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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the International Application PCT/KR2020/018479. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 13 October 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed in Korea on 17 December 2019 and 17 January 2020.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 3 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are sufficiently related. This is not found persuasive because the elected claims are compositionally different and do not overlap in scope and are classified separately.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3 April 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 16 June 2022, 20 April 2023, 9 January 2025, and 12 November 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 11 July 2022 are accepted by the Examiner.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fechner et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2004/0253321 A1.
Fechner et al. teach an antimicrobial glass comprising in terms of weight percentages: 20-80% of SiO2, 0-40% of Na2O, 0-40% of K2O, 0-40% of Li2O, 0-40% of CaO, 0-40% of MgO, 0-40% of Al2O3, 0-1% of P2O5, 0-40% of B2O3, and 0-10% of ZnO. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0001], [0015], and [0018]. Fechner et al. teach that the glass can be made on a commercial scale using standard methods. See paragraph [0016]. Fechner et al. teach that the glass is made into a glass powder having a multitude of random shaped particles and that the glass can also be in the form of glass fibers. See paragraph [0013]. Fechner et al. teach that the glass composition was melted and processed into ribbons. See paragraph [0055].
Fechner et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 1-6 However, the weight percent ranges taught by Fechner et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 1-6. See paragraphs [0001] and [0015]. Fechner et al. disclose Embodiment 7 in Table 2 which nearly anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Fechner et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Fechner et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 1, Fechner et al. teach that the glass is an antimicrobial (or antibacterial) glass comprising in wt%: 20-80% of SiO2, 0-40% of B2O3, 0-40% of Na2O, 0-40% of K2O, 0-40% of Li2O, and 0-40% of CaO (see paragraphs [0001] and [0015]), which reads on an antibacterial glass comprising in wt% 20-40% of SiO2, 5-25% of B2O3, 15-25% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, and 25-45% of CaO, as recited in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Fechner et al. teach that the glass comprises 20-80wt% of SiO2 and 0-40wt% of B2O3 (see paragraph [0015]), which reads on the glass comprising a SiO2 content greater than the B2O3 content, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Fechner et al. teach that the glass comprises 0-40 wt% of CaO (see paragraph [0015]), which reads on the glass comprising 30-45 wt% of CaO as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Fechner et al. teach that the glass is an antimicrobial (or antibacterial) glass comprising in wt%: 20-80% of SiO2, 0-40% of B2O3, 0-40% of Na2O, 0-40% of K2O, 0-40% of Li2O, and 0-40% of CaO (see paragraphs [0001] and [0015]), Fechner et al. teach that the glass is melted and formed into a glass using standard methods (see paragraphs [0013], [0016], [0023], and [0055]), which reads on a method of making an antibacterial glass comprising in wt% 20-40% of SiO2, 5-25% of B2O3, 15-25% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, and 25-45% of CaO by providing the materials for the glass composition, melting the materials for the glass composition, and cooling the glass, as recited in claim 4.
As to claim 5, Fechner et al. teach that the method of making a glass comprises 20-80wt% of SiO2 and 0-40wt% of B2O3 (see paragraph [0015]), which reads on the materials for the glass comprising a SiO2 content greater than the B2O3 content, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Fechner et al. teach that the method of making the glass comprises 0-40 wt% of CaO (see paragraph [0015]), which reads on the materials for the glass comprising 30-45 wt% of CaO as recited in instant claim 6.
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above. Specifically, Fechner et al., US 2008/0063728 A1 teaches an antimicrobial glass comprising 20-80 wt% of SiO2, 5-30 wt% of Na2O, 0-5 wt% of K2O, 0-15 wt% of P2O5, 0-10 wt% of B2O3, 4-30 wt% of CaO, 0-8 wt% of MgO, 0-7 wt% of Al2O3, and 0-2 wt% of Fe2O3. See paragraphs [0001] and [0012].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
6 May 2026
Prosecution Insights