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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano in JP2004315280 (all citations are made to the machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1 and 10: Sano teaches a glass article for an LCD backlight or the front glass on such a device (See Paragraph 1-5). Sano shows a composition of this glass article in Example No. 2, wherein the composition of the glass is reported in wt%. The converted mol% of this glass are reported below and compared to the range of compositions claimed:
Sano Example 2
Claim 1
Claim 10
sio2
72.73
68-73%
within
68-73%
within
al2o3
3.15
2-5%
within
3-5%
within
b2o3
16.61
12-18%
within
12-18%
within
na2o
3.63
2-4%
within
2-4%
within
k2o
0.68
0-2%
within
0-2%
within
Li2O
0
n/a
n/a
0-2.8%
within
CaO
0.11
>0-2%
within
>0-2%
within
BaO
0.84
0-4%
within
>0-4%
within
F
0
0-6%
within
0-6%
within
SrO
0.06
0-1%
within
0-1%
within
As the glass of Sano is within the range of compositions claimed, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the glass of Sano would have the same properties as the glass instantly claim. Sano shows that such a glass is made through a typical molding process (See Paragraph 40). The instant specification sets forth that the thermal history has effects on demixing factor, but does not set forth the necessary thermal history to arrive at such a factor. The thermal history taught by Sano would be capable of providing the same properties absent convincing evidence to the contrary. As the claimed property “having a demixing factor in respect of its hydrolytic resistance in a range from 0.10 to 1.65” is dependent upon the composition and thermal history, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the glass of Sano to necessarily have such a property absent convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 2 and 12: Sano teaches a glass composition within the range of compositions instantly claimed and disclosed (See above). Sano is silent in terms of the induced extinction a(λ) of the glass being less than or equal to 0.300 at 200 nm or less than 0.100 at 254 nm after irradiation with a deuterium lamp for at least one of 48 or 96 hours; however, Sano teaches a glass having a composition within the range of glasses instantly claimed. Glasses of the same composition and structure must inherently have the same properties as those properties stem from the composition and structure of the glass. Based on the glasses of Sano falling within the claimed range, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect their glass article to inherently have an induced extinction a(λ) of the glass being less than or equal to 0.300 at 200 nm after radiation with a deuterium lamp for at least one of 48 or 96 hours. It is noted that the induced extinction is a measure of solarization, which is a property that Sano also seeks to minimize (See Paragraph 42)
Regarding Claim 3: Sano teaches a glass containing both barium oxide and boron oxide, but is silent in terms of providing a particular ratio of the two components. As the glass contains both components, it necessarily has such a ratio. The ratio in Example 2 is 16.61/0.84=19.77 falling within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 5: Sano teaches a glass composition within the range of compositions instantly claimed and disclosed (See above). Sano is silent in terms of their glass having a hydrolytic class in accordance with ISO719:1989-12 of HGB3, HGB2, or HGB1; however, Sano teaches a glass having a composition within the range of glasses instantly claimed. Glasses of the same composition and structure must inherently have the same properties as those properties stem from the composition and structure of the glass. Thus those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the glass of Sano to have a hydrolytic class of HGB 1, 2, or 3.
Regarding Claim 6: Sano teaches a glass composition within the range of glasses instantly claimed (See above). Sano is silent in terms of the glass having a fusion stress with at least one of a metal or metal alloy having a coefficient of thermal expansion of 5.4 ppm/K in a range from -400 to -130 nm/cm or glass having a coefficient of thermal expansion of 5 ppm/K in a range from > 0 to 300 nm/cm. Glasses of the same composition and structure must inherently have the same properties as those properties stem directly from the composition of the glass. Based on the glass of Sano falling within the claimed range, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect their glass article to have a fusion stress with at least one of the properties as set forth.
Regarding Claim 7: Sano teaches that the glass may have a thickness of 1 mm (See Paragraph 42).
Regarding Claim 8: Sano teaches a glass containing both barium oxide and calcium oxide, but is silent in terms of providing a particular ratio of the two components. As the glass contains both components, it necessarily has such a ratio. The ratio in Example 2 is 0.11/0.84=0.13 falling within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 11: Sano shows that the glass of Example 2 has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 38*10-7 or 3.8 ppm/K, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 13: The content of R2O in the glass is 4.31 mol%, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 15: Sano teaches a glass composition within the range of glasses instantly claimed (See above). Sano is silent in terms of the glass having a fracture pattern characterized by breakage of an area section of 40mm x 40mm into not less than 25 pieces. Glasses of the same composition and structure must inherently have the same properties as those properties stem directly from the composition of the glass. Based on the glass of Sano falling within the claimed range, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect their glass article to have the same fracture characteristics as claimed.
Regarding Claim 16: Sano teaches that the glass may be provided in terms of a plate (See Paragraph 42).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in JP2004315280 (all citations are made to the machine translation attached).
Sano teaches a glass article for an LCD backlight or the front glass on such a device (See Paragraph 1-5). Sano shows a composition of this glass article in Example No. 2, wherein the composition of the glass is reported in wt%. The converted mol% of this glass are reported below and compared to the range of compositions claimed:
Sano Example 2
Claim 1
Claim 10
sio2
72.73
68-73%
within
68-73%
within
al2o3
3.15
2-5%
within
3-5%
within
b2o3
16.61
12-18%
within
12-18%
within
na2o
3.63
2-4%
within
2-4%
within
k2o
0.68
0-2%
within
0-2%
within
Li2O
0
n/a
n/a
0-2.8%
within
CaO
0.11
>0-2%
within
>0-2%
within
BaO
0.84
0-4%
within
>0-4%
within
F
0
0-6%
within
0-6%
within
SrO
0.06
0-1%
within
0-1%
within
As is set forth above, the glass of Sano is expected to have the same properties in terms of its demixing factor in respect to its hydrolytic resistance being between 0.1 and 1.65 as it is of the same composition as that which is claimed.
The exemplary glass of Sano contains both BaO and B2O3 in a ratio of 16.61/0.84 or 19.77. The exemplary glass of Sano does not contain a molar ratio of B2O3 to BaO of at least 10 to not more than 15; however, Sano teaches that both BaO and B2O3 may be provided. The range of BaO and B2O3 incorporated into such a glass are shown in Examples 1-7. Sano clearly shows in Example No. 4 that the content of BaO may be up to 50% more than that of Example 1. As this is the case, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide amounts of BaO up to about 4.5 wt% (1.87 mol% in Example 4). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to increase the content of BaO in the glass of Example 1 up to such a weight% (or mol%) providing for glasses having a molar ratio of 16.61/1.87=8.88. Those of ordinary skill would have thus found it obvious to provide B2O3/BaO ratios in a range from 8.88 to 19.77. The range of these components are also noted in the general teachings of Sano. It is evident that Sano teaches an overlapping range of compositions having an overlapping range of B2O3/BaO ratios. 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 have found it obvious to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in JP2004315280 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dejneca in US9145333.
Sano teaches a glass article for an LCD backlight or the front glass on such a device (See Paragraph 1-5). Sano shows a composition of this glass article in Example No. 2, wherein the composition of the glass is reported in wt%. The converted mol% of this glass are reported below and compared to the range of compositions claimed:
Sano Example 2
Claim 1
Claim 10
sio2
72.73
68-73%
within
68-73%
within
al2o3
3.15
2-5%
within
3-5%
within
b2o3
16.61
12-18%
within
12-18%
within
na2o
3.63
2-4%
within
2-4%
within
k2o
0.68
0-2%
within
0-2%
within
Li2O
0
n/a
n/a
0-2.8%
within
CaO
0.11
>0-2%
within
>0-2%
within
BaO
0.84
0-4%
within
>0-4%
within
F
0
0-6%
within
0-6%
within
SrO
0.06
0-1%
within
0-1%
within
As is set forth above, the glass of Sano is expected to have the same properties in terms of its demixing factor in respect to its hydrolytic resistance being between 0.1 and 1.65 as it is of the same composition as that which is claimed.
Sano is silent in terms of providing the surface of the glass article with a thermally or chemically toughened layer having a compressive stress of at least 50 MPa at a depth of at least 10 microns.
However, Dejneca teaches that glasses having mixed network formers of SiO2 and B2O3 may be chemically strengthened to impart a compressive stress on the surface, improving damage resistance of the glass (See Column 1-2). Dejneca teaches that such a strengthening effect can be attained in boron containing glasses having a content up to 15 mol% boron oxide (overlapping the compositions of Sano). Dejneca teaches that this strengthening may be performed by using a KNO3 salt bath and testing the DOL and CS of the glass (See Figures and Column 7). Dejneca shows that appreciable compressive stress exceeding 50 MPa may be achieved in borosilicate glasses (See Figure 15). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the chemical strengthening of Dejneca to the glass of Sano. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the references of Dejnecea and Sano on the basis that both are drawn to the processing of borosilicate glasses. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to chemically strengthen the glass of Sano using the process of Dejneca in order to improve the damage resistance of the glass. Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the chemically strengthened glass of Sano in view Dejneca to have the same properties as outlined above, particularly in terms of the glass’s breakage in a test according to DIN EN 12150-1, wherein those of ordinary skill would expect the glass of Sano in view of Dejneca having dimensions 40mmx40mm to shatter into not less than 25 pieces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claimed device is one that is for transmitting UV lights through a glass substrate to provide for effective disinfection on the surface of said glass. The closest prior art is considered to be Kass (previously cited) and Sano. Sano teaches a glass for use in a display device, wherein the glass is provided with specific additives that ensure that the glass does not discolor due to UV light (avoids solarization). The glass of Sano differs from the instantly claimed glass in terms of its transmission of UV light. The glass of Sano has a UV transmission of less than 0.1% at 254 nm (See Examples). Those of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to include a UV opaque glass in a device used to transmit UV rays.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants arguments against the rejections over Kass are noted and are persuasive. The glasses of Kass do not obviate the instantly claimed glass for the reasons discussed by applicant at pages 7-8 of the response. As this is the case, the 103 rejections over (and based on) Kass are withdrawn. Claims 1-16 are now rejected over Sano. Sano teaches a glass article and glass composition having the claimed composition. The glass of Sano would inherently/necessarily have the claimed properties in terms of demixing factor with respect to hydrolytic resistance amongst other properties. The reference to Dejneca is utilized in similar capacity as it was previously. Applicant did not specifically set forth grounds for traverse based upon the relied upon teachings of Dejneca.
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