DETAILED ACTION
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.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiefer et al. (US5045509, hereinafter referred to as Kiefer).
Regarding claim 1, Kiefer discloses a glass (see Kiefer at the Abstract, disclosing a glass),
While Kiefer does not explicitly disclose a transmission throughout a wavelength range of from 207 nm to 222 nm of at least 60%, measured at a thickness of 1 mm, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass. This instant specification at the Table at [0275] discloses an example of a glass which meets the claimed transmission properties at Example No. 1. This glass is substantially identical to the glass of Table 1 Glass 9 from Kiefer as detailed in the composition section of this rejection below. Because the glass of Table 1 Glass 9 is substantially identical in composition to the glass of Example No. 1 from the Table at [0275] of the instant specification, the glass of Table 1 Glass 9 of Kiefer would inherently possess the claimed transmission. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph). As further evidence of the inherency of this property, Kiefer discloses for a thickness of 1 mm and the wavelength of 253.7 nm has a transmission of at least 75% (see Kiefer at the Abstract).
Further regarding claim 1, Kiefer discloses wherein the glass is a borosilicate glass having a total platinum content of not more than 3.5 ppm (see Kiefer at the glass of Table 1 Glass 9, disclosing a glass with no platinum, which corresponds to 0ppm platinum, which is within the claimed range),
While Kiefer does not explicitly disclose a hydrolytic resistance characterized by an extracted Na2O equivalent in pg per g glass determined according to ISO 719 of not more than 250 µg/g, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass. The glass of Table 1 Glass 9 from Kiefer is substantially identical to the glass of Example No. 1 from the Table at [0275] of the instant specification as detailed in the rejection above. Therefore, the glass of Table 1 Glass 9 of Kiefer would inherently possess the claimed hydrolytic resistance.
Additionally regarding claim 1, Kiefer discloses wherein the glass comprises the following components in the indicated amounts (in mol%): SiO2 40 to 85 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 66.3 wt.% SiO2, which corresponds to approximately 67.59 mol% SiO2), Al2O3 0 to 25 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6 wt.% Al2O3, which corresponds to approximately 3.6 mol% Al2O3) Na2O 0 to 18 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.5 wt.% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 2.47 mol% Na2O) K2O 0 to 15 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 wt.% K2O, which corresponds to approximately 0.65 mol% K2O) MgO 0 to 10 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO) B2O3 5 to 24 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 20 wt.% B2O3, which corresponds to approximately 17.6 mol% B2O3) Li2O 0 to 10 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.5 wt.% Li2O, which corresponds to approximately 1.02 mol% Li2O) ZnO 0 to 5 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZnO) CaO 0 to 16 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.6 wt.% CaO, which corresponds to approximately 0.66 mol% CaO) BaO 0 to 12 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.5 wt.% BaO, which corresponds to approximately 0.2 mol% BaO) ZrO2 0 to 5 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% ZrO2) SnO2 0 to 3 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% SnO2) SrO 0 to 4 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% SrO),
F- 0 to 4 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.6 wt.% F-, which corresponds to approximately 5.1 mol% F-. However, Kiefer at Col. 3 lines 59-61 discloses a fluorine content of 0.5 to 2.0% by weight improves the fusion and refining behavior without having an adverse effect on the UV transparency. Examiner notes Kiefer at the Col. 3, lines 21-27 discloses the Al2O3 content should not exceed 6.0% by weight... the hydrolytic resistance becomes poorer if the Al2O3 content exceeds 6.0% by weight. With an Al2O3 content below 4% by weight, the glass becomes milky. Examiner notes 0.5 to 2.0% by weight fluorine and 4-6% by weight Al2O3 overlaps with the claimed fluorine content as evidenced by the point of Table 1 Glass 9 whereby the Al2O3 content is modified to 5.3 wt.% and F- is modified to 1 wt.% would correspond to the glass of Table 1 Glass 9 which corresponds to approximately 3.25 mol% Al2O3 and approximately 3.3 mol% F-, both of which are within the claimed range. Therefore the Al2O3 and F- ranges made obvious by Kiefer overlap with the claimed range. As such, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Kiefer Table 1 Glass 9 to vary the F- content to within the overlapping claimed range with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with improved fusion and refining behavior without adverse effect on the UV transparency as taught by Kiefer.),
Cl- 0 to 1 (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising approximately 0.6 wt.% Cl-, which corresponds to approximately 1 mol% Cl-),
wherein a ratio of a sum of the contents (in mol%) of B2O3, R2O, and RO to a sum of the contents (in mol%) of SiO2 and Al2O3 is at most 0.34, wherein R2O refers to the alkaline metal oxides Li2O, Na2O, and K2O and RO refers to the alkaline earth metal oxides MgO, CaO, BaO, and SrO (see Kiefer at Table 1, Glass 9, disclosing an example of a glass comprising approximately 17.41 mol% B2O3, 1.02 mol% Li2O, 2.47 mol% Na2O, 0.65 mol% K2O, 0.66 mol% CaO, 0.2 mol% BaO, 67.59 mol% SiO2, and 3.6 mol% Al2O3. Examiner notes this provides a ratio of a sum of the contents (in mol%) of B2O3, R2O, and RO to a sum of the contents (in mol%) of SiO2 and Al2O3 of (17.41+1.02+2.47+0.65+0.66+0.2)/(67.59+3.6)= 0.31, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 2, while Kiefer does not explicitly disclose a refractive index (na) of from 1.450 to 1.580, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass. The glass of Table 1 Glass 9 from Kiefer is substantially identical to the glass of Example No. 1 from the Table at [0275] of the instant specification as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, the glass of Table 1 Glass 9 of Kiefer would inherently possess the claimed refractive index.
Regarding claim 3, Kiefer discloses the glass has a total content of one or more UV-blocking impurities that is below 10 ppm (see Kiefer at the glass of Table 1 Glass 9, disclosing a glass with no mercury, which corresponds to 0ppm mercury, which is within the claimed range. Examiner notes mercury is a UV-blocking impurity per [0217] of the instant specification.).
Regarding claim 4, Kiefer discloses the UV-blocking impurities are selected from the group consisting of lead, cadmium, mercury, rhodium, hexavalent chromium, iron, titanium, and any combination thereof (see Kiefer at the glass of Table 1 Glass 9, disclosing a glass with no mercury, which corresponds to 0ppm mercury, which is within the claimed range. Examiner notes mercury is a UV-blocking impurity per [0217] of the instant specification.).
Regarding claim 5, Kiefer discloses the total platinum content is below 1.0 ppm (see Kiefer at the glass of Table 1 Glass 9, disclosing a glass with no platinum, which corresponds to 0ppm platinum, which is within the claimed range).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Glass 7 of Kiefer does not meet the limitations of claim 1 as amended. Examiner agrees, however, Examiner notes claim 1 is rejected over Glass 9 of Kiefer as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights