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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 5 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated US6495480(US’480).
Regarding claims 5 and 22, US’480 disclose a glass ceramic composition (example 6) comprising lithium silicate as main crystal phase and low quartz as further crystal phase set forth below.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-6, 8, 10-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US6495480(US’480).
Regarding claims 1- 3, 5-6, 8, 10, and 11, US’480 disclose a glass ceramic composition comprising lithium silicate as main crystal phase and low quartz as further crystal phase. See col. 10, lines 29-32, and 45-50, and col.5, lines 24-33.
PNG
media_image2.png
169
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing
identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the amount of crystal of the lithium disilicate crystal phase is within a range from 40 wt % to 70 wt %. See col. 10, lines 37-39.
Regarding claim 15, the amount of crystal of the quartz crystal phase preferably is within a range from 10 wt % to 70 wt %. See col. 10, lines 29-31 and 45-50.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-13, 16 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20150104655A1(US’655).
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13 and 21-22, US’655 discuses a lithium silicate crystalline glass composition, comprising: a first heat treatment process at 555-595° C. for 10 to 120 minutes; and a second heat treatment process at 750-980° C. The lithium silicate crystalline glass composition comprising lithium disilicate as main crystal phase, quartz as further crystal phase and for example 5% P2O5. See [0032], [0052], [0059], [0060] and examples 1-5, 7-11, and 13-14.
PNG
media_image3.png
345
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Although the prior art is silent that the quartz is low quartz, it has been held that “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”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 12, the ratio of SiO2/Li2O =(72.2/40)/(14.1/30)=3.84( example 7).
Regarding claim 16, the starting material is in form of powders. See [0059] and [0060].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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 SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731