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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 19-22 in the reply filed on June 27, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of Species I (claim 7) in the reply filed on September 30, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 8 and 9 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 19, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as anticipated Beall (USPN4,391,914) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beall (USPN4,391,914).
Regarding claim 1: Beall teaches aluminosilicate glass-ceramic compositions comprising a crystalline phase and a residual glass phase (see entire document) wherein the glass ceramics can be thermally tempered (see Col. 8, lines 27-39 for instance).
The two phases are taught to form a system wherein the thermal expansion curve of the system has two distinct sections diverging from an inflection point (see Figures and Col. 5, lines 64-67).
Beall suggests that the inflection point can occur at a temperature of 500oC (see Figure 2, Col. 9, lines 3-8) falling within the range claimed or alternatively, Beall explicitly teaches that the inflection point can be in the range of 500-750oC (see Figures and Col. 5, lines 64-67) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Beall suggests that the thermal expansion of the residual glass phase above the inflection point can be near 50x10-7/C (i.e. near 5 ppm/C) (see Col 9, lines 19 and Figure 2) with the crystal phase below the inflection point being near zero (Col. 6, line 5, Col. 7, lines 13-14 and Figure 2) which is considered to provide for a difference within the claimed range. Alternatively, Beall does teach that the difference between the two is at least 30x10-7/C (i.e. at least 3ppm/C) (see Beall claim 2) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2: As mentioned above, Beall suggests that the thermal expansion of the residual glass phase above the inflection point can be near 50x10-7/C (i.e. near 5 ppm/C) (see Col 9, lines 19 and Figure 2) with the crystal phase below the inflection point being near zero (Col. 6, line 5, Col. 7, lines 13-14 and Figure 2) which is considered to provide for a difference within the claimed range. Alternatively, Beall does teach that the difference between the two is at least 30x10-7/C (i.e. at least 3ppm/C) (see Beall claim 2) overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3: As mentioned above, Beall suggest that the thermal expansion of the crystal phase below the inflection point being near zero (Col. 6, line 5, Col. 7, lines 13-14 and Figure 2) and additionally note that that Beall’s Figure 2 appears to illustrate that below the 500C inflection point, the “near zero” thermal expansion can actually be that which falls within the claimed range. As such, Beall is considered to anticipate claim 3.
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue that Beall’s Figure 2 would not clearly anticipate the thermal expansion falling within the claimed range, it is noted for the record that Beall does explicitly teach the thermal expansion being “near zero” which “near” would be considered to allow for values slightly above zero which would overlap the claimed 1ppm/C end point (In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) MPEP 2144.05), or at the very least provide for values so close to said end point to render the range obvious (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4: As mentioned above, Beall suggests that the thermal expansion of the residual glass phase above the inflection point can be near 50x10-7/C (i.e. near 5 ppm/C) (see Col 9, lines 19 and Figure 2) and additionally note that that Beall’s Figure 2 appears to illustrate that above the 500oC inflection point, the thermal expansion can actually be that which falls within the claimed range. As such, Beall is considered to anticipate claim 4.
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue that Beall’s Figure 2 would not clearly anticipate the thermal expansion falling within the claimed range, it is noted for the record that Beall does explicitly teach the thermal expansion being near 50x10-7/C (near 5ppm/C) which “near” would allow for values slightly above which would be considered to overlap the claimed 6ppm/C end point (In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) MPEP 2144.05), or at the very least provide for values so close to said end point to render the range obvious (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) MPEP 2144.05).
Even further in the alternatively, Beall does teach that the thermal expansion of the residual glass phase above the inflection point can be near 30-60-7/C (i.e. 3 ppm/C-6ppm/C) (see Col. 7, lines 13-15) which does clearly overlap the claimed end point (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6: The crystalline phase can be made to comprise a predominant phase of beta-spodumene S.S. (see for instance Table III, Examples).
Regarding claim 7 and 23: The precursor glass of the glass-ceramic composition can be that meeting claim 7 and 23 (note compositions 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 of Table 1 when converted to mol% meet that claimed and for the sake of clarity of record regarding Beall’s compositions 1, 4 and 5 compared to that of claim 7, the recited “about” 75% SiO2 language in the claim is still met with compositions having values slightly outside 75%).
Regarding claim 19: As the broad interpretation of “article” is merely just an item and a glass-ceramic is itself an item, it is considered to be/meet an article as claimed in as much as the term has been defined.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall (USPN4,391,914) in view of Beall (USPN4,940,674)
Regarding claim 5: While Beall may not explicitly disclose the Young’s modulus, the Examiner notes the following.
Initially, Applicants disclose their glass-ceramic being made with the following precursor which appears to be the same as that of Beall.
Applicants’ (see claim 7)
Beall’s Examples 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 (conv. to approx. mol%)
SiO2
~65 to ~ 75 mol%
75.8
70.7
75.5
75.1
71.3
70.8
70.4
Al2O3
~8 to ~ 13 mol%
8.2
11.3
9.4
9.4
12.7
12.8
12.8
Li2O
~3 to ~ 13 mol%
8
10.1
9
9.1
9.3
9.3
9.4
B2O3
~0.02 to ~ 5 mol%
4.3
4.4
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.2
K2O
~0.5 to ~ 2 mol%
0.6
0.6
0.96
0.96
0.8
1.3
1.2
BaO
~0 to ~ 2 mol%
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.6
1
RO2
~2 to ~ 6 mol%
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.8
TiO2
~1 to ~ 4 mol%
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2
ZrO2
~0 to ~ 2 mol%
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
SnO2
~0 to ~ 1 mol%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Applicants then disclose the glass-ceramic being made by the following nucleating and growth steps on the precursor glass which appears to be substantially the same as Beall’s method.
Applicants’ published par 0087
See Beall Table II and Col. 8
Nucleation temperature 700-850C
Nucleation temperature 700-800C
Rate 1-15oC/min for 0.5-5hrs
Rate 300C/hr (i.e. 5oC/min) for 2hrs
Growth temperature 700-1100C
Growth temperature 800-1050C
Rate 1-15oC/min for 1-16hrs
Rate 300C/hr (i.e. 5oC/min) for 1 or 4hrs
Cooled or quenched
Cooled or quenched (see Col. 8, lines 6-8)
Thermally tempering the final cerammed and cooled glass after the above steps
Thermally tempering the final cerammed and cooled glass after the above steps (Col. 8, lines 31-38)
Applicants then disclose that the prepared glass-ceramic is thermally tempered at 600-1100oC, such as 750-950oC for 5min to 4 hrs (published par 0074-0075) and then quenched in a quenching medium and teaches that in certain embodiments, the quenching cool to 250C to -40oC (published par 0076).
Beall similarly teaches thermally tempering their prepared glass-ceramic at 750-875C and then quenching in a quenching medium (Col. 8, lines 31-35).
While the Office acknowledges that Beall may not explicitly recite the tempering duration or provide the quenching temperature, Beall does not appear to place limits on either one. As such, it would be well within the skill in the art to look to the prior art to determine beneficial durations and temperatures for thermally tempering and quenching aluminosilicate glass-ceramics.
In the instant case, given that Beall is thermal tempering aluminosilicate glass-ceramics at 750-875C followed by quenching and Beall ‘674, who similarly teaches thermal tempering aluminosilicate glass-ceramics at similar temperatures followed by quenching, suggests it being desirable to temper for a short duration of 2-10min or even 3-6min and quenching to room temperature for increased strength (see Col. 4-5), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Beall ‘914 to temper for 2-10min or even 3-6min followed by their quenching being to room temperature for increased strength.
Given that Beall ‘914 as modified is the same as Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same final properties to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 20 and 21: Given that Beal’s glass-ceramic (article) appears to be the same as Applicants as discussed above, it would be reasonably expected to have the same resulting properties (MPEP 2112).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall (USPN4,391,914) in view of Lezzi (USPub20190002328).
Regarding claim 22: While Beall may not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 22, given that Beall is teaching thermally tempered aluminosilicate glass-ceramics and Lezzi, who similarly teaches thermally tempered aluminosilicate glass-ceramics (see title, abstract, 0230), discloses that such glass-ceramics can be used in architectural glass devices (see abstract and 0059, 0189 for instance), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Beall to include an architectural device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784