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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/23/2025 has been entered.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki (US20210214269, hereinafter referred to as Yuki).
Regarding claim 1, Yuki discloses an inorganic composition article containing at least one kind selected from a-cristobalite and a-cristobalite solid solution as a main crystal phase (See Yuki at [0042], disclosing a main crystal type of the crystallized glass is not particularly limited, but is preferably any one of … cristobalite. 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 Yuki to select cristobalite as the main crystal type of the crystallized glass because it would be obvious to try cristobalite in view of the explicit teachings of the limited number of crystal phases of Yuki.), wherein by mass% in terms of oxide, a content of a SiO2 component is 50.0% or more and less than 74% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 66.9 mol% SiO2, which corresponds to approximately 64.5 wt.% SiO2), a content of a Li2O component is 5.5% or more to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 16.3 mol% Li2O, which corresponds to approximately 7.8 wt.% Li2O), a content of an Al2O3 component is 10.5% or more and less than 13.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 8 mol% Al2O3, which corresponds to approximately 13.1 wt.% Al2O3, which is close to touching the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).), and a total content of the Al2O3 component and a ZrO2 component is 10.5% or more (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 8 mol% Al2O3, which corresponds to approximately 13.1 wt.% Al2O3, and 4.2 mol% ZrO2 which corresponds to approximately 8.3 wt.% ZrO2. Examiner notes this provides a sum of Al2O3+ZrO2 of 13.1+8.3= 21.4 wt.%, which is within the claimed range.), and wherein a compressive stress layer having a surface compressive stress value of 600 MPa or more is formed on the surface of the inorganic composition article (see Yuki at [0053], disclosing the compressive stress layer has a compressive stress value of preferably … 600 MPa or more.).
Further regarding claim 1, Yuki make obvious a content of a ZrO2 component is 8.0% or less (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 4.2 mol% ZrO2 which corresponds to approximately 8.3 wt.% ZrO2, which is close to touching the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).).
Additionally, Yuki discloses ZrO2 is preferably from 0% to 10% (see Yuki at [0033]), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Yuki teaches ZrO2 is a component that increases the critical energy release rate Gc and the weather resistance, and is also a component for forming the crystal nucleus (see Yuki at [0033]).
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 Yuki to vary the ZrO2 content throughout the entire range disclosed by Yuki with a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing the critical energy release rate, weather resistance, and forming crystal nuclei as taught by Yuki.
Further regarding claim 1, Yuki makes obvious a content of a Na2O component is 2.0% or less (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 2.4 mol% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 2.4 wt.% Na2O, which is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Additionally, Yuki discloses Na2O is preferably ... 1% or less, which while in mol%, would overlap with or be within the claimed wt.% range (See Yuki at [0025]). Yuki teaches when the content of Na2O is too large, a crystallite size is liable to be coarsened, and the weather resistance is liable to be reduced (see Yuki at [0025]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts when practicing the invention of Example No. 8 of Yuki to vary the Na2O within the entire range disclosed by Yuki, including the portion overlapping and/or within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass without a crystallite size which is coarsened and without weather resistance being reduced as taught by Yuki.
Further regarding claim 1, while Example No. 8 of Yuki does not disclose a glass with a ZnO content of 2.0 to 10.0 mass %, Yuki at [0032] discloses the content of ZnO is preferably from 0% to 5%, which while provided in mol%, would still overlap with the claimed range as evidenced by the point 66.9 mol% SiO2, 0.7 mol% P2O5, 8 mol% Al2O3, 16.3 mol% Li2O, 0.4 mol% Na2O, 1.4 mol% K2O, 2 mol% ZnO, 4.2 mol% ZrO2, and 0.1 mol% SnO2, which corresponds to approximately 64.07 wt.% SiO2, 1.58 wt.% P2O5, 13 wt.% Al2O3, 7.76 wt.% Li2O, 0.4 wt.% Na2O, 2.1 wt.% K2O, 2.59 wt.% ZnO, 8.25 wt.% ZrO2, and 0.2 wt.% SnO2.
Yuki teaches ZnO is a component that reduces the viscosity at high temperature to remarkably improve the meltability, and is also a component that suppresses the coarsening of the crystallite size. However, when the content of ZnO is too large, the glass is liable to be devitrified at the time of forming (see Yuki at [0032]).
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 Example No. 8 of Yuki to include ZnO within the overlapping claimed range as disclosed by Yuki with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a composition with a remarkably improved meltability without devitrifying the glass at the time of forming as taught by Yuki.
Regarding claim 2, Yuki discloses a content of a K2O component is 0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 1.4 mol% K2O, which corresponds to approximately 2.1 wt.% K2O.), and a content of a P2O5 component is 0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0.7 mol% P2O5, which corresponds to approximately 1.6 wt.% P2O5.).
Regarding claim 3, Yuki discloses the inorganic composition article wherein by mass% in terms of oxide, a content of a MgO component is 0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% MgO.), a content of a CaO component is 0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% CaO.), a content of a SrO component is 0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% SrO.), a content of a BaO component is 0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% BaO.), and a content of a Sb2O3 component is 0% to 3.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% Sb2O3.).
Regarding claim 4, Yuki discloses the inorganic composition article wherein by mass% in terms of oxide, a content of a Nb2O5 component is 0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% Nb2O5.), a content of a Ta2O5 component is 0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% Ta2O5.), and a content of a TiO2 component is 0% or more and less than 7.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% TiO2.).
Regarding claim 5, Yuki discloses a crystallized glass containing at least one kind selected from a-cristobalite and a-cristobalite solid solution as a main crystal phase (See Yuki at [0042], disclosing a main crystal type of the crystallized glass is not particularly limited, but is preferably any one of … cristobalite. 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 Yuki to select cristobalite as the main crystal type of the crystallized glass because it would be obvious to try cristobalite in view of the explicit teachings of the limited number of crystal phases of Yuki.), wherein by mass% in terms of oxide, a content of a SiO2 component is 50.0% to 74.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 66.9 mol% SiO2, which corresponds to approximately 64.5 wt.% SiO2), a content of a Li2O component is 3.0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 16.3 mol% Li2O, which corresponds to approximately 7.8 wt.% Li2O), a content of an Al2O3 component is 10.5% or more and less than 13.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 8 mol% Al2O3, which corresponds to approximately 13.1 wt.% Al2O3, which is close to touching the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).), and a total content of the Al2O3 component and the ZrO2 component is 10.5% or more (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 8 mol% Al2O3, which corresponds to approximately 13.1 wt.% Al2O3, and 4.2 mol% ZrO2 which corresponds to approximately 8.3 wt.% ZrO2. Examiner notes this provides a sum of Al2O3+ZrO2 of 13.1+8.3= 21.4 wt.%, which is within the claimed range.).
Further regarding claim 5, Yuki make obvious a content of a ZrO2 component is more than 0% and 8.0% or less (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 4.2 mol% ZrO2 which corresponds to approximately 8.3 wt.% ZrO2, which is close to touching the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).).
Additionally, Yuki discloses ZrO2 is preferably from 0% to 10% (see Yuki at [0033]), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Yuki teaches ZrO2 is a component that increases the critical energy release rate Gc and the weather resistance, and is also a component for forming the crystal nucleus (see Yuki at [0033]).
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 Yuki to vary the ZrO2 content throughout the entire range disclosed by Yuki with a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing the critical energy release rate, weather resistance, and forming crystal nuclei as taught by Yuki.
Further regarding claim 5, Yuki makes obvious a content of a Na2O component is 2.0% or less (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 2.4 mol% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 2.4 wt.% Na2O, which is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Additionally, Yuki discloses Na2O is preferably ... 1% or less, which while in mol%, would overlap with or be within the claimed wt.% range (See Yuki at [0025]). Yuki teaches when the content of Na2O is too large, a crystallite size is liable to be coarsened, and the weather resistance is liable to be reduced (see Yuki at [0025]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts when practicing the invention of Example No. 8 of Yuki to vary the Na2O within the entire range disclosed by Yuki, including the portion overlapping and/or within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass without a crystallite size which is coarsened and without weather resistance being reduced as taught by Yuki.
Further regarding claim 5, while Example No. 8 of Yuki does not disclose a glass with a ZnO content of 2.0 to 10.0 mass %, Yuki at [0032] discloses the content of ZnO is preferably from 0% to 5%, which while provided in mol%, would still overlap with the claimed range as evidenced by the point 66.9 mol% SiO2, 0.7 mol% P2O5, 8 mol% Al2O3, 16.3 mol% Li2O, 0.4 mol% Na2O, 1.4 mol% K2O, 2 mol% ZnO, 4.2 mol% ZrO2, and 0.1 mol% SnO2, which corresponds to approximately 64.07 wt.% SiO2, 1.58 wt.% P2O5, 13 wt.% Al2O3, 7.76 wt.% Li2O, 0.4 wt.% Na2O, 2.1 wt.% K2O, 2.59 wt.% ZnO, 8.25 wt.% ZrO2, and 0.2 wt.% SnO2.
Yuki teaches ZnO is a component that reduces the viscosity at high temperature to remarkably improve the meltability, and is also a component that suppresses the coarsening of the crystallite size. However, when the content of ZnO is too large, the glass is liable to be devitrified at the time of forming (see Yuki at [0032]).
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 Example No. 8 of Yuki to include ZnO within the overlapping claimed range as disclosed by Yuki with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a composition with a remarkably improved meltability without devitrifying the glass at the time of forming as taught by Yuki.
Regarding claim 6, Yuki discloses the crystallized glass wherein by mass% in terms of oxide, a content of a K2O component is 0% to 5.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 1.4 mol% K2O, which corresponds to approximately 2.1 wt.% K2O.), and a content of a P2O5 component is 0% to 10.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0.7 mol% P2O5, which corresponds to approximately 1.6 wt.% P2O5.).
Regarding claim 7, Yuki discloses the crystallized glass wherein by mass% in terms of oxide, a content of a MgO component is 0% to 4.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% MgO.), a content of a CaO component is 0% to 4.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% CaO.), a content of a SrO component is 0% to 4.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% SrO.), a content of a BaO component is 0% to 5.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% BaO.), and a content of a Sb2O3 component is 0% to 3.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% Sb2O3.).
Regarding claim 8, Yuki discloses the crystallized glass wherein by mass% in terms of oxide, a content of a Nb2O5 component is 0% to 5.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% Nb2O5.), a content of a Ta2O5 component is 0% to 6.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% Ta2O5.), and a content of a TiO2 component is 0% or more and less than 1.0% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 0% TiO2.).
Regarding claim 9, Yuki discloses the crystallized glass wherein by mass% in terms of oxide, the content of a Li2O component is 6.2 to 10% (see Yuki at Table 2, Example No. 8, disclosing an example comprising 16.3 mol% Li2O, which corresponds to approximately 7.8 wt.% Li2O).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At the second paragraph of page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Example No. 8 and all other example of Yuki comprise more than 2.0 wt.% Na2O, however, [d]isclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123(II)). Examiner notes Yuki makes obvious a range of Na2O which overlaps with the claimed range as detailed by the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above. At the same paragraph, Applicant argues the examples disclosed in Yuki do not contain ZnO, however, this is not convincing for the same reasons detailed above, mutatis mutandis. Examiner notes Yuki makes obvious a range of ZnO as detailed in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above.
At the third paragraph of page 6, Applicant argues that by adjusting the Na2O content to 2.0 wt.% or less it is easier to obtain a desired crystal phase per the last paragraph of page 10 of the instant specification. Examiner notes that the last paragraph of page 10 of the instant specification recites “if the Na2O component is contained in an excessive amount it may be difficult to obtain a desired crystal phase. Preferably, the upper limit of the Na2O component may be 10.0% or less…”. As such, the last paragraph does not appear to state that 2.0% or less Na2O provides any different results than 10.0% or less, and thus Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
At the second to last paragraph of page 6, Applicant argues that Yuki provides no motivation to select cristobalite as the main crystalline phase from among the broadly disclosed possibilities. Examiner notes that it would be obvious to select each and every main crystalline phase provided in the list of Yuki, and thus this argument is not convincing. In the same paragraph, Applicant argues there would be no motivation to modify the content of Na2O in Yuki’s Example No. 8 to fall within the claimed range, however, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated in the rejections of claim 1 and 5 above.
At the last paragraph of page 6, Applicant argues that Yuki discloses the ZnO is particularly preferably 0% to 1% in [0032]. Examiner notes the full quote of [0032] of Yuki states the content of ZnO is preferably from 0% to 5%, from 0% to 3%, or from 0% to 2%, particularly preferably from 0% to 1%. As such, Yuki discloses a much more broad range than merely 0-1%, including values which are within the claimed range, and thus the ranges of Yuki overlap with the claimed range. Examiner additionally notes that Yuki does provide motivation to increase the ZnO content above 1% for the reasons noted in the rejections of claim 1 and 5 above. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
At the first full paragraph of page 7, Applicant appears to argue the claimed Na2O, Al2O3, and ZnO ranges are critical for providing surprising results of suppressing crystal coarsening, improving meltability, and obtaining the crystal phase easier, which provides high hardness and strength. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The last paragraph of page 10 of the instant specification does not appear to state the claimed Na2O range is any more critical than 10% or less. The first paragraph of page 11 of the instant specification does not appear to state that 2-10% ZnO is any more critical than the broadly disclosed range of 10% or less. The third full paragraph of page 9 of the instant specification does not appear to state the claimed Al2O3 range is critical over the more broadly disclosed range of 15.0% or less and 6.5% or more. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
Because Applicant’s arguments are not convincing, all claims remain rejected over Yuki as detailed above.
Conclusion
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