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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending.
Claims 1-23 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0107924 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation that the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content is 0.1 mol.% to 18 mol%, and the claim also recites the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 1 and Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 13 mol% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is unclear how the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content can be in the range of 0.1-<3 mol%, if the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 1 and the Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 13 mol%.
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation that the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content is 0.1 mol.% to <13.9 mol%, and the claim also recites the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 2 and Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 10 mol% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is unclear how the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content can be in the range of 0.1-<6 mol%, if the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 2 and the Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 10 mol%.
Claim 13 recites the broad recitation that the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content is 0.1 mol.% to <13.9 mol%, and the claim also recites the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 2 and Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 10 mol% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is unclear how the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content can be in the range of 0.1-<6 mol%, if the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 2 and the Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 10 mol%.
Claim 15 recites the broad recitation that the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content is 0.11 mol.% to <16 mol%, and the claim also recites the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 2 and Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 13 mol% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is unclear how the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content can be in the range of 0.11-<6 mol%, if the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 2 and the Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 13 mol%.
Claim 17 recites the broad recitation that the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content is 0.1 mol.% to <16 mol%, and the claim also recites the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 2 and Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 13 mol% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is unclear how the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content can be in the range of 0.1-<6 mol%, if the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 2 and the Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 13 mol%.
Claim 19 recites the broad recitation that the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content is 0.21 mol.% to <16 mol%, and the claim also recites the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 1 and Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 13 mol% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is unclear how the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content can be in the range of 0.21-<3 mol%, if the (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is at least 1 and the Al2O3 content is 3 mol% to 13 mol%.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-11, 14, 16, 18, and 20-23 are rejected as indefinite since the claims either depend directly or indirectly from a claim rejected as indefinite.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0107924 A1.
Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 69-81% of SiO2, 4-12% of Al2O3, 0-5% of B2O3, 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of refining agents: F, Cl, Sb2O3, As2O3, SnO2, and Na2SO4. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]. Yamamoto et al. teach the glass has a class 1 hydrolytic resistance. See paragraphs [0017] and [0055]. Yamamoto et al. teach the glass has a working point of at most 1260°C. See paragraph [0057]. Yamamoto et al. teach the glass can be a tube. See paragraphs [0036] and [0058]. Yamamoto et al. teach the glass tube can be used for pharmaceutical containers, such as, vials, ampoules, carpules, and syringes. See paragraphs [0002], [0036], and [0058].
Yamamoto et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 1-23. However, the mole percent ranges taught by Yamamoto et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 1-23. See paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]. 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 Yamamoto 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 Yamamoto 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.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 69-81% of SiO2, 4-12% of Al2O3, 0-5% of B2O3, 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of refining agents: F, Cl, Sb2O3, As2O3, SnO2, and Na2SO4, ( paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 70-85% of SiO2, 3-13% of Al2O3, 0-2% of B2O3, 0.1-18% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, the ratio MgO/CaO <1.0, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 being at least 1, and the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO-Al2O3)/(SiO2+Al2O3) being at most 0.127, as recited in instant claim 1. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 2, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O,and 0-5% of K2O, ( paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 0-8.1% of Li2O, 0.1-8% of Na2O, and 0.01-5% of K2O, as recited in instant claim 2. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, ( paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, as recited in instant claim 3. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 4, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, ( paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 0-1.5% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-0.3% of SrO, and 0-0.3% of BaO, as recited in instant claim 4. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 5, Yamamoto et al. Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, and 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, (paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising having a ratio of Li2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of at most 0.6, as recited in instant claim 5. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 6, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 4-12% of Al2O3, 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, (paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass having a ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 of at least 2, as recited in instant claim 6. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 7, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, (paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass having a ratio of CaO/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) of less than 0.018, as recited in instant claim 7. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 8, Yamamoto et al. disclose 0.1-12% of Li2O and 0-4% of CaO (see paragraphs [0044] and [0048]), which reads on a glass comprising CaO and having a ratio of Li2O/CaO of at most 3.1, as recited in instant claim 8. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 9, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 69-81% of SiO2, 4-12% of Al2O3, 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, (paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: at least 90% of SiO2+Al2O3+Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, as recited in instant claim 9. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 10, Yamamoto et al. disclose 0-5% of B2O3 (see paragraph [0041]), which reads on a glass comprising 0.01-1 mol% of B2O3, as recited in instant claim 10. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 11, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 0-2% of ZrO2, (paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 0-2% of ZrO2, as recited in instant claim 11. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 12, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 69-81% of SiO2, 4-12% of Al2O3, 0-5% of B2O3, 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of refining agents: F, Cl, Sb2O3, As2O3, SnO2, and Na2SO4 (see paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 70-85% of SiO2, 3-13% of Al2O3, 0-2% of B2O3, 0.1-<13.9% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 being at least 2, the ratio of MgO/CaO of at least 2, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO-Al2O3)/(SiO2+Al2O3) being at most 0.127, the ratio of Li2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) being at most 0.5, and the ratio of CaO/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) being less than 0.018, as recited in instant claim 12. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 13, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 69-81% of SiO2, 4-12% of Al2O3, 0-5% of B2O3, 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of refining agents: F, Cl, Sb2O3, As2O3, SnO2, and Na2SO4 (see paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 70-85% of SiO2, 3-13% of Al2O3, 0-2% of B2O3, 0.1-<13.9% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, the ratio of MgO/CaO of at least 2, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 being at least 2, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO-Al2O3)/(SiO2+Al2O3) being at most 0.127, the ratio of Li2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) being at most 0.5, and the ratio of Li2O/CaO being at most 3.1, as recited in instant claim 13. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 14, Yamamoto et al. disclose 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO (see paragraphs [0044]- [0049]), which reads on a glass having a ratio of (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+ro+BaO) of at most 0.06, as recited in instant claim 14. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 15, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 69-81% of SiO2, 4-12% of Al2O3, 0-5% of B2O3, 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of refining agents: F, Cl, Sb2O3, As2O3, SnO2, and Na2SO4 (see paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 75-85% of SiO2, 3-13% of Al2O3, 0-2% of B2O3, 0.1-15% of Na2O, 0.01-5% of K2O, 0.11-<16% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 being at least 2, the ratio of MgO/CaO of at least 2, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO-Al2O3)/(SiO2+Al2O3) being at most 0.127, and the ratio of (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) being at most 0.06, as recited in instant claim 15. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 16, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, (see paragraphs [0045]-[0049]),which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol% having a ratio of CaO/( MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) being at least 0.5, as recited in instant claim 16. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 17, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 69-81% of SiO2, 4-12% of Al2O3, 0-5% of B2O3, 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of refining agents: F, Cl, Sb2O3, As2O3, SnO2, and Na2SO4 (see paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 70-85% of SiO2, 3-13% of Al2O3, 0-2% of B2O3, 0.1-15% of Na2O, 0.1-<16% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0.1-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 being at least 2, the ratio of MgO/CaO of at least 2, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO-Al2O3)/(SiO2+Al2O3) being at most 0.127, and the ratio of CaO/( MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) being at least 0.5, as recited in instant claim 17. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 18, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 69-81% of SiO2 and 4-14% of Al2O3, (see paragraphs [0039] and [0040]),which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol% having a ratio of SiO2/Al2O3 being at least 10, as recited in instant claim 18. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 19, Yamamoto et al. teach a glass composition comprising in terms of mole percentages: 69-81% of SiO2, 4-12% of Al2O3, 0-5% of B2O3, 0.1-12% of Li2O, 0-11% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-9% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of refining agents: F, Cl, Sb2O3, As2O3, SnO2, and Na2SO4 (see paragraphs [0011]-[0016], [0035], and [0039]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol%: 70-85% of SiO2, 3-13% of Al2O3, 0-2% of B2O3, 0.1-10% of Li2O, 0.1-15% of Na2O, 0.01-5% of K2O, 0.21-<16% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-6% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, the ratio of MgO/CaO of at least 2, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 being at least 1, the ratio of (Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO-Al2O3)/(SiO2+Al2O3) being at most 0.127, and the ratio of SiO2/Al2O3 being more than 13.2, as recited in instant claim 19. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 20, Yamamoto et al. tech the glass has a class 1 hydrolytic resistance, which reads on a glass having at least a class HGA1 in a hydrolytic resistance test according to ISO 720 as recited in claim 20. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 21, Yamamoto et al. teach a working point of at most 1260 °C (see paragraph [0057]), which reads on a glass having a working point of at most 1300°C, as recited in claim 21.
As to claim 22, Yamamoto et al. teach the glass is in the shape of a tube, (see paragraphs [0036] and [0058], which reads on a glass tube, as recited in instant claim 22.
As to claim 23, Yamamoto et al. teach the glass is used as a pharmaceutical container, (see paragraphs [0002], [0036], and [0058], which reads on a pharmaceutical container, as recited in instant claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yamamoto et al. does not disclose that the ratio of MgO/CaO is less than 1.0, since Yamamoto et al. teaches that the MgO≥CaO≥SrO≥BaO. This is not found persuasive since Yamamoto et al. teach that the total content of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO can be 0 which result in the MgO/CaO ratio being 0, which is less than 1. Additionally, Yamamoto et al. teach that it is preferable that the content of MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO meets the relationship MgO≥CaO≥SrO≥BaO, but Yamamoto et al. does not require that the MgO content be greater than the CaO content.
Conclusion
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
27 June 2026
Prosecution Insights