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 June 18, 2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-5, 8-9, 20, 24, 27, 29-31, and 33-36 are pending. Claims 1 and 29 have been amended.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As used in the pending claims, the term “about” is treated as encompassing up to plus or minus 10% of the value modified by the term (see Specification at ¶ 0115).
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 5-6, the phrase “a modifier comprising at least one of Na2O, or CaO” contains an unnecessary comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 33 includes the limitation “wherein a ratio of mol. % of Al2O3 and B2O3 to mol. % of the modifier is from about 0.95 to about 1.05.” Claim 33 depends from independent claim 29, which in lines 5-6 defines “a modifier” as “comprising at least one of Na2O, or CaO.” (This is in contrast to claim 1, where “modifier” also includes K2O in addition to Na2O and CaO.) Claim 29, as amended, also includes in lines 8-9 the limitation “wherein (Al2O3 (mol%) + B2O3 (mol%))/(Na2O (mol%) + CaO (mol%)) is greater than 0.95 and less than 1.05.” Because claim 29 defines “modifier” as Na2O + CaO, it is not clear how “a ratio of mol. % of Al2O3 and B2O3 to mol. % of the modifier” is distinct from “a ratio of mol. % of Al2O3 and B2O3 to mol. % of Na2O and CaO”—i.e., (Al2O3 (mol%) + B2O3 (mol%))/(Na2O (mol%) + CaO (mol%)). Also, the scope of the recited range is dependent claim 33 is broader than the scope of the corresponding range in claim 29, since claim 29 specifies that the ratio must be “greater than 0.95 and less than 1.05” (i.e., the endpoints are excluded), whereas claim 33 recites that the ratio is “from about 0.95 to about 1.05.” Thus, claim 33 recites a broader range of than the claim from which it depends, and therefore claim 33 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-4, 8-9, 20, 24, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dyadenko, “Features of the production of glasses for claddings of rigid multimode optical fiber,” J. Opt. Technol. 81 (2014), pp. 472-480 (hereinafter “Dyadenko”).
Regarding claim 1, Dyadenko discloses a glass composition that comprises 2.1 mol. % Al2O3, 5.0 mol. % K2O, 1.4 mol. % CaO, 0.8 mol. % MgO, 0.7 mol. % BaO, 60 mol. % SiO2, 15 mol. % B2O3, and 15 mol.% Na2O (see p. 477, Fig. 4, test glass 13). As shown in Table A below, test glass 13 of Dyadenko comprises molar proportions of all listed components of claim 1 within the claimed ranges. Moreover, test glass 13 of Dyadenko has molar proportions of Al2O3, B2O3, Na2O, and CaO such that
(Al2O3 + B2O3)/(Na2O + CaO) = (2.1 + 15)/(15 + 1.4) = (17.1)/(16.4) = 1.04
which is within the claimed range of greater than 0.95 and less than 1.05 recited in claim 1.
Table A
Component
Claim 1 (mol. %)
Dyadenko (Test Glass 13) (Fig. 4) (mol. %)
SiO2
about 50 – about 70
60
Al2O3
about 0.1 – about 3
2.1
B2O3
about 15 – about 25
15
Modifier (at least one of Na2O, K2O, or CaO)
about 15 – about 30
21.4
(Na2O: 15
K2O: 5.0
CaO: 1.4)
Thus, Dyadenko discloses a glass composition reading on every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the glass composition of Dyadenko also inherently exhibits the same physical properties as the claimed invention, including a Young’s modulus of the glass composition that is at least 79 GPa (as required by claim 3) and less than 100 GPa (as required by claim 4). 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 from Dyadenko; Test Glass 13 is in the middle of the bottom row of the phase diagram.
Regarding claim 8, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the glass composition of Dyadenko also inherently exhibits the same properties as the claimed invention, including wherein the modifier converts boron in B2O3 from a trigonal to a tetrahedral configuration. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Dyadenko is silent as to the presence of Y2O3, La2O3, ZrO2, TiO2, BeO, or Ta2O5 in the glass composition; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would conclude that all of those listed oxides are absent from the glass composition, and thus the glass comprises about 0 mol. % of Y2O3, La2O3, ZrO2, TiO2, BeO, or Ta2O5.
Regarding claim 20, Dyadenko teaches a device comprising the glass composition of claim 1, wherein the device comprises an electronic device (i.e., a night-vision device; see p. 472, col. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition wherein Al2O3 is present in an amount of 2.1 mol. % (see p. 477, Fig. 4), which is “about 2 mol. %” within the meaning of claim 24.
Regarding claim 34, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition wherein Na2O is present in an amount of 15 mol. % (see p. 477, Fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 27, 29-31, 33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyadenko.
Regarding claim 5, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above (see p. 3). Further, Dyadenko teaches that “the TCLE of the glasses with a concentration of 10%–15% B2O3 and 10%–15% of Na2O lies in the interval 74 − 80 × 10−7 K−1” (p. 477, col. 1, second paragraph); thus, expressed in the language of claim 5, Dyadenko teaches that the glass composition of test glass 13 has a coefficient of thermal expansion from 7.4 ppm/°C to 8.0 ppm/°C, a range which overlaps the recited range of claim 5. 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 27, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Further, Dyadenko teaches that “the TCLE of the glasses with a concentration of 10%–15% B2O3 and 10%–15% of Na2O lies in the interval 74 − 80 × 10−7 K−1” (p. 477, col. 1, second paragraph); thus, expressed in the language of claim 27, Dyadenko teaches that the glass composition of test glass 13 has a coefficient of thermal expansion from 7.4 ppm/°C to 8.0 ppm/°C, a range which overlaps the recited range of claim 5. 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). Dyadenko does not explicitly teach that the glass composition has a Young’s modulus of at least 79 GPa. However, since Dyadenko teaches the glass composition of claim 1, and since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the glass composition of Dyadenko also inherently exhibits the same physical properties as the claimed invention, including a Young’s modulus of the glass composition that is at least 79 GPa. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 29, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition summarized in Table B below:
Table B
Component
Claim 29 (mol. %)
Dyadenko (Test Glass 13) (Fig. 4) (mol. %)
SiO2
about 50 – about 65
60
Al2O3
about 0.1 – about 3
2.1
B2O3
about 15 – about 20
15
Modifier (at least one of Na2O or CaO)
about 10 – about 30
16.4
(Na2O: 15
CaO: 1.4)
Thus, Dyadenko teaches a glass composition with component proportions that lie within the recited ranges of claim 29. Moreover, test glass 13 of Dyadenko has molar proportions of Al2O3, B2O3, Na2O, and CaO such that
(Al2O3 + B2O3)/(Na2O + CaO) = (2.1 + 15)/(15 + 1.4) = (17.1)/(16.4) = 1.04
which is within the claimed range of greater than 0.95 and less than 1.05 recited in claim 29.
Dyadenko teaches that “the TCLE of the glasses with a concentration of 10%–15% B2O3 and 10%–15% of Na2O lies in the interval 74 − 80 × 10−7 K−1” (p. 477, col. 1, second paragraph); thus, expressed in the language of claim 29, Dyadenko teaches that the glass composition of test glass 13 has a coefficient of thermal expansion from 7.4 ppm/°C to 8.0 ppm/°C, a range which overlaps the recited range of claim 29. 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). Dyadenko does not explicitly teach that the glass composition has a Young’s modulus of at least 79 GPa. However, since Dyadenko teaches a glass composition having component proportions identical to the claimed invention, and since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the glass composition of Dyadenko also inherently exhibits the same physical properties as the claimed invention, including a Young’s modulus that is at least 79 GPa. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 30, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition of claim 29, as set forth above. Dyadenko teaches the glass composition wherein Al2O3 is present in an amount of 2.1 mol. % (see p. 477, Fig. 4), which is “about 2 mol. %” within the meaning of claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition of claim 29, as set forth above. Dyadenko teaches the glass composition wherein SiO2 is present in an amount of 60 mol. % (see p. 477, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 33, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition of claim 29, as set forth above. Dyadenko teaches wherein a ratio of mol. % of Al2O3 and B2O3 to mol. % of the modifier is
(Al2O3 + B2O3)/(Na2O + CaO) = (2.1 + 15)/(15 + 1.4) = (17.1)/(16.4) = 1.04
which is within the claimed range of “from about 0.95 to about 1.05.”
Regarding claim 36, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. Moreover, Dyadenko teaches the glass composition wherein K2O is present in an amount of 5.0 mol. % (see p. 477, Fig. 4), which is close to the recited range of about 0.1 mol. % to about 4 mol. %. 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 35 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 reference is Dyadenko, which teaches the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above (see p. 3). However, Dyadenko does not teach wherein a ratio of the mol. % of Al2O3 and B2O3 to the mol. % of the modifier (where “modifier” comprises Na2O, K2O, and CaO) is from about 0.95 to about 1.05. Test glass 13, like the other test glasses detailed in Fig. 4 of Dyadenko, includes 5.0 mol. % K2O, so that the relevant ratio is
(Al2O3 + B2O3)/(Na2O + K2O + CaO) = (2.1 + 15)/(15 + 5.0 + 1.4) = (17.1)/(21.4) = 0.799
Thus, the specific combination of required components set forth in claim 2 is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 35, the closest prior art reference is Dyadenko, which teaches the glass composition of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Dyadenko does not teach wherein CaO is present in an amount from about 5 mol. % to about 13 mol. %. Test glass 13, like the other test glasses detailed in Fig. 4 of Dyadenko, includes 1.4 mol. % CaO (see p. 476, col. 2, and p. 477, Fig. 4). Thus, the specific combination of required components set forth in claim 2 is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending 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 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