DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 16, 2026 has been entered.
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 and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 2009/0275462) in view of Murata (US 2009/0325776) and Ishioka (US 2005/0058424).
Regarding claim 1, Murata ‘462 discloses a glass substrate having a glass composition including, in terms of mass %, 50 to 80% of SiO2, 0 to 20% of B2O3, 0 to 20% of MgO, 0 to 20% of CaO, 0 to 20% of SrO, 0 to 20% of BaO, 0.001 to 2% of SnO2, 0 to 1% of As2O3, see abstract. The reference further discloses Sb2O3 as 0 to 2% and Li2O, Na2O, and K2O as 0 to 20% [0039 & 0041]. The glass does not contain AlF3, see entire document. Note that the ranges disclosed for the individual components of the composition overlap the claimed range, and as such, a prima facie -case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
While the reference discloses the glass contains Al2O3, the reference fails to disclose the claimed amount, see abstract.
Murata ‘776 discloses a glass composition with 1 to 25 mass % Al2O3 in order to enhance the strain point and the Young’s modulus of the glass while preventing devitrification and insufficient ion exchange [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the glass of Murata ‘462 to have 1 to 25% Al2O3 in order to enhance the strain point and the Young’s modulus of the glass while preventing devitrification and insufficient ion exchange; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Murata ‘462 also fails to disclose that the glass composition comprises greater than 0.5 wt% and less than or equal to 1.5 wt% AlF3.
Ishioka discloses a glass composition with up to 2 mass % AlF3 [0069]. The reference further discloses that AlF3 is effective for improving melting property and mechanical strength of the glass [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include up 2 mass % AlF3 in order to improve the melting property and mechanical strength of the glass of Murata ‘462; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Murata ‘462 discloses 0 to 20% K2O, which overlaps the claimed ranges [0041]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the reference discloses 0 to 20% of MgO, 0 to 20% of CaO, 0 to 20% of SrO, 0 to 20% of BaO, which corresponds to at least one alkaline earth metal within the claimed ranges, see abstract.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the reference discloses 0 to 20% Na2O, which overlaps the claimed ranges [0041]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 10, the reference discloses 0 to 20% Li2O, which overlaps the claimed range [0041]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 11, the reference discloses 0 to 20% of MgO, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract and MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 12, the reference discloses 0 to 20% of SrO, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract and MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 13, the reference discloses 0.001 to 2% of SnO2, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract and MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 14, the reference discloses 0 to 10% of ZnO, which overlaps the claimed range [0036]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 15, the reference discloses 0 to 2% of Zr2O, which overlaps the claimed range [0037]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the reference discloses the glass substrate has a Young’s modulus of 68 GPa or more, which overlaps the claimed ranges [0020]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 18, the reference discloses the temperature at the viscosity of 10 2.5 dPa·s is preferably 1,550°C or lower, which is considered to render obvious a 200 Poise temperature of less than 1500°C [0049]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 19, the reference discloses the glass substrate has a thermal expansion coefficient from 25 to 10x10-7/°C, which overlaps the claimed range [0047]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ishioka fails to disclose an AlF3 content within the claimed range. According to Applicant, the reference teaches glass compositions that include Al from 1 mol% or greater and F from 15 mol% or greater, see Ishioka [0040 & 0047]. Applicant further notes that neither of the Murata references teach the claimed range. As such, Applicant requests the withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant is correct that the reference teaches the individual amounts of Al and F as greater than the claimed range of AlF3, Examiner notes that the reference specifically discloses AlF3 may be added in an amount preferably up to 1 mass %, which overlaps the claimed range [0069]. As discussed above and previously, 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. Further, Examiner notes that the portions of the reference cited by Applicant do not require Al and F to be in the form of AlF3 [0041 & 0048]. Given the reference discloses a range for AlF3 content that overlaps the claimed range and provides motivation the amount of AlF3 [0069] and given the portions cited by Applicant do not necessarily refer to AlF3, the combination of Murata ‘462 in view of Ishioka and Murata ‘776 renders obvious the claimed invention.
For the above reasons, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are respectfully maintained.
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