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 Objections
Claim1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, the word “and” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) s 1,-4,6-8, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gross et al. US 2018/0370843.
Gross et al. discloses a glass composition comprising:
66.72 mole % SiO2
8.64 mole % Al2O3
16.69 mole % Na2O
2.95 mole % K2O
0 mole % Fe@O3
4.85 mole % ZnO
RO (both MgO and CaO)
wherein the sum of RO and ZnO is greater than 4 mole %.
Gross et al. also discloses that the composition has a thermal expansion of 10.1ppm/°C. See example 33.
With respect to the claimed Young’s modulus of at least 65 GPa, paragraph [0105] discloses the glasses of the invention have a Young’s modulus of 70-85 GPa. Although this disclosure is not specifically associated with Example 33 as are the disclosures above, 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01
Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01
The same rationale applies with respect to the transmission property claimed in claim 2.
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 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) 17-23, 25-27, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. US 2018/0370843 as applied to claims 1-4,6-8, 10 and 13 above, and further in view of Boratov et al. US 2017/0349471.
Boratov et al. discloses forming a glass sheet by delivering 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, and drawing the glass sheet using a pull roll assembly to produce a glass substrate [0054], [0051]. Note the mass flow rate of glass is managed [0072], Figure 27.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the molding process of Boratov et al. to produce the glass sheets for use in producing the articles in Gross et al as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious.
Note that Gross et al. further teaches that the glass articles can be ion exchanged to improve the properties thereof. Gross et al. discloses that the ion exchanging can take place using a KNO3 or NaNO3 bath. See paragraphs [0120] and [0121].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A FIORILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1187. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4pm.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER A FIORILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights