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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on May 20, 2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10-19 are pending, with claims 15-19 being withdrawn. Claim 1 has 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All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smedskjaer et al., "Viscosity and Fragility of Alkaline-Earth Sodium Boroaluminosilicate Liquids," J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 96 (2013): pp. 2831-2838 (hereinafter “Smedskjaer”).
Regarding claim 1, Smedskjaer discloses an aluminosilicate glass (Glass Ba-18; see p. 2832, Table 1) having a composition summarized in Table A below:
Table A
Component
Smedskjaer Glass Ba-18 (mol%) (Table 1)
Smedskjaer Glass Ba-18 (wt%)
Claim 1 (wt%)
SiO2
57.80
46.82
Al2O3
17.90
24.60
BaO
6.12
12.65
B2O3
6.05
5.68
Na2O
11.93
9.97
MO
12.65
R
15.95
x
24.60
18 – 25
a1
0.514
0.45 – 0.75
b1
0.648
0.55 – 0.8
a1 * b1
0.333
0.2475 – 0.6000
Thus, Glass Ba-18 of Smedskjaer reads on every limitation of claim 1 as amended.
Regarding claim 2, Smedskjaer teaches the aluminosilicate glass wherein R further comprises B2O3 (Glass Ba-18 includes 5.68 wt% B2O3).
Regarding claim 3, Smedskjaer teaches the aluminosilicate glass wherein B2O3 is present in an amount of less than 10 wt% B2O3 (Glass Ba-18 includes 5.68 wt% B2O3).
Regarding claim 11, Smedskjaer teaches the aluminosilicate glass according to claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the aluminosilicate glass of Smedskjaer, being identical in composition to the claimed invention, would therefore inherently possess a refractive index in a range of from 1.45 to 1.55, 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 either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Smedskjaer is silent as to iron, leading one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably to conclude that iron is absent (i.e., the aluminosilicate glass comprises iron in an amount of zero) or is present only as a trace impurity; in either case, iron is present in an amount leading to a Fe2+ absorption of less than 0.2 dB/cm at 1100 nm.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amma et al., “Ionic Conductivity in Sodium–Alkaline Earth–Aluminosilicate Glasses,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 99 (2016): pp. 1239-1247 (hereinafter “Amma”).
Regarding claim 1, Amma discloses an aluminosilicate glass (Sr30; see p. 1241, Table 1) having a composition summarized in Table B below:
Table B
Component
Amma Glass Sr30 (mol%) (Table 1)
Amma Glass Sr30 (wt%)
Claim 1 (wt%)
SiO2
64.1
55.2
Al2O3
13.4
19.6
SrO
8.8
13.1
Na2O
13.7
12.2
MO
13.1
R
12.2
x
19.6
18 – 25
a1
0.668
0.45 – 0.75
b1
0.622
0.55 – 0.8
a1 * b1
0.415
0.2475 – 0.6000
Thus, Glass Sr50 of Amma reads on every limitation of claim 1 as amended.
Regarding claim 10, Amma teaches the aluminosilicate glass according to claim 1 comprising from 50 wt% to 70 wt% of SiO2 (Glass Sr50 includes 55.2 wt% SiO2).
Regarding claim 11, Amma teaches the aluminosilicate glass according to claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the aluminosilicate glass of Amma, being identical in composition to the claimed invention, would therefore inherently possess a refractive index in a range of from 1.45 to 1.55, 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 either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Amma is silent as to iron, leading one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably to conclude that iron is absent (i.e., the aluminosilicate glass comprises iron in an amount of zero) or is present only as a trace impurity; in either case, iron is present in an amount leading to a Fe2+ absorption of less than 0.2 dB/cm at 1100 nm.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smedskjaer.
Regarding claim 7, Smedskjaer teaches the aluminosilicate glass according to claim 1, as summarized in Table A above (see p. 3). Glass Ba-18 of Smedskjaer has weight percentage amounts of Al2O3 and MO such that a1 is 0.514, which rounds to 0.5 and is very close to 0.5. 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smedskjaer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2017/0276874 to Kashyap et al. (hereinafter “Kashyap”).
Regarding claim 14, Smedskjaer teaches the aluminosilicate glass according to claim 1, as set forth above. However, Smedskjaer does not explicitly teach the aluminosilicate glass having an optical waveguide inscribed therein.
Kashyap teaches a method for inscribing a waveguide into a media glass substrate (Abstract), the waveguide being an optical waveguide (i.e., a waveguide in an optical device, see ¶¶ 0011-0013). Kashyap teaches that the media glass substrate may comprise an aluminosilicate glass, an alkali aluminosilicate glass, or an alkaline earth boroaluminosilicate glass (¶ 0067).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the waveguide inscription method of Kashyap to inscribe an optical waveguide in the aluminosilicate glass taught by Smedskjaer. It would have been obvious to use the known waveguide inscription technique taught by Kashyap to inscribe an optical waveguide in the aluminosilicate glass of Smedskjaer, since Kashyap already teaches that the technique may be used for waveguide inscription on aluminosilicate, alkali aluminosilicate, and alkaline earth boroaluminosilicate glasses (Kashyap at ¶ 0067). Because Kashyap teaches that the waveguide inscription technique may be used on aluminosilicate, alkali aluminosilicate, and alkaline earth boroaluminosilicate glasses, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the same technique on the aluminosilicate glass of Smedskjaer, with predictable results and a high degree of confidence in success. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the waveguide inscription method of Kashyap to modify the aluminosilicate glass of Smedskjaer, thereby producing an aluminosilicate glass having an optical waveguide inscribed therein.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kashyap.
Regarding claim 14, Amma teaches the aluminosilicate glass according to claim 1, as set forth above. However, Amma does not explicitly teach the aluminosilicate glass having an optical waveguide inscribed therein.
Kashyap teaches a method for inscribing a waveguide into a media glass substrate (Abstract), the waveguide being an optical waveguide (i.e., a waveguide in an optical device, see ¶¶ 0011-0013). Kashyap teaches that the media glass substrate may comprise an aluminosilicate glass, an alkali aluminosilicate glass, or an alkaline earth boroaluminosilicate glass (¶ 0067).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the waveguide inscription method of Kashyap to inscribe an optical waveguide in the aluminosilicate glass taught by Amma. It would have been obvious to use the known waveguide inscription technique taught by Kashyap to inscribe an optical waveguide in the aluminosilicate glass of Amma, since Kashyap already teaches that the technique may be used for waveguide inscription on aluminosilicate, alkali aluminosilicate, and alkaline earth boroaluminosilicate glasses (Kashyap at ¶ 0067). Because Kashyap teaches that the waveguide inscription technique may be used on aluminosilicate, alkali aluminosilicate, and alkaline earth boroaluminosilicate glasses, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the same technique on the aluminosilicate glass of Amma, with predictable results and a high degree of confidence in success. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the waveguide inscription method of Kashyap to modify the aluminosilicate glass of Amma, thereby producing an aluminosilicate glass having an optical waveguide inscribed therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 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 5, the closest prior art references are Amma and U.S. Pat. Pub. 2002/0013206 to Beall (hereinafter “Beall”).
Amma teaches the aluminosilicate glass according to claim 1, as set forth above (see p. 5). However, Amma does not teach wherein x is 18. (In the embodiment of Amma discussed above, x is 19.6.)
Beall discloses example embodiments (Examples 7 and 9) of an aluminosilicate glass having a composition summarized in Table C below (values from Table on p. 3 of Beall):
Table C
Component
Ex. 7 (wt%)
Ex. 9 (wt%)
SiO2
48.7
45.6
Al2O3
17.7
18.7
MgO
17.2
18.4
K2O
16.4
17.3
Li2O
0
0
B2O3
0
0
TiO2
5
4.9
Cr2O3
0.155
0.155
MO
17.2
18.4
R
21.6
22.4
x
17.7
18.7
a1
0.97
0.98
b1
1.22
1.20
a1 * b1
1.18
1.18
Beall thus discloses example embodiments in which x is 17.7 and 18.7, both values very close to the claimed value of 18. However, the proportions of components in both example glasses are such that the values of a1, b1, and the product a1 * b1 fall outside the claimed ranges that are incorporated into claim 5. Thus, none of the glasses of Beall read on every limitation of claim 5.
Therefore, the specific combination of required components set forth in claim 5 is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art references are Smedskjaer, Amma, and U.S. Pat. No. 8,647,995 to Aitken et al. (hereinafter “Aitken”).
Smedskjaer teaches the aluminosilicate glass according to claim 1, as set forth above (see p. 3). Moreover, Smedskjaer teaches examples of aluminosilicate glass that include Ca (see p. 2832, Table 1). However, none of the Smedskjaer aluminosilicate glasses that include Ca include components in the right proportions to produce values of a1 and b1 that fall within the claimed ranges that are incorporated into claim 13. Thus, none of the glasses of Smedskjaer read on every limitation of claim 13.
Amma teaches the aluminosilicate glass according to claim 1, as set forth above (see p. 5). Moreover, Amma teaches examples of aluminosilicate glass that include Ca (see p. 1241, Table I). However, none of the Amma aluminosilicate glasses that include Ca include components in the right proportions to produce values of a1 and b1 that fall within the claimed ranges that are incorporated into claim 13. Thus, none of the glasses of Amma read on every limitation of claim 13.
Aitken discloses several example embodiments of aluminosilicate glass that include CaO, as shown in Table D below (values taken from Col. 13, Tables 3 and 4):
Table D
Component
Ex. 1
(Table 3) (wt%)
Ex. 7
(Table 4) (wt%)
Ex. 10
(Table 4) (wt%)
Ex. 11
(Table 4) (wt%)
SiO2
56.90
57.47
55.73
54.55
Al2O3
19.70
16.86
19.32
18.91
MgO
1.89
1.90
1.85
1.80
CaO
2.63
2.66
2.58
2.52
SrO
2.42
2.43
2.36
2.31
Na2O
10.40
10.51
10.19
9.98
K2O
5.74
5.79
5.62
5.51
B2O3
-
2.09
2.07
4.14
SnO2
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.22
MO
6.94
6.99
6.79
6.63
R
16.36
18.62
18.1
19.85
x
19.70
16.86
19.32
18.91
a1
0.352
0.415
0.351
0.351
b1
0.830
1.104
0.937
1.050
a1 * b1
0.29
0.46
0.33
0.37
However, the proportions of components in each of the example embodiment aluminosilicate glasses of Aitken are such that the values of a1 and b1 fall outside the claimed ranges that are incorporated into claim 13. Thus, none of the glasses of Aitken read on every limitation of claim 13.
Therefore, the specific combination of required components set forth in claim 13 is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-12, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do 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. 2022/0371942 to Ping et al. (hereinafter “Ping”) teaches a lithium aluminosilicate glass comprising the following components by mass percentage: 50%-72% of SiO2, 10%-27% of Al2O3, 0.1%-10.0% of B2O3, 2%-10% of Li2O, 4%-15% of Na2O, 0.1%-5.0% of ZrO2, and 0-4% of K2O, wherein the total mass percentage of Li2O, Na2O and K2O is ≥9% (Abstract). Ping discloses multiple embodiments that include MgO, CaO, and/or SrO (see, e.g., Examples 1-4 and 6 in Table 1 and Examples 11-12 in Table 2).
Smedskjaer et al., “Impact of ZnO on the structure and properties of sodium aluminosilicate glasses: Comparison with alkaline earth oxides,” Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 381 (2013): pp. 58-64 (hereinafter “Smedskjaer II”) discloses a number of sodium aluminosilicate glasses that include SrO or BaO (see p. 59, Table 1). In particular, Glass Sr-16 comprises components which, when converted from molar percentages to weight percentages, include 51.21% SiO2, 23.00% Al2O3, 13.79% Na2O, 11.70% SrO, and 0.3% SnO2 (see Table 1).
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