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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is directed towards the non-flat formed glass of claim 1, wherein for the weight fractions, in ppm, of Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, Cu, Mn, and V, the following applies: Σ(1*Fe + 300*Co + 70*Ni + 50*Cr + 20*Cu + 5*Mn + 2*V) [ppm by mass] is less than 200 ppm, wherein a total content of considered metals is considered irrespective of an oxidation state thereof.
The closest prior art is Hasegawa et al. (US20170217825, hereinafter referred to as Hasegawa). Hasegawa does not disclose or make obvious the weight fractions, in ppm, of Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, Cu, Mn, and V, the following applies: Σ(1*Fe + 300*Co + 70*Ni + 50*Cr + 20*Cu + 5*Mn + 2*V) [ppm by mass] is less than 200 ppm, wherein a total content of considered metals is considered irrespective of an oxidation state thereof.
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) 1-7, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US20170217825, hereinafter referred to as Hasegawa).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses a non-flat formed glass (See Hasegawa at the Abstract, disclosing a glass), and a composition comprising: SiO2 68 mol% to 73 mol% (see Hasegawa at [0068], disclosing SiO2 is .... 50% or more... and 80% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05); Al2O3 2 mol% to 5 mol% (see Hasegawa at [0069], disclosing Al2O3 is ... 0.25% or more ... and 6% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.) B2O3 12 mol% to 18 mol% (see Hasegawa at [0070], disclosing B2O3 is ... 15% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.) Na2O 1 mol% to 4 mol% (see Hasegawa at [0072], disclosing Na2O is ... 1% or more ... and 11% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range) K2O 0 mol% to 2 mol% (see Hasegawa at [0073], disclosing K2O is ... 1% or more ... and 5% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.) CaO >0 mol% to 2 mol% (see Hasegawa at [0076], disclosing CaO is ... 0.1% or more ... and 5% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.) SrO 0 mol% to 1 mol% (see Hasegawa at [0077], disclosing SrO 0.1% or more ... and 8% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.) BaO 0 mol% to 4 mol% (see Hasegawa at [0078], disclosing BaO is ... 0.1% or more ... and 8% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.) F- 0 mol% to 6 mol% (see Hasegawa at [0084], disclosing F ... is preferably 1% or less, which is within the claimed range.) a ratio of weight fractions of ions of iron that satisfies: 0.1 ≤ Fe2+/(Fe2++Fe3+) ≤ 0.3. (see Hasegawa at [0099], disclosing the ratio of the content of divalent iron (iron redox) in terms of Fe2O3 is preferably in the range of 10% to 50%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
while Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose a transmittance to electromagnetic radiation for non-flat formed glass having a thickness of 1 mm that is 20 % or more at a wavelength of 254 nm, 82 % or more at a wavelength of 300 nm, 90 % or more at a wavelength of 350 nm, 92 % or more at a wavelength of 546 nm, 92.5 % or more at a wavelength of 1400 nm, 91.5 % or more in a wavelength range from 380 nm to 780 nm, and 92.5 % or more in a wavelength range from 780 nm to 1500 nm, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as well as the Fe redox ratio as detailed by the instant specification at [0099] of the instant PGPub. Because Hasegawa discloses a glass with a composition and Fe redox ratio substantially identical to those of the instant glass, the glass of Hasegawa would inherently possess the claimed property. 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).
Regarding claim 2, while Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose the transmittance is 60 % or more at the wavelength of 254 nm, 90 % or more at the wavelength of 300 nm, 91 % or more at the wavelength of 350 nm, 92.5 % or more at the wavelength of 546 nm, 93 % or more at the wavelength of 1400 nm, 92 % or more in the wavelength range from 380 nm to 780 nm, and 93 % or more in the wavelength range from 780 nm to 1500 nm, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as well as the Fe redox ratio as detailed by the instant specification at [0099] of the instant PGPub. Because Hasegawa discloses a glass with a composition and Fe redox ratio substantially identical to those of the instant glass, the glass of Hasegawa would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 3, while Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose the transmittance is 85 % at the wavelength of 254 nm and 91 % or more at the wavelength of 300 nm, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as well as the Fe redox ratio as detailed by the instant specification at [0099] of the instant PGPub. Because Hasegawa discloses a glass with a composition and Fe redox ratio substantially identical to those of the instant glass, the glass of Hasegawa would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 4, while Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose the transmittance is 88 % or more at the wavelength of 254 nm, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as well as the Fe redox ratio as detailed by the instant specification at [0099] of the instant PGPub. Because Hasegawa discloses a glass with a composition and Fe redox ratio substantially identical to those of the instant glass, the glass of Hasegawa would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa discloses a content of oxides of network formers of not more than 98 mol% in total (see Hasegawa at [0068], disclosing SiO2 is .... 50% or more... and 80% or less, and at [0070], disclosing B2O3 is ... 15% or less which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa discloses the oxides of network formers comprise oxides of silicon and/or boron (see Hasegawa at [0068], disclosing SiO2 is .... 50% or more... and 80% or less, and at [0070], disclosing B2O3 is ... 15% or less).
Regarding claim 7, while Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose a coefficient of linear thermal expansion at between 2.4 * 10-6/K and 3.5 * 10-6/K, the thermal expansion of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass. Because the glass of Hasegawa is substantially identical to the instant glass, the glass of Hasegawa would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 16, Hasegawa discloses a ratio of molar amounts of B2O3/SiO2 between 0.12 and 0.35 and/or Σ(MexOy)/(Σ(SiO2+B2O3) is 0.02 to 0.10, wherein Me represents a metal which usually has an oxidation number y in oxides (see Hasegawa at [0068], disclosing SiO2 is .... 50% or more... and 80% or less, and at [0070], disclosing B2O3 is ... 15% or less. Examiner notes this provides a range of SiO2 and B2O3 which overlaps with the claimed B2O3/SiO2 ratio range.).
Regarding claim 19, while Hasegawa does not explicitly disclose a refractive index at a light wavelength of 587.6 nm that is less than 1.479, the refractive index of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass. Because the composition disclosed by Hasegawa is substantially identical to the instant composition, the glass of Hasegawa would inherently possess the claimed refractive index.
Regarding claim 20, Hasegawa discloses the alkali metal oxides Na2O and K2O amount to less than 6 mol% in total (see Hasegawa at [0072], disclosing Na2O is ... 1% or more ... and 11% or less, and at [0073], disclosing K2O is ... 1% or more ... and 5% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range).
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