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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on July 7, 2025 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015193521 A to Suzuki et al. (with reference to the previously provided machine translation, hereinafter “Suzuki”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,045,509 to Kiefer (hereinafter “Kiefer”), with evidence, as to claim 1, from U.S. Pat. No. 4,792,536 to Pecoraro et al. (hereinafter “Pecoraro”).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a UV transmitting glass (Abstract) comprising as a glass composition, in terms of mass, the component ranges summarized in Table A below:
Table A
Component
Claim 1
(mass%)
Suzuki
(mass% unless otherwise stated)
SiO2
55 – 80
50 – 80 (¶ 0040)
Al2O3
1 – 25
1 – 20 (¶ 0042)
B2O3
10.8 – 30
3 – 25 (¶ 0043)
Na2O
0 – 10
0 – 25 (¶ 0046)
K2O
0 – less than 1.6
“preferably” 0 – 15 (¶ 0047)
“in particular” 1 – 5 (¶ 0047)
Li2O+Na2O+K2O
0.1 – 10
“preferably” 0 – 25 (¶ 0044)
“in particular” 7 – 13 (¶ 0044)
BaO
0 – 5
0 – 7 (¶ 0052)
Cl
0 – 1
10 ppm – 3000 ppm (¶ 0062)
0.001 – 0.3 mass% (calculated)
Thus, Suzuki teaches ranges that substantially overlap the recited ranges of claim 1. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). One of ordinary skill in the art readily could have chosen compositional percentages from the ranges taught by Suzuki to produce a UV transmitting glass reading on the compositional limitations of claim 1. Indeed, Example 3 of Suzuki is very close to reading on claim 1, except that the content of K2O (1.9 mass%) is narrowly outside the claimed range (see Suzuki, Table 1, p. 18). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph). Example 3 of Suzuki thus provides evidence bolstering the prima facie case that one of ordinary skill in the art, equipped with the teachings of Suzuki, could select compositional percentages from the ranges taught by Suzuki to produce a UV transmitting glass reading on the compositional limitations of claim 1.
Suzuki teaches that the glass composition comprises (in terms of mass%) 0-25% Na2O (¶ 0046) and 0-25% of a total amount of Li2O+Na2O+K2O (¶ 0044). However, Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein a mass ratio of Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) is 0.761 or less.
Kiefer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a UV transmitting glass (Abstract) that includes (in terms of mass%) 0.4-1.0% Li2O, 1.0-3.5% Na2O, 1.0-2.5% K2O, and 3.8-5.5% Li2O+Na2O+K2O (Col. 2, lines 16-21). Kiefer teaches that the combined amount of alkali metal oxides (in terms of mass%) may be as high as 5.5% (Col. 2, line 21), while at the same time it is important to limit the total amount of Na2O to no more than 3.5%, since a mass percentage of Na2O over that adversely affects hydrolytic resistance (Col. 3, lines 7-8). Thus, Kiefer teaches a maximum Na2O amount of 3.5% and a maximum Li2O+Na2O+K2O amount of 5.5%; a ratio of these two maxima is Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) = 0.636, which is below the upper limit of 0.761 recited in the amended claim 1. Further, Kiefer teaches numerous specific embodiments in which the ratio of Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) is less than 0.761. For example, Glass 1 in Table 1 of Kiefer has a total amount of Na2O (including Na2O derived from NaCl) of 2.35%, and a total Li2O+Na2O+K2O of 4.60%, for a ratio of Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) = 0.511. Glass 6 in Table 1 of Kiefer has a total amount of Na2O (including Na2O derived from NaCl) of 2.35%, and a total Li2O+Na2O+K2O of 5.10%, for a ratio Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) = 0.461. Thus, Kiefer teaches wherein a mass ratio of Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) is 0.761 or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki by selecting proportions of Li2O, Na2O, and K2O so as to ensure that the mass ratio of Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) is 0.761 or less, as taught by Kiefer. Motivation to do so would come from a desire to ensure a high hydrolytic resistance of the glass composition (see Kiefer, Col. 2, line 68—Col. 3, line 8).
Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches a glass composition reading on the compositional limitations of claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently have an external transmittance at a thickness of 0.5 mm and a wavelength of 200 nm of 38% or more, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Indeed, evidence within Suzuki bolsters this prima facie case, since Suzuki discloses that Example 3 has a transmittance at a thickness of 1.0 mm and a wavelength of 200 nm of 50.6% (see Table 1). Using evidence from Pecoraro (in particular, formulas from Col. 15, line 61 – Col. 16, line 7), it is possible to calculate the transmittance of Example 3 at a thickness of 0.5 mm:
D1 = log(91.7/T1) = log(91.7/50.6) = 0.258
D2 = (h2/h1)(D1) = (0.5/1.0)(0.258) = 0.129
T2 = 91.7/(10D2) = 91.7/(1.346) = 68.1
where D1 = original optical density, D2 = new optical density, h1 = original thickness, h2 = new thickness, T1 = original transmittance (percent), and T2 = new transmittance (percent). Thus, Example 3 of Suzuki, which has a transmittance at a thickness of 1.0 mm and a wavelength of 200 nm of 50.6%, should have a transmittance at a thickness of 0.5 mm and a wavelength of 200 nm of 68.1%, which is considerably higher than the 38% minimum recited in claim 1. (Suzuki teaches that “transmittance” is “a value obtained by measuring the spectral transmittance in the thickness direction using a double-beam spectrophotometer” [¶ 0084]; since this is almost identical to the definition of “external transmittance” in the present Application [see Specification at ¶ 0098], “transmittance” in Suzuki is read as equivalent to “external transmittance” in the claims.) Since Example 3 of Suzuki nearly anticipates claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a glass composition prepared according to the compositional teachings of Suzuki as set forth above would inherently exhibit similar transmittance properties and therefore have an external transmittance at a thickness of 0.5 mm and a wavelength of 200 nm falling above the threshold of claim 1.
Thus, in view of Suzuki as modified by Kiefer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a UV transmitting glass reading on every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches a UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as described immediately above. Moreover, Suzuki teaches a UV transmitting glass comprising a glass composition, in terms of mass, with the component ranges summarized in Table B below:
Table B
Component
Claim 2 (mass%)
Suzuki (mass% unless otherwise stated)
SiO2
65 – 74
50 – 80 (¶ 0040)
Al2O3
3.5 – 20
1 – 20 (¶ 0042)
B2O3
11.5 – 25
3 – 25 (¶ 0043)
Na2O
0.1 – 8
0 – 25 (¶ 0046)
K2O
0 – 1
0 – 15 (¶ 0047)
Li2O+Na2O+K2O
1 – 10
“preferably” 0 – 25 (¶ 0044)
“in particular” 7 – 13 (¶ 0044)
BaO
0 – 1.9
0 – 7 (¶ 0052)
Cl
0.01 – 0.5
10 ppm – 3000 ppm (¶ 0062)
0.001 – 0.3 mass% (calculated)
Fe2O3 + TiO2
0.00001 – 0.00200
“particularly preferably” 1 - 20 ppm (¶ 0056)
0.0001 – 0.0020 mass% (calculated)
Thus, the ranges in Suzuki substantially overlap the recited ranges of claim 2. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches a glass composition reading on the compositional limitations of claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the properties recited in claim 3, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the glass composition according to claim 1, as set forth above (pp. 3-5). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 4, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the glass composition according to claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 5, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). This prima facie case is bolstered by evidence of Suzuki, which discloses that the UV transmitting glass of Example 3 has a temperature corresponding to glass viscosity Logρ=4.0 dPa∙s of 1030°C (see p. 18, Table 1, row 19), which is within the recited range of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the glass composition according to claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 5, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). This prima facie case is bolstered by evidence of Suzuki, which discloses that the UV transmitting glass of Example 3 has an average thermal expansion coefficient in a range of from 30°C to 380°C of 55 x 10-7/°C (see Table 1, row 22), which is within the recited range of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the glass composition according to claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 7, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the glass composition according to claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 8, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). This prima facie case is bolstered by evidence from Suzuki, which discloses that Example 3 has a transmittance at a thickness of 1.0 mm and a wavelength of 200 nm of 50.6% (Table 1) and a transmittance at a thickness of 1.0 mm and a wavelength of 260 nm of approximately 87% (see Fig. 3, reproduced on the next page), giving a relationship of T200/T260 ≈ 50.6/87 = 0.58, which is greater than 0.45. Although the transmittance values for Example 3 of Suzuki were measured on glass with a thickness of 1.0 mm rather than 0.5 mm, nevertheless the data of Suzuki support the case that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges as set forth above would also inherently satisfy a relationship of T200/T260 ≥ 0.45 at a thickness of 0.5 mm.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass wherein the UV transmitting glass has a sheet shape and has a thickness of from 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm (see Suzuki at ¶ 0070, teaching wherein the UV transmitting glass has a sheet shape, and ¶ 0084, teaching that the glass has a thickness of 0.7 mm or 1.0 mm).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass wherein the UV transmitting glass is used for a UV light-emitting diode (LED) (Suzuki at ¶ 0009).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 2, as set forth above (see pp. 6-7). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 16, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 from Suzuki. The arrow indicates approximately the position on the Transmittance % curve at 260 nm.
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 2, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 17, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 3, as set forth above (p. 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 18, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 16, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 19, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 2, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass composition with overlapping compositional ranges would also inherently possess the physical properties recited in claim 20, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). This prima facie case is supported by the evidence of Suzuki discussed above in regards to claim 5 (see above p. 8).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kiefer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2018/0118605 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as described above (see pp. 3-6). However, neither Suzuki nor Kiefer explicitly teaches wherein the UV transmitting glass has a functional film formed on a glass surface thereof.
Liu teaches a glass substrate that has a functional film formed on a surface of the glass substrate (¶ 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki in view of Kiefer with the teaching of Liu to the extent of adding a functional film formed on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a functional film formed on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass by a desire to reduce the reflectiveness of the glass surface, or to reduce the appearance of fingerprints on the glass surface (Liu at ¶ 0036).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Kiefer by including a functional film formed on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass as taught by Liu.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as set forth above. However, neither Suzuki nor Kiefer explicitly teaches wherein the UV transmitting glass has an adhesive layer formed on a glass surface thereof.
Liu teaches an adhesive layer formed on a glass surface of a glass substrate (see ¶ 0037 and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki in view of Kiefer with the teaching of Liu by adding an adhesive layer formed on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add an adhesive layer formed on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass in order to prepare the UV transmitting glass to receive a laminate layer, such as a film (see Liu at ¶¶ 0037-0038).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Kiefer by adding an adhesive layer formed on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass as taught by Liu.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kiefer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,589 to Ohga et al. (hereinafter “Ohga”).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as set forth above (see pp. 3-6). However, Suzuki in view of Kiefer does not explicitly teach wherein the UV transmitting glass has a lens structure formed on a glass surface thereof.
Ohga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a UV transmitting glass (Abstract) that has a lens structure formed on a glass surface thereof (see Col. 3, line 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki with the teaching of Ohga to the extent of forming a lens structure on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by a desire to use the UV transmitting glass as a lens for an ultraviolet laser (Ohga, Col. 3, lines 32-33).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Kiefer by forming a lens structure on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass as taught by Ohga.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as set forth above. However, Suzuki in view of Kiefer does not explicitly teach wherein the UV transmitting glass has a prism structure formed on a glass surface thereof.
Ohga teaches a UV transmitting glass (Abstract) that has a prism structure formed on a glass surface thereof (see Col. 3, line 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki in view of Kiefer with the teaching of Ohga to the produce a UV transmitting glass having a prism structure formed on a glass surface thereof. One of ordinary skill in the art, using known methods and with predictable results, could have formed the UV transmitting glass of Suzuki into the prism structure as taught by Ohga, the prism structure merely performing the normal functions of a prism. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Kiefer by having a prism structure formed on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass as taught by Ohga.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0179389 to Matsuo et al. (hereinafter “Matsuo”).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki in view of Kiefer teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as described above (see pp. 3-6). However, Suzuki in view of Kiefer does no explicitly teach wherein the UV transmitting glass has a tube shape and has an inner diameter of 1 mm or more.
Matsuo teaches a borosilicate glass having a tube shape, the tube having an inner diameter of approximately 3.0 mm (¶ 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki in view of Kiefer with the teaching of Matsuo to produce a UV transmitting glass that has a tube shape and has an inner diameter of 1 mm or more. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to create, for example, a cold cathode fluorescent lamp for use in a liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor (see Matsuo at ¶¶ 0006-0007, 0042).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki in view of Kiefer by forming the UV transmitting glass into a tube shape that has an inner diameter of 1 mm or more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are principally directed towards the limitation (added by amendment in the Response filed July 7, 2025) that the UV transmitting glass includes a mass ratio of Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) is 0.761 or less (see Applicant’s Remarks filed July 7, 2025, hereinafter “Remarks,” at p. 5). Applicant asserts that Suzuki does not discuss a mass ratio of Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) or how that mass ratio affects the electrical resistivity of the glass composition during the glass melting process (see Remarks at p. 5). Applicant notes that none of the example embodiments disclosed by Suzuki exhibit a mass ratio of Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) that is 0.761 or less (although Example No. 3, with a mass ratio value of 0.765, is close) (Remarks at p. 5). However, a prior art reference is prior art for all that it teaches (MPEP 2121.01), and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments “do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123). Here, Suzuki teaches broader ranges of both Na2O and of Li2O+Na2O+K2O than the amounts disclosed in specific example embodiments. Moreover, Suzuki as modified by Kiefer clearly teaches a mass ratio of Na2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) that is 0.761 or less, as set forth above (see pp. 4-5). Therefore, in view of the new grounds of rejection, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Pecoraro, Liu, Ohga, and Matsuo references (see Remarks at pp. 5-6) 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,792,535 to Fine (“Fine”) teaches alkali boroaluminosilicate glasses exhibiting moderately high thermal expansion coefficients, good melting characteristics, and a UV transmittance of at least 80% in 1 mm thickness at a wavelength of 254 nm, such glasses consisting essentially of about 58-62% SiO2, 15-18% B2O3, 11.5-14.5% Al2O3, 1-2.5% Li2O, 5.5-6.5% Na2O, 0-2% K2O, and 0-0.6% Cl (Abstract).
U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0096754 to Thomsen et al. (“Thomsen”) teaches an ultraviolet (UV) transmissive soda-lime-silica glass (Abstract), the glass comprising 67-75 wt% SiO2, 10-20 wt% Na2O, 5-15 wt% CaO, 0-7 wt% MgO, 0-5 wt% Al2O3, and 0-5 wt% K2O (Table 1). Thomsen teaches that, in certain example embodiments, the soda-lime-silica based glass has a transmission at 320 nm (in the UV range) of preferably at least 75% (¶ 0011).
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 PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights