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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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, 3-8, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H06157067 A to Nishiyuki (with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter “Nishiyuki”).
Regarding claim 1, Nishiyuki discloses a UV transmitting glass (Abstract) comprising as a glass composition, in terms of mass%, the components summarized in Table A below:
Table A
Component
Claim 1
Nishiyuki, Example 3 (Table 1)
SiO2
55 – 80
57.6
Al2O3
1 – 25
10
B2O3
10.8 – 30
27
Na2O
0 – 10
3
K2O
0 – less than 1.6
1
Li2O+Na2O+K2O
0.1 – 10
5
Na2O/( Li2O+Na2O+K2O)
0.761 or less
0.6
BaO
0 – 5
0
F
0.00
0
Cl
0 – 1
0.4
Thus, Example 3 of Nishiyuki discloses component mass% proportions that lie within the claimed ranges of claim 1. Nishiyuki teaches that Example 3 includes 1 mass% Li2O, and therefore the sum Li2O+Na2O+K2O = 1+3+1 = 5 mass% and the ratio Na2O/ (Li2O+Na2O+K2O) = 3/(1+3+1) = 3/5 = 0.6, within the claimed ranges.
Nishiyuki does not explicitly teach that the UV transmitting glass of Example 3 exhibits an external transmittance at a thickness of 0.5 mm and a wavelength of 200 nm of 38% or more. However, given the substantially identical composition of the UV transmitting glass of Nishiyuki and the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the Nishiyuki glass composition would 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 anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Here, that prima facie case is bolstered by the evidence of Nishiyuki, which discloses that the UV transmitting glass of Example 3 has an external transmittance at a thickness of 1 mm and a wavelength of 254 nm of 83% and a coefficient of thermal expansion of 49 × 10⁻⁷/°C (see ¶ 0021 and Table 1), both physical property values consistent with the claimed invention (see Table 2 and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s Specification, and see claim 6).
Regarding claim 3, Nishiyuki teaches a glass composition reading on the compositional limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that such a glass composition would 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 anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass composition according to claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that such a glass composition would inherently possess the physical properties recited in claims 4 and 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 anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Nishiyuki discloses that the UV transmitting glass of Example 3 has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 49 × 10⁻⁷/°C (see ¶ 0021 and Table 1), a value within the recited range of claim 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
665
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 1 from Nishiyuki
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass composition according to claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that such a glass composition would inherently possess the physical properties recited in claims 7 and 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 anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass wherein the UV transmitting glass has a sheet shape (plate-shaped) and has a thickness of 1 mm (see ¶ 0021).
Regarding claim 15, Nishiyuki teaches UV transmitting glass according to claim 1 and furthermore teaches wherein the UV transmitting glass is used for a semiconductor package (see ¶¶ 0001, 0026).
Regarding claim 18, Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass composition according to claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that such a glass composition would 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 anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyuki 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, Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as described above. However, Nishiyuki does not explicitly teach wherein the UV transmitting glass has a functional film formed on a glass surface thereof.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, 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 Nishiyuki 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 Nishiyuki by including a functional film formed on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass as taught by Liu.
Regarding claim 12, Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as set forth above. However, Nishiyuki does not explicitly teach 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 Nishiyuki 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 Nishiyuki 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 Nishiyuki 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, Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as set forth above (see pp. 3-6). However, Nishiyuki 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 Nishiyuki 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 (see 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 Nishiyuki by forming a lens structure on a glass surface of the UV transmitting glass as taught by Ohga.
Regarding claim 11, Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as set forth above. However, Nishiyuki 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 Nishiyuki 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 Nishiyuki 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 Nishiyuki 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, Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as described above (see pp. 3-6). However, Nishiyuki does not 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 Nishiyuki 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 Nishiyuki by forming the UV transmitting glass into a tube shape that has an inner diameter of 1 mm or more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 16-17, and 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art references are Nishiyuki, JP 2015193521 A to Suzuki et al. (with reference to the previously provided machine translation, hereinafter “Suzuki”), and U.S. Pat. No. 4,792,535 to Fine (hereinafter “Fine”).
Nishiyuki teaches the UV transmitting glass according to claim 1, as set forth above (see pp. 3-4). Additionally, Nishiyuki teaches wherein the UV transmitting glass comprises (in terms of mass%) 10% Al2O3, 3% Na2O, 1% K2O, 5% Li2O+Na2O+K2O, and 0.4% Cl—all values that lie within the claimed ranges in claim 2 (see Table 1). Example 3 of Nishiyuki includes 27% B2O3, which is outside the claimed ranged of 11.5% to 25% but is close. Moreover, Nishiyuki teaches generally that the content of B2O3 in the glass may be in a range of 20% to 27% (¶ 0014).
However, Nishiyuki does not teach wherein the UV transmitting glass comprises 65% to 74% SiO2. Nishiyuki teaches a maximum SiO2 content of 60% (¶ 0011), and Nishiyuki further teaches that, when the content of SiO2 exceeds 60%, “the meltability of the glass decreases, leading to reduced UV transmittance and an increase in residual bubbles” (¶ 0012). Additionally, Nishiyuki does not teach wherein the UV transmitting glass comprises 0.000010% to 0.00200%o of Fe2O3+TiO2.
Suzuki teaches a UV transmitting glass (Abstract) comprising as a glass composition, in terms of mass%, 50–80% SiO2 (¶ 0040), 1–20% Al2O3 (¶ 0042), 3–25% B2O3 (¶ 0043), 0–25 Na2O (¶ 0046), “preferably” 0–15% K2O (¶ 0047), “preferably” 0–25% Li2O+Na2O+K2O (¶ 0044), 0–7% BaO (¶ 0052), and 10 ppm – 3000 ppm (0.001–0.3 mass%) Cl (¶ 0062). Suzuki teaches that the glass composition includes “particularly preferably” 1 - 20 ppm (0.0001 – 0.0020 mass%) Fe2O3+TiO2 (¶ 0056). Suzuki teaches a glass (Example 3) that has a transmittance at a thickness of 1.0 mm and a wavelength of 200 nm of 50.6% (see Table 1).
However, Suzuki does not teach wherein the glass composition comprises 0.00 mass% F. Suzuki teaches that “the preferred lower limit ranges of each of F2, Cl2, and SO3 are 10 ppm or more, 20 ppm or more, 50 ppm or more, 100 ppm or more, 300 ppm or more, particularly 500 ppm or more” (¶ 0062).
Fine teaches a boroaluminosilicate glass exhibiting moderately high thermal expansion coefficients and a UV transmittance of at least 80% in 1 mm thickness at a wavelength of 254 nm (Abstract). Fine teaches that the boroaluminosilicate glass consists essentially, in weight percent, of about 58-62% SiO2, 15-18% B2O3, 11.5-14.5% Al2O3, 1-2.5% Li2O, 5.5-6.5% Na2O, 0-2.0% K2O, and 0-0.6% Cl (see Col. 3, lines 23-25; claim 1). Fine does not teach the glass composition including any F.
However, Fine does not teach the glass having an external transmittance at a thickness of 0.5 mm and a wavelength of 200 nm of 38% or more. Fine teaches wherein the glass has a transmittance at a wavelength of 200 nm of less than 30% (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
585
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 from Fine
Thus, the specific combination of required components set forth in claim 2 is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 2, and therefore each of those claims includes the allowable subject matter found in claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-15, and 18 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. Pub. 2007/0265155 to Cornelius et al. (“Cornelius”) teaches a boroaluminosilicate glass comprising (in mole percent on the oxide basis) 30-80% SiO2, 1-20% Al2(O, F2)3, 5-35% B2O3, 5-20% R2O, where R is Li, Na, K, Rb or Cs, and an amount of up to 12% of F (Abstract). The boroaluminosilicate glass of Cornelius exhibits a UV transmission at 300 nm of greater than 80% per mm of glass thickness (Abstract), and example embodiments of the glass exhibit UV transmission at 200 nm of greater than 40% per mm of glass thickness (see Table 1 and Figs. 1-2).
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
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights