition comprising 0-15mol% Li2O (0032) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05). The base composition includes 0-15mol% Li2O, 0-20mol% Na2O and 0-18mol% K2O (0032) allowing for totals overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue against the above, it is noted that Castle does not appear to place limits on the alkali total but instead, is only generally teaching an alkali containing antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties.
As Mauro, Schneider, and Borrelli, who each similarly teach alkali containing antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, suggest total R2O alkali (Li2O, Na2O, and K2O) contents such as 10-30mol% (see 0030 for instance in Mauro), 0-18mol% Li2O combined with total alkali of 5-20mol% (0008, 0082- 0086 in Schneider) and 0-15mol% Li2O combined with total alkali of 12-20mol% (see abstract, 0073 in Borelli) being desirable in the art, it would have been well within the skill in the art to find it obvious to include such contents and combinations within Castle to obtain a desirable antimicrobial base glass.
Regarding claims 3-4: Given that Castle’s glass meets that claimed, it would be expected to have the same properties and functionality (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 5 and 6: Castle does teach their article exhibiting a log kill of at least 3 and even at least 5 with Staph aureus bacteria under a JIS Z 2801 (2000) test (0068-0070). While Castle may not teach the value being obtained using the EPA Dry Test, given that Castle’s glass meets that claimed, it would be expected to have the same properties when measured similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 8 and 9: Given that Castle does teach that their article has color stability (0004) and that their introduction of Ag2O into the surface does not lead to color change (0065), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude a color delta E value to be within the range claimed. Alternatively, given that Castle’s article meets that claimed but additionally, Castle’s overall glass composition also appears to overlap Applicants (see for instance 0032 in Castle compared with Applicants’ claim 12), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same optical properties to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 11: Castle’s article is chemically strengthened with an ion in addition to silver (0040, 0052-0054).
Regarding claim 12: Castle’s overall glass composition overlaps Applicants (see par 0032 in Castle).
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 is a product by process claim and it has been held by the courts that while a product claim may be defined by a process, patentability is based on the product itself and not its method of production (MPEP 2113). Specifically, if the prior art meets the claimed product, the claim will be met regardless if its made by a different process. In the instant case, as the claimed product is met by the prior art discussed above, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 16: As discussed above, Castle’s glass has Li2O overlapping the range claimed.
While Castle may not teach the haze, given that Castle’s glass meets that claimed, it would be expected to have the same properties when measured similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 17-18 and 19: As discussed above, Castle teaches an anti-microbial glass article comprising first and second opposing major surfaces (Figures).
A first surface region extends 1micron or less into the article from the first major surface (0056) and comprises 5-70wt%, 1-50wt% or even 1-40wt% Ag2O (0060-0061).
The above 1micron or less depth range overlaps the claimed 1micron depth providing for a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
The above taught wt% Ag2O content, when converted to mol%, would allow for Ag2O content in mol% overlapping (MPEP 2144.05) and even falling within the range claimed.
Alternatively, in the instant Applicants argue against the above, the Examiner would like to additionally note that Castle is teaching an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties. As Mauro, who similarly teaches an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, discloses it being desirable for such an article to have in the first major surface 10-30mol% Ag2O for antimicrobial properties (0006, 0019, 0024), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Castle to include specifically, 10-30mol% Ag2O in the first surface for antimicrobial properties.
While Castle may not teach a surface roughness as recited in claims 17 and 19, Castle’s article is an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties.
Given that Fechner, who similarly teaches an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, discloses that the surface can be modified to have a roughness overlapping or even falling within the range claimed as desired for adjusting antimicrobial efficacy (see 0113-0114), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Castle to include a surface roughness overlapping or even falling within the range claimed for obtaining desired antimicrobial efficacy.
Castle’s article has a transmittance within the claimed range (0007, 0077).
Castle’s article can comprise a base composition comprising 0-15mol% Li2O (0032) overlapping the range recited in claim 18 (MPEP 2144.05), can include 0-15mol% Li2O, 0-20mol% Na2O and 0-18mol% K2O (0032) allowing for totals overlapping the range recited in claim 18 (MPEP 2144.05) and can be a glass-ceramic (0029, 0037-0038) as required by claim 17.
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue against the above, it is noted that Castle only generally teaching an alkali containing antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties.
As Schneider, who each similarly teach alkali containing antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, suggest base compositions including 0-18mol% Li2O with total R2O alkali (Li2O, Na2O, and K2O) contents such 5-20mol% (0008, 0082- 0086 in Schneider) and making the article a glass-ceramic (0077-0107) being features desirable in the art, it would have been well within the skill in the art to find it obvious to include such a combination of features within Castle to obtain a desirable antimicrobial base glass.
While Castle may not teach the haze, given that Castle’s glass meets that claimed, it would be expected to have the same properties when measured similarly (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 20: Given that Castle’s glass meets that claimed, it would be expected to have the same properties and functionality (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 21: Castle does teach their article exhibiting a log kill of at least 3 and even at least 5 with Staph aureus bacteria under a JIS Z 2801 (2000) test (0068-0070). While Castle may not teach the value being obtained using the EPA Dry Test, given that Castle’s glass meets that claimed, it would be expected to have the same properties when measured similarly (MPEP 2112).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castle (USPub20150307392) and Fechner (USPub20070172661) or Castle, Fechner and Mauro (USPub20150239777) Schneider (USPub20180105461) and/or Borelli (USPub20120034435) as applied to claim 1 above, or alternatively, in view of Adib (USPub20140356605).
As discussed above, Castle’s article meets that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10: While Castle may not teach an article thickness, it is initially noted that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, although the thickness may not be disclosed, Castle does teach the general conditions of the claim and it would be well within the skill in the art to optimize thickness as desired depending on cost, strength, application, etc.
Alternatively, it is noted that Castle’s article is an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties.
As Adib, who similarly teaches an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, discloses that such articles can be made to have a thickness of 0.8mm or less, etc. as desired (see 0012), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Castle to include thicknesses of 0.8mm or less to obtain a desirable antimicrobial glass.
The above range overlaps the claimed range providing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized below.
Applicants argue against the rejections of Castle, Castle in view of
Fechner and Castle in view of Fechner further in view of Mauro rendering obvious the claimed average Ag2O concentrations as well as the base composition comprising from greater than or equal to 7.7mol% to less than or equal to 35mol% Li2O, wherein 10mol%≤Li2O+Na2O+K2O≤40mol% for the following reasons.
Applicants initially assert that Castle does not necessarily disclose the
average Ag2O concentration as claimed because Castle’s citation of about 1 to about 50% by weight is referring to the concentration of Ag+ in the antimicrobial bath-not the glass article and Applicants note that there are 2Ag+ ions for every Ag2O.
This is not persuasive. Initially, the Examiner provides the following
citation of Castle for clarity of record.
[0060] In some embodiments of method 100, the step 160 for submersing the article 10 in the antimicrobial bath 40 is controlled for a time, temperature and/or bath concentration sufficient to impart antimicrobial property-imparting ions (e.g., Ag.sup.+ ions) into the article 10 and/or the layer 24c for development and retention of the desired antimicrobial properties. According to some embodiments, Ag.sup.+ ions are imparted through the layer 24c into the new first surface 12a of the article 10 at a concentration of about 5% to about 70% by weight (by weight % of Ag.sub.2O, at the first surface 12a) in step 160, and about 1% to about 50% by weight in other embodiments. In some embodiments, the Ag.sup.+ ions are imparted through the layer 24c into the new first surface 12a of the article 10 at a concentration of about 1% to about 40% by weight (at the first surface 12a). In further embodiments, Ag.sup.+ ions are imparted into the new first surface 12a of the glass article 10 at a concentration of about 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% or 40%. In addition, the duration of the submersion step 160 may also be set based on the composition of the layer 24c and temperature of the antimicrobial bath 40 to ensure that the exposure of the layer 24c to the antimicrobial bath 40 does not damage it.
[0061] In some embodiments of method 100, step 160 is conducted for a time, temperature and/or bath concentration such that Ag.sup.+ ions are imparted into the layer 24c and/or the article 10 underneath the layer 24c to an antimicrobial depth 22d, defined within the layer 24c or the article 10. For these embodiments, Ag.sup.+ ions are imparted into the layer 24c and/or the article 10 at a concentration of about 5% to about 70% by weight (by weight % of Ag.sub.2O, at the antimicrobial depth 22d) in step 160, and about 1% to about 50% by weight in other embodiments. In some embodiments, the Ag.sup.+ ions are imparted into the layer 24c and/or the article 10 at a concentration of about 1% to about 40% by weight (at the antimicrobial depth 22d). In further embodiments, Ag.sup.+ ions are imparted into the new first surface 12a of the glass article 10 at a concentration of about 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% or 40% (at the antimicrobial depth 22d).
Initially note that it is clear from the above citation that Castle’s citation is clearly teaching the silver being imparted into the glass article surface itself at specific concentrations and said concentrations are not that of the bath as argued.
Additionally, while Applicants argue that the concentration is that of Ag+ and not Ag2O as claimed, this is not persuasive because while Castle may repeatedly make mention to Ag+ ions, it is clearly shown above in the cited parenthesis that Castle’s disclosed concentrations are actually being measured as Ag2O. Also note Castle’s Figure 3 which also clearly indicates Castle’s compositions being measured as Ag2O and not simply the Ag+ ion.
Applicants argue against the Office’s assertion that Castle’s taught wt% ranges of Ag2O, when converted to mol% would allow for Ag2O content in mol% overlapping Applicants for the following reasons.
Initially, Applicants continue to argue that Castle is disclosing Ag+ in wt% and not Ag2O in wt% and even if the cited concentration did correspond to the concentration in the first surface layer, a person skilled in the art would understand that the concentration of Ag2O in mol% would be significantly less than half the concentration in wt% due to the stoichiometry.
This is not persuasive. Initially, it appears that Applicants entire argument is again based on the premise that Castle’s concentration is that of Ag+ ion and not Ag2O but as previously mentioned, while Castle may repeatedly make mention to Ag+ ions, it is clearly shown above in Castle’s cited parenthesis that Castle’s disclosed concentrations are actually being measured as Ag2O and any conversion would be based on wt% Ag2O to mol% Ag2O and not wt% Ag+ to wt% Ag2O to mol% Ag2O. Further, even if one skilled in the art would expect the concentration of Ag2O in mol% to be less than half its concentration in wt% due to stoichiometry, does not in any way mean that the conversion would not overlap that claimed. For instance, as disclosed in the Office Action as well as shown in the citation above, Castle’s disclosed concentrations of Ag2O include 5-70wt%, 1-50wt% or even 1-40wt% Ag2O and even if converting Ag2O in mol% provides for Ag2O being less than half of its wt%, one would still conclude overlap. For instance, a mol% being half of the disclosed 5-70wt% would be 2.5-35mol%, half of 1-50wt% would be 0.5-25mol% and half of 1-40wt% would be 0.5-20mol% all still providing overlap with the range claimed.
Applicants point to Castle’s Figure 3 and Castle’s Example 1 asserting that that Castle does not provide for the Ag2O concentration claimed but this is not persuasive.
Initially, note that regarding Applicants argument of Figure 3, Applicants argument appears to again be relying on the premise that Castle’s concentration shown is that of Ag+ in wt% (not wt% Ag2O) but as previously mentioned, it is clearly disclosed in Castle above (see Castle’s cited parenthesis in par 0060-0061) that Castle’s disclosed concentrations are actually that of Ag2O and the Examiner even points out that Figure 3 itself has the concentration on the axis being that of Ag2O.
Even further, regarding Applicants arguments against both Figure 3 and Castle’s Example, note that a reference is not limited by their Examples of preferred embodiments but instead, what it teaches as a whole. In the instant case, for all reasons previously discussed, Castle as a whole would render obvious the claimed concentration.
b. Applicants argue that Fechner as a secondary reference does not render
obvious the claimed limitation of the base composition comprising from greater
than or equal to 7.7mol% to less than or equal to 35mol% Li2O, wherein 10mol%≤Li2O+Na2O+K2O≤40mol% because Fechner discloses Li2O, Na2O and K2O in wt% which cannot be converted in isolation.
This is not persuasive because Fechner was not used to modify Castle for this feature. Instead, as provided in the Office Action, Fechner was used to modify surface roughness only. Regarding the above argued limitation, note that in the Office Action, the Office noted that Castle itself teaches a base composition comprising 0-15mol% Li2O (0032) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05). The base composition includes 0-15mol% Li2O, 0-20mol% Na2O and 0-18mol% K2O (0032) allowing for totals overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Alternatively, it was also noted that in the instance Applicants argue against the above, Castle does not appear to place limits on the alkali total but instead, is only generally teaching an alkali containing antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties.
As Mauro, Schneider, and Borrelli, who each similarly teach alkali containing antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, suggest total R2O alkali (Li2O, Na2O, and K2O) contents such as 10-30mol% (see 0030 for instance in Mauro), 0-18mol% Li2O combined with total alkali of 5-20mol% (0008, 0082- 0086 in Schneider) and 0-15mol% Li2O combined with total alkali of 12-20mol% (see abstract, 0073 in Borelli) being desirable in the art, it would have been well within the skill in the art to find it obvious to include such contents and combinations within Castle to obtain a desirable antimicrobial base glass.
Applicants argue that Mauro as a secondary reference does not render
obvious the claimed invention for the following reasons.
Initially, Applicants argue that Mauro would not render obvious the base composition comprising from greater than or equal to 7.7mol% to less than or equal to 35mol% Li2O, wherein 10mol%≤Li2O+Na2O+K2O≤40mol% because Mauro discloses 0.1 to about 2.5mol% Li2O.
This is not persuasive. While Mauro may teach 0.1-2.5mol% Li2O, Mauro was not used to modify Castle for the Li2O content specifically. Instead, Mauro was relied upon to render obvious a total R2O alkali (Li2O, Na2O, and K2O) content of 10-30mol% (see 0030 for instance in Mauro) only and not the claimed individual Li2O content. As noted in the Office Action, Castle itself already teaches a base composition comprising 0-15mol% Li2O (0032) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Applicants also argue against Castle in view of Mauro rendering obvious the claimed invention because while the Office Action cites Mauro as disclosing it being desirable for an antimicrobial article to have in a first major surface 10-30mol% Ag2O for antimicrobial properties, Applicants disagree because one skilled in the art would have no motivation to make the alleged modification since Castle teaching against increasing Ag+ (or Ag2O) due to discoloration and one skilled in the art would have considered Fechner to have already solved the problem that the Office alleges Mauro addresses since Fechner teaches antimicrobial efficacy being achieved by increasing roughness.
None of the above it persuasive. Initially, note that nowhere in Castle do they teach or suggest that an amount of 10-30mol% Ag2O could not be added or should not be added due to discoloration. Instead, Castle only ever mentions that the antimicrobial region should not lead to reduced optical clarity and/or coloration changes. As neither Castle nor Mauro indicates the above concentration providing discoloration, there is nothing in either reference to indicate that such a modification of Castle with Mauro’s concentration cannot be made nor any indication that it would not have been rendered obvious for Castle’s intended purpose (antimicrobial without discoloration).
Further, regarding the argument that one skilled in the art would have considered Fechner to have already solved the problem that the Office alleges Mauro addresses since Fechner teaches antimicrobial efficacy being achieved by increasing roughness, this is not persuasive because regardless of whether modifying Castle to include the increased roughness of Fechner for antimicrobial efficacy in no way means that one skilled in the art would not find it obvious to further modify Mauro with additional features to even further the antimicrobial benefits. Specifically, while one skilled in the art would acknowledge that Castle modified by Fechner’s increased roughness would provide for antimicrobial efficacy, if one desired to further enhance said properties it would be well within the skill in the art to look to the prior art to find means of doing so.
In the instant case, given that Mauro who similarly teaches an antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, discloses it being desirable for such an article to have in the first major surface 10-30mol% Ag2O for antimicrobial properties (0006, 0019, 0024), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Castle to include specifically, 10-30mol% Ag2O in the first surface for additional antimicrobial properties.
Applicants additionally argue against Castle, Fechner, Mauro, Schneider
and Borelli teaching the base composition comprising from greater than or equal to 7.7mol% to less than or equal to 35mol% Li2O, wherein 10mol%≤Li2O+Na2O+K2O≤40mol% for the following reasons.
Initially, Applicants argue that Mauro discloses ranges in wt% with even the broadest ranges in Mauro for Li2O being up to 2.5mol% Li2O.
This is not persuasive. Initially it is noted that contrary to Applicants argument, Mauro actually teaches ranges in mol%. Additionally, while Mauro may teach 0.1-2.5mol% Li2O, Mauro was not used to modify Castle for the Li2O content specifically. Instead, Mauro was relied upon to render obvious a total R2O alkali (Li2O, Na2O, and K2O) content of 10-30mol% (see 0030 for instance in Mauro) only and not the claimed individual Li2O content. As noted in the Office Action, Castle itself does already teach 0-15mol% Li2O (0032) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Applicants also cite the following providing in the Office Action,
“Castle’s article comprises a base composition comprising 0-15mol% Li2O (0032) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05). The base composition includes 0-15mol% Li2O, 0-20mol% Na2O and 0-18mol% K2O (0032) allowing for totals overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue against the above, it is noted that Castle does not appear to place limits on the alkali total but instead, is only generally teaching an alkali containing antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties.
As Mauro, Schneider, and Borrelli, who each similarly teach alkali containing antimicrobial glass article having a silver containing first surface region for providing antimicrobial properties, suggest total R2O alkali (Li2O, Na2O, and K2O) contents such as 10-30mol% (see 0030 for instance in Mauro), 0-18mol% Li2O combined with total alkali of 5-20mol% (0008, 0082- 0086 in Schneider) and 0-15mol% Li2O combined with total alkali of 12-20mol% (see abstract, 0073 in Borelli) being desirable in the art, it would have been well within the skill in the art to find it obvious to include such contents and combinations within Castle to obtain a desirable antimicrobial base glass.” And disagree for the following reasons.
In summary, Applicants argue that all evidence must be considered, including that which teach away. In the instant case, Applicants argue that Mauro teaches a Li2O content of up to 2.5mol% and argue that if one skilled in the art were to consider surface concentration of Ag2O from Mauro as alleged by the Office, then it is only natural for one to consider the related teachings of Mauro at the same time. Specifically, the Ag2O in Mauro is generated by ion-exchange with the alkali metals in the glass, including Li2O so Mauro’s teachings on alkalis including Li2O would be considered and one would be motivated to adopt the Li2O up to 2.5mol% range of Mauro if they were motivated to include the Ag2O concentration disclosed in Mauro.
This is not persuasive. Initially, the Examiner notes for the record that all evidence was considered. Additionally, the Examiner does acknowledge that Mauro teaches a Li2O content of only up to 2.5mol% and that Ag2O in Mauro is generated by ion-exchange with the alkali metals in the glass, including Li2O, but there is nothing in Mauro to indicate that one must use only Mauro’s small Li2O content to obtain the Ag2O concentration or that their taught Ag2O concentration cannot be obtained without a smaller Li2O content. In the instant case, in reviewing Mauro, while Mauro may be utilizing a small Li2O content it is clear that Li2O is not the only alkali responsible for the ion exchange in the production of the Ag2O surface concentration. In contrast, ion exchange would actually be based on total alkali content (content of 10-30mol%) which is commensurate. Note that Applicants have not shown any evidence that having an increased amount of Li2O as claimed is critical. Even further, note that it appears that in Mauro that the lower argued amount of Li2O taught is due to reasons related to fusion draw manufacturing and not actually the actual ion exchange itself (see 0042). As such, one skilled in the are would not necessarily assume that Mauro’s increased amount of Ag2O can only be done with the decreased Li2O nor would one skilled in the art find anything detrimental to the combination of Castle with Mauro.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights