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 .
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) 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US20180370843, hereinafter referred to as Gross).
Regarding claim 1, Gross makes obvious a glass composition (see Gross at the Abstract, disclosing a glass) comprising: from 50 mol. % to 70 mol. % SiO2 (see Gross at [0011], disclosing SiO2 in an amount in a range from about 63 mol % to about 75 mol %, 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); from 5 mol. % to 10 mol.% Al2O3 (see Gross at [0011], disclosing Al2O3 in an amount in a range from about 7 mol % to about 13 mol % which overlaps with the claimed range.), from 10 mol. % to 20 mol. % Na2O (see Gross at [0012], disclosing Na2O in an amount in a range from about 12 mol % to about 18 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 2 mol. % to 6 mol. % K2O (see Gross at [0012], disclosing K2O in an amount in a range from about 1 mol % to about 3.5 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 0 mol. % to 0.005 mol. % Fe2O3 (see Gross at [0077], disclosing the glass composition is substantially free of Fe.); from 2 mol. % to 10 mol. % ZnO (see Gross at [0072], disclosing ZnO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 7 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 1 mol. % to 6 mol. % MgO (see Gross at [0071], disclosing MgO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 7 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.):
while Gross does not explicitly disclose the sum of R1O and ZnO is from 6 mol. % to 8 mol. %, wherein R1 is an alkaline earth metal, Gross discloses a range of ZnO at [0072] of 0-7 mol%, and RO in a range from about 0 mol % to about 18 mol % (see Gross at [0069]), where RO is the sum of alkaline earth metals (see Gross at [0019]). This provides for a range of the sum of R1O and ZnO that ranges from 0-25 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Further regarding claim 1, Gross makes obvious wherein the glass composition has a Young's modulus of at least 65 GPa (see Gross at [0105], disclosing a Young's modulus in the range from about 70 GPa to about 85 GPa, which is within the claimed range.); and wherein the glass composition has a coefficient of thermal expansion between 10.0 and 13.0 ppm/°C (see Gross at [0104], disclosing a CTE in the range from about 75×10−7 ppm/° C. to about 120×10−7 ppm/° C, which corresponds to a coefficient of thermal expansion of 7.5-12 ppm/°C, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 2, while Gross does not explicitly disclose the glass composition has an optical transmission of greater than about 20% over a range of wavelengths from about 250 nm to about 260 nm for a glass article thickness of about 1.0 mm, the transmission of a glass is a function of the composition of a glass. Because the composition of Gross is substantially identical to the instantly claimed glass, the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed transmission. 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 3, Gross makes obvious further comprising: from 0 mol. % to 2 mol. % B2O3 (see Gross at [0067], disclosing B2O3 in an amount in a range from about 0 mol % to about 2 mol %); from 0 mol. % to 3 mol. % P2O5 (see Gross at [0068], disclosing P2O5 in an amount in a range from about 0 mol % to about 3 mol %), from 0 mol. % to 0.5 mol. % Li2O (see Gross at [0063], disclosing Li2O in a range from about 0 mol % to about 1 mol % which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 0 mol. % to 3 mol. % CaO (see Gross at [0070], disclosing CaO in an amount of 3 mol% or less); from 0 mol. % to 3 mol. % SrO (see Gross at [0073], disclosing SrO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 2 mol %); from 0 mol. % to 0.5 mol. % SnO2 (see Gross at [0075], disclosing SnO2 in an amount equal to or less than about 0.25 mol %); from 0 mol. % to 0.002 mol. % Fe2O3 (see Gross at [0077], disclosing the glass composition is substantially free of Fe.); from 0 mol. % to 2 mol. % BaO (see Gross at [0074], disclosing BaO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 2 mol %); and from 4 mol. % to 10 mol. % ZnO (see Gross at [0072], disclosing ZnO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 7 mol %).
Regarding claim 4, Gross makes obvious comprising from 0 mol. % to 2 mol. % P2O5 (see Gross at [0068], disclosing P2O5 in an amount in a range from about 0 mol % to about 3 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 6, while Gross does not explicitly disclose the glass composition comprises R2O and Al2O3 and the difference between R2O and Al2O3 is from about 9 mol. % to about 15 mol. %, wherein R is an alkali metal, Gross discloses a range of Al2O3 at [0011] disclosing Al2O3 in an amount in a range from about 7 mol % to about 13 mol %, and at [0018] discloses alkali metals R2O from 5 mol% to 20 mol% where Gross at [0011] discloses R2O is the total amount of alkali metal oxides. This provides a range of the difference between R2O and Al2O3 from 0-13 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Gross makes obvious wherein R is selected from Na, K, or a combination thereof (see Gross at [0011], disclosing R2O refers to the total amount of alkali metal oxides including Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O, and Cs2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Gross makes obvious wherein R1 is selected from Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, or a combination thereof (see Gross at [0019], disclosing RO refers to the total amount of alkaline earth metal oxides such as MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, ZnO, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 10, Gross makes obvious wherein the Young's modulus of the glass composition is less than 75 GPa (see Gross at [0105], disclosing a Young's modulus in the range from about 70 GPa to about 85 GPa, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 13, Gross makes obvious wherein a total alkali content is from 12 mol. % to 26 mol. % (see Gross at [0018], disclosing R2O amount in a range from about 5 mol % to about 20 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Claim(s) 17-23, 25-27, 29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Boratov et al. (US20170349471, hereinafter referred to as Boratov).
Regarding claim 17, Gross at [0110] discloses the glass may be down-drawable (i.e., formed by a down-draw process, or down-drawn).
Gross makes obvious comprising: from 50 mol. % to 70 mol. % SiO2 (see Gross at [0011], disclosing SiO2 in an amount in a range from about 63 mol % to about 75 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 5 mol. % to 10 mol. % Al2O3 (see Gross at [0011], disclosing Al2O3 in an amount in a range from about 7 mol % to about 13 mol % which overlaps with the claimed range.), from 10 mol. % to 25 mol. % Na2O (see Gross at [0012], disclosing Na2O in an amount in a range from about 12 mol % to about 18 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 2 mol. % to 6 mol. % K2O (see Gross at [0012], disclosing K2O in an amount in a range from about 1 mol % to about 3.5 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 0 mol. % to 0.005 mol. % Fe2O3 (see Gross at [0077], disclosing the glass composition is substantially free of Fe.); from 2 mol. % to 10 mol. % ZnO (see Gross at [0072], disclosing ZnO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 7 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 1 mol. % to 6 mol. % MgO (see Gross at [0071], disclosing MgO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 7 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.): wherein the glass article has a Young's modulus of at least 65 GPa (see Gross at [0105], disclosing a Young's modulus in the range from about 70 GPa to about 85 GPa, which is within the claimed range.); and wherein the glass article has a coefficient of thermal expansion between 10.0 and 13.0 ppm/°C (see Gross at [0104], disclosing a CTE in the range from about 75×10−7 ppm/° C. to about 120×10−7 ppm/° C, which corresponds to a coeffieicnt of thermal expansion of 7.5-12 ppm/°C, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
While Gross does not explicitly disclose the sum of R1O and ZnO is from 6 mol. % to 8 mol. %, wherein R1 is an alkaline earth metal, Gross discloses a range of ZnO at [0072] of 0-7 mol%, and RO in a range from about 0 mol % to about 18 mol % (see Gross at [0069]), where RO is the sum of alkaline earth metals (see Gross at [0019]). This provides for a range of the sum of R1O and ZnO that ranges from 0-25 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Gross at [0110] discloses the glass may be down-drawable (i.e., formed by a down-draw process, or down-drawn). However, Gross does not explicitly disclose (b) delivering the molten glass to a forming apparatus that has a body with an inlet that receives the molten glass which flows into a trough formed in the body and then overflows two top surfaces of the trough and runs down two sides of the body before fusing together where the two sides come together to form a glass sheet; (c) drawing the glass sheet using a pull roll assembly to produce said glass substrate;
Boratov is directed towards a down draw process (see Boratov at [0066]). Boratov at [0007] discloses a method of making a glass ribbon comprising: flowing molten glass over an upper portion of a forming vessel including a pair of outside surfaces and a forming wedge portion including a pair of downwardly inclined forming surface portions that converge along a downstream direction to form a bottom edge; flowing the molten glass over an edge director intersecting with at least one of the pair of outside surfaces and at least one of the pair of downwardly inclined forming surface portions, the edge director comprising a flow blocking portion including an upper portion that extends along one of the pair of vertical surfaces and a lower portion that extends along one of the pair of downwardly inclined forming surfaces and is negatively inclined relative to vertical, the lower portion extending downwardly from the upper portion toward the bottom edge; and drawing the molten glass from the bottom edge of the forming wedge portion to form the glass ribbon.
Boratov discloses a pulling force is applied and the ribbon edge becomes essentially fused with little residual T-shape (see Boratov at [0066]).
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 down-drawable glass of Gross to use the down draw method of Boratov with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming the glass.
Regarding claim 18, Gross makes obvious further comprising ion exchanging the glass article in an alkali-ion containing salt bath (See Gross at [0121], disclosing ion exchange processes are typically carried out by immersing a glass article in a molten salt bath (or two or more molten salt baths) containing the larger ions to be exchanged with the smaller ions in the glass article. It should be noted that aqueous salt baths may also be utilized. In addition, the composition of the bath(s) may include more than one type of larger ion (e.g., Na+ and K+) or a single larger ion.).
Regarding claim 19, Gross makes obvious the alkali-ion containing salt bath comprises KNO3, NaNO3, or a mixture thereof (See Gross at [0121], disclosing Exemplary molten bath composition may include nitrates, sulfates, and chlorides of the larger alkali metal ion. Typical nitrates include KNO3, NaNO3, LiNO3, NaSO4 and combinations thereof.).
Regarding claim 20, Gross in view of Boratov makes obvious the delivering step includes managing a mass flow rate of molten glass that flows over a predetermined length at both end sections of the trough in the forming apparatus (see Boratov at [0056], disclosing a flow directing portion 104 b can extend outwardly from the flow blocking portion 102 b in an increasing fashion from a top 106 b of the flow directing portion 104 b toward the bottom 108 of the flow blocking portion 102 b thereby forming a ramped flow directing portion 104 b of increasing length that increases in a direction outward from the flow blocking portion 102 b from the top 106 a to the bottom 108.) 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 down-drawable glass of Gross to use the down draw method of Boratov with a reasonable expectation of successfully managing the flow rate of the molten glass over a predetermined length as taught by Boratov.
Regarding claim 21, while Gross does not explicitly disclose the glass composition has an optical transmission of greater than about 20% over a range of wavelengths from about 250 nm to about 260 nm for a glass article thickness of about 1.0 mm, the transmission of a glass is a function of the composition of a glass. Because the composition of Gross is substantially identical to the instantly claimed glass, the glass of Gross would inherently possess the claimed transmission. 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 22, Gross makes obvious the glass article comprises: from 0 mol. % to 2 mol. % B2O3 (see Gross at [0067], disclosing B2O3 in an amount in a range from about 0 mol % to about 2 mol %); from 0 mol. % to 3 mol. % P2O5 (see Gross at [0068], disclosing P2O5 in an amount in a range from about 0 mol % to about 3 mol %), from 0 mol. % to 0.5 mol. % Li2O (see Gross at [0063], disclosing Li2O in a range from about 0 mol % to about 1 mol % which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 0 mol. % to 3 mol. % CaO (see Gross at [0070], disclosing CaO in an amount of 3 mol% or less); from 0 mol. % to 3 mol. % SrO (see Gross at [0073], disclosing SrO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 2 mol %); from 0 mol. % to 0.5 mol. % SnO2 (see Gross at [0075], disclosing SnO2 in an amount equal to or less than about 0.25 mol %); from 0 mol. % to 0.002 mol. % Fe2O3 (see Gross at [0077], disclosing the glass composition is substantially free of Fe.); from 0 mol. % to 2 mol. % BaO (see Gross at [0074], disclosing BaO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 2 mol %); and from 4 mol. % to 10 mol. % ZnO (see Gross at [0072], disclosing ZnO in an amount in the range from about 0 mol % to about 7 mol %).
Regarding claim 23, Gross makes obvious the glass article comprises from 0 mol. % to 2 mol. % P2O5 (see Gross at [0068], disclosing P2O5 in an amount in a range from about 0 mol % to about 3 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 25, while Gross does not explicitly disclose the glass composition comprises R2O and Al2O3 and the difference between R2O and Al2O3 is from about 9 mol. % to about 15 mol. %, wherein R is an alkali metal, Gross discloses a range of Al2O3 at [0011] disclosing Al2O3 in an amount in a range from about 7 mol % to about 13 mol %, and at [0018] discloses alkali metals R2O from 5 mol% to 20 mol% where Gross at [0011] discloses R2O is the total amount of alkali metal oxides. This provides a range of the difference between R2O and Al2O3 from 0-13 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 26, Gross makes obvious wherein R is selected from Na, K, or a combination thereof (see Gross at [0011], disclosing R2O refers to the total amount of alkali metal oxides including Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O, and Cs2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 27, Gross makes obvious wherein R1 is selected from Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, or a combination thereof (see Gross at [0019], disclosing RO refers to the total amount of alkaline earth metal oxides such as MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO, ZnO, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 29, Gross makes obvious the Young's modulus of the glass article is less than 75 GPa (see Gross at [0105], disclosing a Young's modulus in the range from about 70 GPa to about 85 GPa, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 31, Gross makes obvious a total alkali content of the glass article is from 12 mol. % to 26 mol. % (see Gross at [0018], disclosing R2O amount in a range from about 5 mol % to about 20 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At the last paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that none of the examples of glasses of Gross meet the claimed limitations as amended in claims 1 and 17, however, Examiner notes Gross discloses compositional ranges which overlap with the claimed range and form a prima facie obviousness rejection per MPEP 2144.05 per the rejections above.
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 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
