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 Objections
Claims 17, 26, and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 is directed towards the glass frit system according to claim 16, wherein: the CTE modifier includes the modified Pseudo-Brookite type material; and wherein: the modified Pseudo-Brookite type material has: (i) a formula Al2-xMxTiO5, wherein M represents one or more of the coloring ions, and x is 0.1-2, or (ii) a formula Al2Ti1-xMxO5, where M represents one or more of the coloring ions and x is 0.01-0.4.
Claim 36 is directed towards the glass frit system according to claim 16, wherein: the CTE modifier comprises the modified Pseudo-Brookite type material having a formula Al2TiO5, wherein at least one of Al and Ti is partially substituted with at least one coloring ion selected from the group consisting of Fe, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu.
The closest prior art is Ishihara as noted in the non-final rejection dated 05/19/2025. Ishihara does not disclose or make obvious the modified Pseudo-Brookite type material has: (i) a formula Al2-xMxTiO5, wherein M represents one or more of the coloring ions, and x is 0.1-2, or (ii) a formula Al2Ti1-xMxO5, where M represents one or more of the coloring ions and x is 0.01-0.4. Ishihara does not disclose or make obvious the CTE modifier comprises the modified Pseudo-Brookite type material having a formula Al2TiO5, wherein at least one of Al and Ti is partially substituted with at least one coloring ion selected from the group consisting of Fe, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu.
Claim 26 is objected to because claim 26 depends upon claim 17.
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) 16, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Francis et al. (US5721802A, hereinafter referred to as Francis).
Regarding claim 16, Francis discloses a glass frit system (See Francis at Col. 2, line 16, disclosing a glass frit) comprising a vehicle (see Francis at Col. 2, lines 57-58, disclosing an organic vehicle), a glass frit (See Francis at Col. 2, line 16, disclosing a glass frit), and a colored CTE modifier (see Francis at Col. 3, lines 63-64, disclosing a suitable pyrophosphate has a generic formula 2(Co,Mg)OP2O5. Examiner notes Co is a colored CTE modifier per instant claim 16.),
the colored CTE modifier comprising: a Pseudo-Brookite type material having a formula Al2TiO5, wherein at least one of Al and Ti is partially substituted with at least one coloring ion selected from the group consisting of Fe, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu; or a Perovskite type material having a formula Sm1-xSrxMnO3-δ, wherein x is within the range of 0.0 to 0.5 and δ is within the range of 0.0 to 0.25, wherein δ represents a degree of oxygen vacancy; or the modified Perovskite type material wherein Sr is partially substituted with at least one of Ba and Ca; or a modified magnesium pyrophosphate type material having a formula Mg2P2O7 wherein Mg is at least partially substituted with at least one of Co and Zn ions; or a modified eucryptite type material having a formula LiAlSiO4 wherein Al is at least partially substituted with at least one coloring ion selected from the group consisting of Fe, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu; or combinations of the foregoing (see Francis at Col. 3, lines 63-64, disclosing a suitable pyrophosphate has a generic formula 2(Co,Mg)OP2O5.).
Regarding claim 25, Francis discloses further including at least one of a filler, a reducing agent, a dispersant, a surfactant, a rheological modifier, a flow aid, an adhesion promoter, and a stabilizer (see Francis at Col. 2, lines 57-59, disclosing an organic vehicle, such as amyl acetate, to form a flowable, or extrudable paste. Examiner notes this corresponds to a flow aid).
Regarding claim 26, Francis discloses a glass substrate bearing the glass frit system of fired to adhere to the substrate (see Francis at Col. 4, lines 58-59, disclosing the sample was dried, then fired.).
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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Merkel et al. (US20090137382, hereinafter referred to as Merkel).
Regarding claim 23, Francis discloses the glass frit is present at 18.5-95 wt.% (See Francis at the Table at Col. 5, example 2, disclosing 70 wt.% glass), the colored CTE modifier is present at 0.5-50 wt.% (See Francis at the Table at Col. 5, example 2, disclosing 10 wt.% Co-Mg pyrophosphate. Examiner notes 2(Co,Mg)OP2O5 is approximately 40 wt.% Co, and therefore 10 wt.% Co-Mg pyrophosphate would comprise approximately 4 wt.% Co), and a pigment is present at 1-50 wt.% (See Francis at the Table at Col. 5, example 2, disclosing 10 wt.% Co-Mg pyrophosphate. Examiner notes 2(Co,Mg)OP2O5 is approximately 40 wt.% Co, and therefore 10 wt.% Co-Mg pyrophosphate would comprise approximately 4 wt.% Co. Examiner notes cobalt is a pigment).
While Francis discloses an organic vehicle, such as amyl acetate, to form a flowable, or extrudable paste (see Francis at Col. 2, lines 57-59), Francis does not disclose wherein relative to the total weight of the glass frit system: the vehicle is present at 3.5-80 wt.% because Francis is silent as to the amount of organic vehicle to include. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would naturally look to the prior art to determine an appropriate amount of organic vehicle to include when practicing the invention of Francis.
Merkel is directed towards a ceramic (See Merkel at the Abstract). Merkel discloses a liquid vehicle for providing a flowable or paste-like consistency (see Merkel at [0081]). Merkel discloses the liquid vehicle content is present as a super addition in an amount in the range of from 15% to 60% by weight of the inorganic powder batch composition (see Merkel at [0081]), which is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Francis to include a liquid vehicle within the range disclosed by Merkel with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a flowable or paste-like consistency as taught by Merkel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8 of the Remarks, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 under 103 in view of Merkel have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Francis and Francis in view of Merkel as detailed above.
At the second paragraph of page 8, Applicant states that it is presumed that the Office has acknowledged that the elected Al2TiO5 species has been found allowable, and that examination has been extended to other species within the scope of independent generic claim 16. Examiner notes that the mentioned Al2TiO5 species has been found allowable over the prior art as noted in the objection to dependent claim 36, however, claim 16 is still written to contain unelected species. Because the language of claim 16 still contains limitations to these unelected species, prior art will be applied to the language of claim 16. Examiner notes that the remaining claims directed towards unelected species will not be rejoined in so much as unelected species of claim 16 remains rejected over the prior art.
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