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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on February 11, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups should because examined together because the claims of Group II represent standard and representative processes for manufacturing the claimed glass composition. Additionally, Applicant argues that a search of both groups would not impose an undue search burden because most of the prior art documents already employ the claimed manufacturing process. This is not found persuasive because regardless of the searching burden on Examiner, if the examiner finds that a national stage application lacks unity of invention under § 1.475, the examiner may in an Office action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect the invention to which the claims shall be restricted, see MPEP 1893.03(d).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method and product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 11, 2026.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et al. (US 2006/0142413).
Regarding claim 1, Zimmer discloses an antibacterial borosilicate glass having the following composition in relation to an oxide base: 40-80 mass % SiO2, 5-40 mass % B2O3, 0-25 mass % Na2O, 0-25 mass % K2O, 0-25 mass % CaO, 0-15 mass % MgO, and 0-30 mass % ZnO, see abstract. 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.
Regarding claim 2, the reference renders obvious the content of SiO2 as greater than the content of B2O3, see above discussion and Zimmer abstract.
Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses the glass may contain 35-70 wt% of SiO2, which overlaps the claimed range [0069]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the reference renders obvious the claimed amounts as well as the claimed ratio of Na2O and K2O, see above discussion and Zimmer abstract.
Regarding claim 6, the reference discloses the composition contains 0-5 mass% Ag2O, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract and MPEP 2144.05 I.
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