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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 19 May 2022, 4 August 2022, and 25 August 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 19 May 2022 are accepted by the Examiner.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kass, U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0117294 A1 in view of Ulenaers et al., U. S. Patent Application Publication US 2002/0117950 A1.
Kass teaches a glass comprising in weight percentages: 65-85% of SiO2, 7-20% of B2O3, 0-7% of Al2O3, 0-2% of Li2O, 0-8% of Na2O, 0-12% of K2O, 0-5% of BaO, 0-2% of CaO, 0-2% of MgO, 0-2% of ZnO, 0.05-0.4% of TiO2, 0.025-0.3% of MoO3, and 0.001-0.01% of V2O5. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0001]-[ 0018]. Kass teaches the glass us used for lamp bulbs. See paragraph [0023]. Kass teaches that the glass comprises at most 20 ppm of Fe2O3. See paragraph [0025]. Kass teaches that the addition of TiO2, SnO2, MnO2, MoO3, or V2O5 influence the UV transmission and solarization resistance. See paragraph [0034].
Kass fails to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 1-20.
Ulenaers et al. teach a glass for a lamp comprising in terms pf weight percentages 60-75% of SiO2, 0.1-7% of Al2O3, 0.1-2.5% of Li2O, 5-12% of Na2O, 2-9% of K2O, 0.1-3% of MgO, 0.1-5% of CaO, 0.1-10% of SrO, 5-15% of BaO, 0.01-1% of MoO3, and 0.25-2.5% of SO3. See Table 1 in paragraph [0022]. Ulenaers et al. teach that MoO3 dissolved in the glass reduces the transmittance particularly in the region of 290-380 nm. See paragraph [0025]. Ulenaers et al.
As to claim 1, Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. would read on the glass comprising at least 60.0 wt% of SiO2 and one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the glass of Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. to decrease the amount of MoO3 in the glass to increase the transmittance at 260 nm.
As to claim 2, Kass teaches a glass comprising in weight percentages: 65-85% of SiO2, 7-20% of B2O3, 0-7% of Al2O3, 0-2% of Li2O, 0-8% of Na2O, 0-12% of K2O, 0-5% of BaO, 0-2% of CaO, 0-2% of MgO, 0-2% of ZnO, 0.05-0.4% of TiO2, 0.025-0.3% of MoO3, and 0.001-0.01% of V2O5. See paragraphs [0001] -[0018], which reads on a glass comprising 60-80% of SiO2, 0.5-30% of B2O3, 0.5-10% of Al2O3, 2-20% of Na2O, 0-20% of K2O, and 0-15% of BaO, as recited in instant claim 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, Kass teaches a glass comprising in weight percentages: 65-85% of SiO2, 7-20% of B2O3, 0-7% of Al2O3, 0-2% of Li2O, 0-8% of Na2O, 0-12% of K2O, 0-5% of BaO, 0-2% of CaO, 0-2% of MgO, 0-2% of ZnO, 0.05-0.4% of TiO2, 0.025-0.3% of MoO3, and 0.001-0.01% of V2O5. See paragraphs [0001] -[0018], which reads on a glass comprising 60-75% of SiO2, 0.5-5% of B2O3, 0.5-5% of Al2O3, 7-10% of Na2O, 8-12% of K2O, and 4.5-10% of BaO, as recited in instant claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 4, Kass teaches that the glass comprises at most 20 ppm of Fe2O3, (see paragraph [0025]), which reads the glass comprises less than 10 ppm of Fe2O3 as recited in instant claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 5, Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. teach the glass comprises 0.05-0.4% of TiO2, (see paragraph [0015]) and ]. Kass teaches that the addition of TiO2, SnO2, MnO2, MoO3, or V2O5 influence the UV transmission and solarization resistance (see paragraph [0034]), which reads on the glass comprising less than 10ppm of TiO2 and one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the glass of Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. to decrease the amount of TiO2 in the glass to increase the transmittance at 260 nm.
As to claim 6, Kass does not include the addition of NiO to the glass, which reads on the glass comprising less than 10 ppm of NiO, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Kass does not include the addition of Cr2O3 to the glass, which reads on the glass comprising less than 10 ppm of Cr2O3, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Kass teaches that the glass comprises 0-3% of Cl- (see paragraph [0014] of Kass), which reads on the glass comprising more than 100 ppm of Cl, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Kass teaches does not include the addition of ZrO2 to the glass, which reads on the glass comprising less than 0.5 wt% of ZrO2, as recited by instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. would inherently possess the transmittance property as recited in claim 10. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 11, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. would inherently possess the induced extinction property as recited in claim 11. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 12, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. would inherently possess the molybdenum induced extinction property as recited in claim 12. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 13, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. would inherently possess the partial pressure of oxygen property as recited in claim 13. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 14, Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. would read on the glass comprising at least 60.0 wt% of SiO2 and one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the glass of Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. to decrease the amount of MoO3 in the glass to increase the transmittance at 260 nm. Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. teach that the glass is used as a lamp.
As to claim 15, Kass teaches a glass comprising in weight percentages: 65-85% of SiO2, 7-20% of B2O3, 0-7% of Al2O3, 0-2% of Li2O, 0-8% of Na2O, 0-12% of K2O, 0-5% of BaO, 0-2% of CaO, 0-2% of MgO, 0-2% of ZnO, 0.05-0.4% of TiO2, 0.025-0.3% of MoO3, and 0.001-0.01% of V2O5. See paragraphs [0001] -[0018], which reads on a glass comprising 60-80% of SiO2, 0.5-30% of B2O3, 0.5-10% of Al2O3, 2-20% of Na2O, 0-20% of K2O, and 0-15% of BaO, as recited in instant claim 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 16, Kass teaches a glass comprising in weight percentages: 65-85% of SiO2, 7-20% of B2O3, 0-7% of Al2O3, 0-2% of Li2O, 0-8% of Na2O, 0-12% of K2O, 0-5% of BaO, 0-2% of CaO, 0-2% of MgO, 0-2% of ZnO, 0.05-0.4% of TiO2, 0.025-0.3% of MoO3, and 0.001-0.01% of V2O5. See paragraphs [0001] -[0018], which reads on a glass comprising 60-75% of SiO2, 0.5-5% of B2O3, 0.5-5% of Al2O3, 7-10% of Na2O, 8-12% of K2O, and 4.5-10% of BaO, as recited in instant claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 17, Kass teaches that the glass comprises at most 20 ppm of Fe2O3, (see paragraph [0025]), which reads the glass comprises less than 10 ppm of Fe2O3 as recited in instant claim 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 18, Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. teach the glass comprises 0.05-0.4% of TiO2, (see paragraph [0015]) and ]. Kass teaches that the addition of TiO2, SnO2, MnO2, MoO3, or V2O5 influence the UV transmission and solarization resistance (see paragraph [0034]), which reads on the glass comprising less than 10ppm of TiO2 and one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the glass of Kass in view of Ulenaers et al. to decrease the amount of TiO2 in the glass to increase the transmittance at 260 nm.
As to claim 19, Kass does not include the addition of NiO to the glass, which reads on the glass comprising less than 10 ppm of NiO, as recited in instant claim 19.
As to claim 20, Kass does not include the addition of Cr2O3 to the glass, which reads on the glass comprising less than 10 ppm of Cr2O3, as recited in instant claim 20.
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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 R. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
21 February 2026