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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US20120219792, hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 20, Yamamoto discloses a glass material (See Yamamoto at the Abstract, disclosing a glass), comprising the following components by weight percentage: 50-70% of SiO2 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 70.6 mol% SiO2, which corresponds to approximately 64.82 wt.% SiO2, which is within the claimed range.); 3-15% of B2O3 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 7.7 mol% B2O3, which corresponds to approximately 8.19 wt.% B2O3, which is within the claimed range.); 0.5-10% of TiO2 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 3.2 mol% TiO2, which corresponds to approximately 3.91 wt.% TiO2, which is within the claimed range.); 4.3-12% of ZnO (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 4.4 mol% ZnO, which corresponds to approximately 5.47 wt.% ZnO, which is within the claimed range.); 0.5-10% of Al2O3 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 2.6 mol% Al2O3, which corresponds to approximately 4.05 wt.% Al2O3, which is within the claimed range.); and 5-22% of Na2O+K2O (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 6.7 mol% Na2O and 4.7 mol% K2O, which corresponds to approximately 6.35 wt.% Na2O and 6.77 wt.% K2O, for a sum total of 6.35+6.77= 13.12 wt.% which is within the claimed range.), wherein B2O3/SiO2 is 0.06-0.26 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising approximately 8.19 wt.% B2O3 and 64.82 wt.% SiO2 as detailed above, which provides a ratio of B2O3/SiO2 of approximately 8.19/64.82= 0.126, which is within the claimed range.), (TiO2+ZnO)/Al2O3 is 0.5- 8.0 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising approximately 3.91 wt.% TiO2, 5.47 wt.% ZnO, and 4.05 wt.% Al2O3 which provides a ratio of (TiO2+ZnO)/Al2O3 of (3.91+5.47)/4.05= 2.32, which is within the claimed range.), and (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) is 3.0-5.76 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising approximately 64.82 wt.% SiO2, 3.91 wt.% TiO2, 6.35 wt.% Na2O, and 5.47 wt.% ZnO. Examiner notes this provides a ratio of (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) of (64.82+3.91)/(6.35+5.47)= 5.81 which is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto discloses further comprising the following components by weight percentage: 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO; and/or 0-5% of Li2O; and/or 0-5% of P2O5; and/or 0-5% of ZrO2; and/or 0-5% of La2O3; and/or 0-5% of Y2O3; and/or 0-5% of Gd2O3; and/or 0-5% of Nb2O5; and/or 0-5% of WO3; and/or 0-1% of clarifying agent (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% Li2O, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 22, Yamamoto discloses 50-70% of SiO2 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 70.6 mol% SiO2, which corresponds to approximately 64.82 wt.% SiO2, which is within the claimed range.); 3-15% of B2O3 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 7.7 mol% B2O3, which corresponds to approximately 8.19 wt.% B2O3, which is within the claimed range.); 0.5-10% of TiO2 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 3.2 mol% TiO2, which corresponds to approximately 3.91 wt.% TiO2, which is within the claimed range.); 4.3-12% of ZnO (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 4.4 mol% ZnO, which corresponds to approximately 5.47 wt.% ZnO, which is within the claimed range.); 0.5-10% of Al2O3 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 2.6 mol% Al2O3, which corresponds to approximately 4.05 wt.% Al2O3, which is within the claimed range.); 5-22% of Na2O+K2O (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 6.7 mol% Na2O and 4.7 mol% K2O, which corresponds to approximately 6.35 wt.% Na2O and 6.77 wt.% K2O, for a sum total of 6.35+6.77= 13.12 wt.% which is within the claimed range.); 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% MgO, 0% CaO, 0% SrO, and 0% BaO, which provides a sum total of 0%, which is within the claimed range.); 0-5% of Li2O (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% Li2O, which is within the claimed range.); 0-5% of P2O5 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% P2O5); 0-5% of ZrO2 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% ZrO2); 0-5% of La2O3 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% La2O3); 0-5% of Y2O3 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% Y2O3); 0-5% of Gd2O3 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% Gd2O3); 0-5% of Nb2O5 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% Nb2O5); 0-5% of WO3 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% WO3); and 0-1% of clarifying agent (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% clarifying agent), wherein B2O3/SiO2 is 0.06-0.26 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising approximately 8.19 wt.% B2O3 and 64.82 wt.% SiO2 as detailed above, which provides a ratio of B2O3/SiO2 of approximately 8.19/64.82= 0.126, which is within the claimed range.), (TiO2+ZnO)/Al2O3 is 0.5-8.0 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising approximately 3.91 wt.% TiO2, 5.47 wt.% ZnO, and 4.05 wt.% Al2O3 which provides a ratio of (TiO2+ZnO)/Al2O3 of (3.91+5.47)/4.05= 2.32, which is within the claimed range.) and (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) is 3.0-5.76 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising approximately 64.82 wt.% SiO2, 3.91 wt.% TiO2, 6.35 wt.% Na2O, and 5.47 wt.% ZnO. Examiner notes this provides a ratio of (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) of (64.82+3.91)/(6.35+5.47)= 5.81 which is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Regarding claim 23, Yamamoto discloses the components by weight percentage, wherein B2O3/SiO2 is 0.08-0.2; and/or (TiO2+ZnO)/Al2O3 is 0.7-7.0; and/or ZnO/B2O3 is 0.2-1.8; and/or (Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is 0.8-8.0; and/or (Na2O+K2O)/(B2O3+ZnO) is 0.2-2.5; and/or (B2O3+K2O)/Al2O3 is 1.0-10.0 ; and/or(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/ZnO is below 1.0; and/or (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 is below 1.0; and/or (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/(Na2O+K2O) is below 1.0 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising approximately 8.19 wt.% B2O3 and 64.82 wt.% SiO2 as detailed above, which provides a ratio of B2O3/SiO2 of approximately 8.19/64.82= 0.126, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 24, Yamamoto discloses the following components by weight percentage: 55-68% of SiO2; and/or more than 5% but less than or equal to 13% of B2O3; and/or 1.5-8% of TiO2; and/or 4.3-10% of ZnO; and/or 1-8% of Al2O3; and/or 6-20% of Na2O+K2O; and/or 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO; and/or 0-3% of Li2O; and/or 0-3% of P2O5; and/or 0-3% of ZrO2; and/or 0-3% of La2O3; and/or 0-3% of Y2O3; and/or 0-3% of Gd2O3; and/or 0-3% of Nb2O5; and/or 0-3% of WO3; and/or 0-0.5% of clarifying agent (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 70.6 mol% SiO2, which corresponds to approximately 64.82 wt.% SiO2, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 25, Yamamoto discloses comprising the components by weight percentage, wherein B2O3/SiO2 is 0.1-0.18; and/or (TiO2+ZnO)/Al2O3 is 1.0-5.0; and/or ZnO/B2O3 is 0.3-1.0; and/or (Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is 1.0-6.0; and/or (Na2O+K2O)/(B2O3+ZnO) is 0.3-2.0; and/or (B2O3+K2O)/Al2O3 is 1.5-8.0 ; (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/ZnO is below 0.5; and/or (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 is below 0.5; and/or (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/(Na2O+K2O) is below 0.5 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising approximately 8.19 wt.% B2O3 and 64.82 wt.% SiO2 as detailed above, which provides a ratio of B2O3/SiO2 of approximately 8.19/64.82= 0.126, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 26, Yamamoto discloses comprising the following components by weight percentage: 60-68% of SiO2; and/or 6-12% of B2O3; and/or 2-7% of TiO2; and/or 4.3-8% of ZnO; and/or 2-7% of Al2O3; and/or 8-18% of Na2O+K2O; and/or 0-1% of La2O3; and/or 0-1% of Y2O3; and/or 0-1% of Gd2O3; and/or 0-1% of Nb2O5; and/or 0-1% of WO3 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 70.6 mol% SiO2, which corresponds to approximately 64.82 wt.% SiO2, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 27, Yamamoto discloses comprising the components by weight percentage, wherein (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) is 4.0-8.0; and/or ZnO/B2O3 is 0.4- 0.8; and/or (Na2O+K2O)/Al2O3 is 1.5-5.0; and/or (Na2O+K2O)/(B2O3+ZnO) is 0.5-1.5; and/or (B2O3+K2O)/Al2O3 is 2.0-6.0 ; (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/ZnO is below 0.2; and/or (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/Al2O3 is below 0.2; and/or (MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO)/(Na2O+K2O) is below 0.2 (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 64.82 wt.% SiO2, 3.91 wt.% TiO2, 6.35 wt.% Na2O, and 5.47 wt.% ZnO as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes this provides a (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) ratio of (64.82+3.91)/(6.35+5.47)= 5.82 which is close to touching the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 28, Yamamoto discloses comprising the following components by weight percentage: 2-12% of Na2O; and/or 2-12% of K2O; and/or 0-5% of MgO; and/or 0-5% of CaO; and/or 0-5% of SrO; and/or 0-5% of BaO (see the rejection of claim 1 above, showing Yamamoto discloses at Table 1 Example Glass D has an Na2O content of approximately 6.35 wt.% Na2O, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 29, Yamamoto discloses comprising the following components by weight percentage: 4-9% of Na2O; and/or 4-9% of K2O; and/or 0-2% of MgO; and/or 0-2% of CaO; and/or 0-2% of SrO; and/or 0-2% of BaO; and/or do not contain F; and/or do not contain Ta2O5; and/or do not contain Li2O; and/or do not contain P2O5; and/or do not contain ZrO2 (see the rejection of claim 1 above, showing Yamamoto discloses at Table 1 Example Glass D has an Na2O content of approximately 6.35 wt.% Na2O, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 30, Yamamoto discloses comprising the components by weight percentage, wherein the total content of La2O3, Y2O3, Gd2O3, Nb2O5 and WO3 is below 3% (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 0% La2O3, 0% Y2O3, 0% Gd2O3, 0% Nb2O5, and 0% WO3 which provides a sum total of 0% which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 31, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a light transmittance Z360nm is above 78%, this is inherent to the composition of the glass as evidenced by the instant specification at [0031], [0033], [0035], [0037], and [0045]. 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). This inherency is further evidenced by the Abstract of Yamamoto, disclosing a transmittance at a wavelength of 428 nm of at least 86% when the thickness of the glass substrate is from 0.1 to 3.0 mm.
Regarding claim 32, while Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a light transmittance Z360nm is above 85%, this is inherent to the composition of the glass as evidenced by the instant specification at [0031], [0033], [0035], [0037], and [0045]. 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). This inherency is further evidenced by the Abstract of Yamamoto, disclosing a transmittance at a wavelength of 428 nm of at least 86% when the thickness of the glass substrate is from 0.1 to 3.0 mm.
Regarding claim 33, Examiner notes being a packaging for housing a photosensitive device does not carry patentable weight. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." see MPEP 2114(II). However, Yamamoto discloses a cover glass for display devices (See Yamamoto at [0001]) which Examiner notes corresponds to packaging for housing a photosensitive device per the instant specification at [0101] which discloses imaging devices.
Regarding claim 34, Examiner notes being a glass element, made of the glass material does not carry patentable weight. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." see MPEP 2114(II). However, Yamamoto discloses a cover glass for display devices (See Yamamoto at [0001]) which Examiner notes corresponds to a glass element, made of the glass material per the instant specification at [0101] which discloses imaging devices.
Regarding claim 35, Examiner notes being a device, comprising the glass material or comprising the glass element made of the glass material does not carry patentable weight. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." see MPEP 2114(II). However, Yamamoto discloses a cover glass for display devices (See Yamamoto at [0001]) which Examiner notes corresponds to a device, comprising the glass material or comprising the glass element made of the glass material per the instant specification at [0101] which discloses imaging devices.
Regarding claim 36, Yamamoto discloses the glass material contains 4.9-12% of ZnO (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 4.4 mol% ZnO, which corresponds to approximately 5.47 wt.% ZnO, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 37, Yamamoto discloses the glass material contains 4.9-12% of ZnO (see Yamamoto at Table 1, Example Glass D, disclosing a glass comprising 4.4 mol% ZnO, which corresponds to approximately 5.47 wt.% ZnO, which is within the claimed range.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At the first full paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Yamamoto does not describe or suggest a relationship of (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) must be in a range of 3.0-5.76, nor does Yamamoto suggest any possible significance in the required relationship. Examiner notes this I not material to the instant question of patentability because Yamamoto discloses an example of a glass with a (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) which is close to touching the claimed range as detailed in the rejections above. Whether Yamamoto explicitly teaches this ratio, or the properties Applicant states are significant to this relationship, is not material to the question of patentability. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (see MPEP 2112(I)).
At the second and third full paragraph of page 8 continued into page 9 from the Remarks, Applicant quotes the instant specification at [0052] of the instant PGPub, which states the value of (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) is preferably controlled to be 3.0-12.0, more preferably 3.0-10.0, further preferably 4.0-8.0. Applicant argues the ratio of (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) is critical to controlling the bubble degree, Stripe degree, and thermal expansion coefficient of the glass material, which Yamamoto does not describe. At the first full paragraph of page 9, Applicant agues this achieves an unexpected technical effect compared to Yamamoto. At the second full paragraph of page 9, Applicant argues Example D of Yamamoto is outside of the claimed (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) range of instant claim 1, and therefore Example D does not render claim 1 obvious.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for several reasons. First, Examiner notes that instant claim 1 recites a range of (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) of from 3.0-5.76, while [0052] of the instant PGPub recites significantly more broad ranges of (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) from 3.0-12.0, more preferably 3.0-10.0, further preferably 4.0-8.0. Examiner notes Example D of Yamamoto is within all of the ranges recited in [0052], and would therefore be expected to similarly control the bubble degree, Stripe degree, and thermal expansion coefficient of the glass material whether Yamamoto explicitly appreciates these properties or not. As further evidence of this, Examiner notes Example 15 from Table 2 of the instant application has a (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) above the range of instant claim 1, and even further above the (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) value of Example D from Yamamoto. Example 15 from Table 2 has a bubble degree identical to all other examples of Table 2, and therefore the instant claimed range of 3.0-5.76 does not appear to be critical to achieving the allegedly unexpected result of controlling bubble degree. Similarly, Example 15 from Table 2 has a Stripe degree of “B”, which is equivalent to or superior to all other examples from Table 2. As such, the claimed (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) range does not appear to be critical to achieving the allegedly unexpected result of the Stripe degree. Finally, Example 15 of Table 2 has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 74, which fits within the mid-range of all values of Table 2 which span from 68-84. As such, the claimed (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) range does not appear to be critical to achieving the allegedly unexpected coefficient of thermal expansion result.
Because Example D of Yamamoto has a (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) value close to touching the claimed range, and below that of Example 15 from Table 2 which appears to have all of the allegedly unexpected properties, Example D of Yamamoto would also have the properties. As such, the claimed (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) ranges are obvious in view of Example D of Yamamoto for the reasons stated in the rejections above.
Examiner notes per MPEP 716.02(d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In the instant case, and in view of Example 15 of Table 2 and [0052] of the instant PGPub, the criticality of the claimed range of (SiO2+TiO2)/(Na2O+ZnO) from 3.0-5.76 has not been established.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing and all claims remain rejected over Example D of Yamamoto for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights