DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (US 2013/0004758) in view of Gross (US 2016/0376187).
Regarding claim 1, Dejneka discloses an aluminosilicate glass article that comprises at least about 50 mol % SiO2; from about 7 mol % to about 26 mol % Al2O3; from 0 mol % to about 9 mol % B2O3; from about 11 mol % to about 25 mol % Na2O, see abstract and [0009]. Note that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion, given the reference renders obvious the claimed composition, the reference is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed parameters. For example, based on the composition disclosed by Dejneka, the reference renders obvious at least Applicant’s sample 1 of Table 1, which has the property; see MPEP 2112.01 II “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually excludes properties.”
Further, while the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed ratio, the disclosed content ranges for Al2O3 and Na2O result in a ratio that overlaps the claimed range; see above discussion and MPEP 2144.05 I.
The reference fails to disclose the composition as including P2O5 in the claimed amount.
Gross discloses an alkali aluminosilicate glass article with P2O5 as a network former incorporated in the glass article, see abstract and [0045]. The incorporation of P2O5 in the glass network is highly effective at reducing Young's modulus and shear modulus [0045]. Incorporating P2O5 in the glass network also reduces the high temperature CTE, increases the ion-exchange interdiffusion rate, and improves glass compatibility with zircon refractory materials [0045]. In one or more embodiments, the alkali aluminosilicate glass article comprises P2O5 in an amount in a range from about 0.5 mol % to about 5 mol % [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the glass of Dejneka to include P2O5 in the amount disclosed in Gross as a suitable amount for a network former for an alkali aluminosilicate glass as well as for reducing Young's modulus, shear modulus and CTE and improving the ion-exchange rate.
Regarding claim 2, Dejneka discloses an aluminosilicate glass that comprises at least about 50 mol % SiO2; from about 7 mol % to about 26 mol % Al2O3; from 0 mol % to about 9 mol % B2O3; from about 11 mol % to about 25 mol % Na2O [0009]. Note that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”; see MPEP 2144.05 I. While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed ratio, the disclosed content ranges for Al2O3 and Na2O result in a ratio that overlaps the claimed range; see above discussion and MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses the ranges for MgO and CaO as including 0% [0009]. Regarding oxides of Sr and Ba, the reference discloses them as present in levels that are in some embodiments, kept below 0.5 mol % [0038]. Given none of the examples in SrO and BaO and based on the 0% lower end of the range for MgO and BaO, the reference is considered to render obvious a composition free of alkali earth metals, see Table 1.
Regarding claim 4, the reference discloses the glass article has a thickness of about 1 mm or less, which overlaps the claimed range [0045]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 5-12, while the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed properties, the reference does render obvious a composition with the claimed properties, see [0009] and Applicant’s Sample 1. As such, it is expected that the disclosed glass and the claimed glass will have similar properties given products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually excludes properties; see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Claims 13-15 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (US 2013/0004758).
Regarding claim 13, Dejneka discloses an aluminosilicate glass that comprises at least about 50 mol % SiO2; from about 7 mol % to about 26 mol % Al2O3; from 0 mol % to about 9 mol % B2O3; from about 11 mol % to about 25 mol % Na2O [0009]. Note that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”; see MPEP 2144.05 I. While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed ratio, the disclosed content ranges for Al2O3 and Na2O result in a ratio that overlaps the claimed range; see above discussion and MPEP 2144.05 I.
The reference further discloses the ranges for MgO and CaO as including 0% [0009]. Regarding oxides of Sr and Ba, the reference discloses them as present in levels that are in some embodiments, kept below 0.5 mol % [0038]. Given none of the examples in SrO and BaO and based on the 0% lower end of the range for MgO and BaO, the reference is considered to render obvious a composition free of alkali earth metals, see Table 1.
Regarding claim 14, the reference discloses an aluminosilicate glass that comprises at least about 50 mol % SiO2; from about 7 mol % to about 26 mol % Al2O3; from 0 mol % to about 9 mol % B2O3; from about 11 mol % to about 25 mol % Na2O [0009]. Note that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”; see MPEP 2144.05 I. While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed ratio, the disclosed content ranges for Al2O3 and Na2O result in a ratio that overlaps the claimed range; see above discussion and MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 15, the reference discloses the glass composition includes from 0 mol % to about 9 mol % B2O3, which overlaps the claimed range [0009].
Regarding claim 17, the reference discloses the glass composition does not comprise R2O other than Na2O where R is Li or K [0009].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot in view of a new combination of prior art. To the extent that Applicant argues that Dejneka fails to disclose a glass composition that does not include an alkali earth metal oxide, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, Dejneka discloses the ranges for MgO and CaO as including 0% [0009]. Regarding oxides of Sr and Ba, the reference discloses them as present in levels that are in some embodiments, kept below 0.5 mol % [0038]. Given none of the examples in SrO and BaO and based on the 0% lower end of the range for MgO and BaO, the reference is considered to render obvious a composition free of alkali earth metals, see Table 1.
Regarding claims 13-15 and 17, Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Dejneka includes alkali earth metal oxides. However, as discussed above, based on the ranges disclose for MgO and CaO, based on the disclosure of SrO and BaO as below 0.5 mol %, which is considered to include zero, and based on the examples disclosed excluding SrO and BaO, the reference is considered to disclose a glass free of alkali earth metal oxides.
For the above reasons, claims 1-15 and 17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Price and Price in view of Gross.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights