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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 29 November 2022 and 6 January 2023 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 28 September 2022 are accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: minor typographical error.
In paragraph [0020] of the specification, the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is recited as “50-59.10-7 K-1”. This appears to have a typographical error. It is believed that “.10-7” should read “x 10-7” or possibly “•10-7” where the middle dot reads as multiplication.
The coefficient of thermal expansion row in Tables 1 and 9-11, also contain the “.10-7” notation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “having a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of 50-59.10-7 K-1”. This appears to have a typographical error. It is believed that “.10-7” should read “x 10-7” or possibly “•10-7” where the middle dot reads as multiplication.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) or fourth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 recites that the CTE is measured at a range of 25°C to 300°C. This fails to further limit claim 15 from which claim 16 depends since the specification in paragraph [0058] defines that the measurement of the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the glass is conducted for the temperature range of between 25°C and 300°C. Therefore, the coefficient of thermal expansion in claim 15, in view of the specification already requires that the measurement range is at 25°C to 300°C. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 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 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 1-4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dejneka et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0189962 A1.
As to claim 1, Dejneka et al. disclose a glass composition that comprises fining agents. See paragraph [0120]. Dejneka et al. disclose Example 4 (see Table 3), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 0.08-0.5 wt% of CeO2 and 0.02-0.23 wt% of SnO2, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Dejneka et al. disclose Example 4 (see Table 3), which reads on a glass comprising 0-0.03 wt% of chloride, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Dejneka et al. disclose Example 4 (see Table 3), which reads on a Cl-free glass, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Dejneka et al. disclose Example 4 (see Table 3), which reads on a F-free glass, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 8, Dejneka et al. disclose Example 4 (see Table 3) comprising 50.94 wt% of SiO2 and 7.15 wt% of B2O3, which reads on a borosilicate glass, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Dejneka et al. disclose Example 4 (see Table 3) comprising 50.94 wt% of SiO2 and 16.5 wt% of Al2O3, which reads on an aluminosilicate glass, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claims 13 and 14, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Dejneka et al. would inherently possess the fining viscosity and TL softening point, as recited in claims 13 and 14. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dejneka et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2009/0215607A1.
As to claim 1, Dejneka et al. disclose a glass composition that comprises fining agents such as SnO2 and CeO2. See paragraph [001]. Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 11-18, 21-29, and 31-38 (see Tables 1b, 2b, and 3b), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 0.08-0.5 wt% of CeO2 and 0.02-0.23 wt% of SnO2, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 11-18, 21-29, and 31-38 (see Tables 1b, 2b, and 3b), which reads on a glass comprising 0-0.03 wt% of chloride, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 11-18, 21-29, and 31-38 (see Tables 1b, 2b, and 3b), which reads on a Cl-free glass, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 11-18, 21-29, and 31-38 (see Tables 1b, 2b, and 3b), which reads on a F-free glass, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 8, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 11-18, 21-29, and 31-38 (see Tables 1b, 2b, and 3b) comprising non-zero amounts of SiO2 and B2O3, which reads on a borosilicate glass, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 11-18, 21-29, and 31-38 (see Tables 1b, 2b, and 3b) comprising non-zero amounts of SiO2 and Al2O3, which reads on an aluminosilicate glass, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claims 13-16, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Dejneka et al. would inherently possess the fining viscosity, TL softening point, and coefficient of thermal expansion, as recited in claims 13-16. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greulich et al., German Patent Publication, DE 102 23 889 A1, as evidenced by GlassOnline, Schott FIOLAX® clear and FIOLAX® amber.
A machine-generated translation of DE 102 23 889 A1 accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Greulich et al. teach a glass having the following composition in terms of weight percentages: 68-82% of SiO2, 6-15% of B2O3, 2-10% of Al2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-5% of CaO, 0-5% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-3% of Li2O, 3-12% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 0-2% of TiO2, 0-3% of ZrO2, 0-2% of SnO2, and 0-2% of CeO2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraph [0026]. Greulich et al. further teach the glass includes refining agents to the glass melt during melting which can include As2O3, Sb2O3, SnO2, CeO2, TiO2, Fe2O3, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and combinations thereof. See paragraph [0027]. Greulich et al. teach that the glass is known by the trademark FIOLAX®. See paragraph [0019].
Greulich et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 1-19.
Specifically, as to claim 1 Greulich et al. teach the glass comprises 0-2 wt% of SnO2 and 0-2 wt% of CeO2 and further teach that CeO2 and SnO2 are refining agents (see paragraphs [0026] and [0027]), which reads on the fining package comprising 0.08-0.5 wt% of CeO2 and 0.02-0.23 wt% of SnO2 as recited in instant claim 1.
The weight percent ranges taught by Greulich et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 1. 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 the reference 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 Greulich 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.
As to claim 2, Greulich et al. teach that the refining agents may comprise chloride (see paragraph [0027]), which reads on the fining package comprising chloride in the amount of 0-0.03 wt%, as recited in instant claim 2. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, Greulich et al. teach that the refining agents may comprise chloride but don’t require chloride (see paragraph [0027]), which reads on the fining package being Cl-free, as recited in instant claim 3. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 4, Greulich et al. teach that the refining agents may comprise fluoride but don’t require fluoride (see paragraph [0027]), which reads on the fining package being F-free, as recited in instant claim 4. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 5, Greulich et al. teach the glass comprises in terms of weight percentages: 68-82% of SiO2, 6-15% of B2O3, 2-10% of Al2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-5% of CaO, 0-5% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-3% of Li2O, 3-12% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 0-2% of TiO2, 0-3% of ZrO2, 0-2% of SnO2, and 0-2% of CeO2, (see paragraph [0026]), which reads the glass composition comprising it terms of weight percentages, 70-76 wt% of SiO2, 9-13.5 % of B2O3, 4-8% of Al2O3, 0-0.1% of TiO2, 0-0.1% of Fe2O3, 0-0.1% of BaO, 0-3% of CaO, 5-8.5% of Na2O, 0.5-3% of K2O, 0-1% of MgO, 0-0.03% of Cl, 0-0.02% of F, 0.08-0.5% of CeO2, 0.02-0.23% of SnO2, and 0-0.08% of ZrO2, as recited in instant claim 5. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 6, Greulich et al. teach the glass comprises in terms of weight percentages: 68-82% of SiO2, 6-15% of B2O3, 2-10% of Al2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-5% of CaO, 0-5% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-3% of Li2O, 3-12% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 0-2% of TiO2, 0-3% of ZrO2, 0-2% of SnO2, and 0-2% of CeO2, (see paragraph [0026]), which reads the glass composition comprising it terms of weight percentages, 70-74 wt% of SiO2, 10-13.5 % of B2O3, 5-7% of Al2O3, 0-0.03% of TiO2, 0-0.04% of Fe2O3, 0-0.04% of BaO, 0.5-2.3% of CaO, 6.5-7.5% of Na2O, 1-1.8% of K2O, 0-0.1% of MgO, 0.01-0.03% of Cl, 0-0.02% of F, 0.08-0.2% of CeO2, 0.02-0.12% of SnO2, and 0-0.08% of ZrO2, as recited in instant claim 6. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 7, Greulich et al. teach the glass comprises in terms of weight percentages: 68-82% of SiO2, 6-15% of B2O3, 2-10% of Al2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-5% of CaO, 0-5% of SrO, 0-4% of BaO, 0-3% of Li2O, 3-12% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 0-2% of TiO2, 0-3% of ZrO2, 0-2% of SnO2, and 0-2% of CeO2, (see paragraph [0026]), which reads the glass composition comprising it terms of weight percentages, 70-73 wt% of SiO2, 10.5-13.2 % of B2O3, 5-7% of Al2O3, 0-0.03% of TiO2, 0-0.04% of Fe2O3, 0-0.04% of BaO, 1-2.3% of CaO, 6.5-7.3% of Na2O, 1-1.5% of K2O, 0-0.1% of MgO, 0.01-0.02% of Cl, 0-0.02% of F, 0.08-0.2% of CeO2, 0.02-0.12% of SnO2, and 0-0.08% of ZrO2, as recited in instant claim 7. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 8, Greulich et al. teach the glass comprises in terms of weight percentages: 68-82% of SiO2 and 6-15% of B2O3, (see paragraph [0026]), which reads the glass composition being a borosilicate glass, as recited in instant claim 8. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 9, Greulich et al. teach the glass comprises in terms of weight percentages: 68-82% of SiO2 and 2-10% of Al2O3, (see paragraph [0026]), which reads the glass composition being an aluminosilicate glass, as recited in instant claim 9. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 10, Greulich et al. teach that the glass is used in the making of FIOLAX® (see paragraph [0019]), which reads on the glass being used to form glass tubing as recited in instant claim 10, as evidenced by GlassOnline which teaches that FIOLAX® glass is glass tubing made by Schott AG.
As to claim 11, Greulich et al. teach that the glass is used in the making of FIOLAX® (see paragraph [0019]), which reads on the glass tubing being used to form pharmaceutical packaging as recited in instant claim 11, as evidenced by GlassOnline which teaches that FIOLAX® glass tubing made by Schott AG is used in the pharmaceutical industry.
As to claim 12, Greulich et al. teach that the glass is used in the making of FIOLAX® (see paragraph [0019]), which reads on the pharmaceutical glass tubing being used to form ampoules as recited in instant claim 12, as evidenced by GlassOnline which teaches that FIOLAX® glass tubing made by Schott AG is used to form ampoules.
As to claims 3-16, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have the fining viscosity, TL softening point, and coefficient of thermal expansion properties as recited in claims 13-16.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 17, Greulich et al. teach a method of making glass which includes removing bubbles (or refining) from the glass melt, (see paragraph [0002]), the method includes adding refining agents the glass melt, (see paragraphs [0026] and [0027]), Greulich et al. teach the method is made to form FIOLAX® glasses (see paragraph [0019]) which reads on a method of fining glass being used to form glass tubing as recited in instant claim 17, as evidenced by GlassOnline which teaches that FIOLAX® glass is glass tubing made by Schott AG.
As to claim 18, Greulich et al. teach a method of making a glass used in the making of FIOLAX® (see paragraph [0019]), which reads on the glass tubing being used to form pharmaceutical packaging as recited in instant claim 18, as evidenced by GlassOnline which teaches that FIOLAX® glass tubing made by Schott AG is used in the pharmaceutical industry.
As to claim 19, Greulich et al. teach a method of making a glass used in the making of FIOLAX® (see paragraph [0019]), which reads on the pharmaceutical glass tubing being used to form ampoules as recited in instant claim 19, as evidenced by GlassOnline which teaches that FIOLAX® glass tubing made by Schott AG is used to form ampoules.
Claims 1-5 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tratzky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication, US 2014/0323287 A1.
Tratzky et al. teach a glass having the following composition in terms of weight percentages: 71-77% of SiO2, 9-12% of B2O3, 5.5-8% of Al2O3, 6-8% of Na2O, 0.1-0.9% of K2O, 0-0.3% of Li2O, 0-1.5% of CaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, 0-0.6% of ZnO, and refining agents: CeO2, Fe2O3, As2O3, Sb2O3, SnO2, chlorides, fluorides, and sulphates in the amount of 0.003-0.6%. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0035] and [0045]-[0056]. Tratzky et al. teach that the glass is for pharmaceutical packaging. See paragraph [0005]. Tratzky et al. teach that the pharmaceutical packaging includes tubes and ampoules. See paragraphs [0056], [0058], [0062], and [0080].
Tratzky et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 1-5 and 8-19.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Tratzky et al. teach the glass comprising refining agents: CeO2, Fe2O3, As2O3, Sb2O3, SnO2, chlorides, fluorides, and sulphates in the amount of 0.003-0.6wt% (see paragraph [0056]), which reads on the fining package comprising 0.08-0.5 wt% of CeO2 and 0.02-0.23 wt% of SnO2 as recited in instant claim 1.
The weight percent ranges taught by Tratzky et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 1. 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 the reference 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 Tratzky 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.
As to claim 2, Tratzky et al. teach that the refining agents may comprise chloride (see paragraph [0056]), which reads on the fining package comprising chloride in the amount of 0-0.03 wt%, as recited in instant claim 2. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 3, Tratzky et al. teach that the refining agents may comprise chloride but don’t require chloride (see paragraph [0056]), which reads on the fining package being Cl-free, as recited in instant claim 3. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 4, Tratzky et al. teach that the refining agents may comprise fluoride but don’t require fluoride (see paragraph [0056]), which reads on the fining package being F-free, as recited in instant claim 4. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 5, Tratzky et al. teach the glass comprises in terms of weight percentages: 71-77% of SiO2, 9-12% of B2O3, 5.5-8% of Al2O3, 6-8% of Na2O, 0.1-0.9% of K2O, 0-0.3% of Li2O, 0-1.5% of CaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, 0-0.6% of ZnO, and refining agents: CeO2, Fe2O3, As2O3, Sb2O3, SnO2, chlorides, fluorides, and sulphates in the amount of 0.003-0.6%, (see paragraphs [0035] and [0045]-[0056]), which reads the glass composition comprising it terms of weight percentages, 70-76 wt% of SiO2, 9-13.5 % of B2O3, 4-8% of Al2O3, 0-0.1% of TiO2, 0-0.1% of Fe2O3, 0-0.1% of BaO, 0-3% of CaO, 5-8.5% of Na2O, 0.5-3% of K2O, 0-1% of MgO, 0-0.03% of Cl, 0-0.02% of F, 0.08-0.5% of CeO2, 0.02-0.23% of SnO2, and 0-0.08% of ZrO2, as recited in instant claim 5. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 8, Tratzky et al. teach the glass comprises in terms of weight percentages: 71-77% of SiO2 and 9-12% of B2O3, (see paragraphs [0045] and [0047]), which reads the glass composition being a borosilicate glass, as recited in instant claim 8. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 9, Tratzky et al. teach the glass comprises in terms of weight percentages: 68-82% of SiO2 and 5.5-8% of Al2O3, (see paragraphs [0045] and [0046]), which reads the glass composition being an aluminosilicate glass, as recited in instant claim 9. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 10, Tratzky et al. teach that the glass is used in the making of hollow bodies and tubes (see paragraphs [0058], [0062], and [0080]), which reads on the glass being used to form glass tubing as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Tratzky et al. teach that the glass is used in pharmaceutical packaging (see paragraph [00005]), which reads on the glass tubing being used to form pharmaceutical packaging as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Tratzky et al. teach that the glass is used in the making of ampoules (see paragraphs [0058] and [0060]), which reads on the pharmaceutical glass tubing being used to form ampoules as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claims 13 and 14, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have the fining viscosity and TL softening point properties as recited in claims 13 and 14.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claims 15 and 16, Tratzky et al. teach the glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion measured from 20°C to 300°C of 4.8x10-6/K to 5.6x10-6/K, (see paragraph [0061]), which reads on the glass having a coefficient of thermal expansion measured from 25°C to 300°C of 50-59.
As to claim 17, Tratzky et al. teach a method of making glass which includes removing bubbles (or refining) from the glass melt, includes adding refining agents the glass melt, (see paragraph [0056]), Tratzky et al. teach a method to form glass tubing (see paragraphs [0062]-[0065] and [0073]), which reads on a method of fining glass being used to form glass tubing as recited in instant claim 17.
As to claim 18, Tratzky et al. teach a method of making glass which includes removing bubbles (or refining) from the glass melt, includes adding refining agents the glass melt, (see paragraph [0056]), Tratzky et al. teach a method to form glass tubing for pharmaceutical packaging (see paragraphs [0062]-[0065] and [0073]), which reads on the glass tubing being used to form pharmaceutical packaging as recited in instant claim 18.
As to claim 19, Tratzky et al. teach method of making glass which includes removing bubbles (or refining) from the glass melt, includes adding refining agents the glass melt, (see paragraph [0056]), Tratzky et al. teach a method to form glass tubing (see paragraphs [0062]-[0065] and [0073]), Tratzky et al. teach that the pharmaceutical packaging includes ampoules (see paragraph [0058]), which reads on the pharmaceutical glass tubing being used to form ampoules as recited in instant claim 19.
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above.
Specifically, Kurachi et al., US 2008/0206494 A1 recites Example 4, which reads on at least claims 1-4, 8, and 9, Comte et al., US 2007/0129231 A1 recites Example D, which reads on at least claims 1-4 and 9, and Lautenschlager et al., US 6,096,670 A recites Example I, which reads on at least claims 1-4, 8, and 9.
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
12 March 2026