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 .
The amendments filed 7/23/26 do not overcome the rejections set forth in the office action mailed 4/29/26. The discussion of the rejection over Murata has been updated as necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2014/0377525).
In paragraph 17 Kawaguchi discloses an alkali-free glass having an Li2O+Na2O+K2O content of less than 0.2% (2000 ppm), within the range recited in claim 1. In paragraph 17 Kawaguchi further discloses that the glass comprises 60 to 70 mol% of SiO2, 9.5 to 17 mol% of Al2O3, 0 to 9 mol% of B2O3, 0 to 8 mol% of MgO, 2 to 15 mol% of CaO, 0.1 to 10 mol% of SrO, and 0.5 to 4 mol% of BaO, leading to an MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO concentration of 2.6 to 37 mol%, all within, overlapping, or encompassing the concentration ranges recited in amended claim 1, and leading to ranges of ratios encompassing the ranges recited in claim 1. In paragraphs 46-49 Kawaguchi discloses that MgO is particularly preferably present in 0 to 6 mol%, CaO is particularly preferably present in 2 to 11 mol%, SrO is particularly preferably present in 0.1 to 6 mol%, and BaO is particularly preferably present in 0.9 to 4 mol%, all within, overlapping or encompassing the claimed ranges and leading to a particularly preferred MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO concentration of 3 to 27 mol%, also encompassing the claimed range. In paragraphs 63-64 Kawaguchi discloses that the glass has a Young’s modulus and strain point in ranges encompassing the ranges recited in amended claim 1, and in paragraph 67 Kawaguchi discloses that the glass has a liquidus temperature within the range recited in claim 1. In paragraph 85 Kawaguchi indicates that the glass is formed into a sheet.
. In paragraph 21 Kawaguchi teaches that the glass is preferably substantially free of As2O3 or Sb2O3, meeting the limitations of claim 3. In paragraph 20 Kawaguchi discloses that the glass comprises 0.001 to 0.3 mol% of SnO2, within the range recited in claim 4. In paragraph 68 Kawaguchi discloses that the glass has an average thermal expansion coefficient meeting the limitations of claim 7. In paragraph 82 Kawaguchi discloses that the glass is used for an OLED display, as recited in claim 9.
The difference between Kawaguchi and the currently presented claims is that some of the ranges of Kawaguchi overlap or encompass the claimed ranges rather than falling within them. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 9 are therefore rendered obvious by Kawaguchi.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2014/0049708).
In paragraph 25 Murata discloses a glass substrate for a liquid crystal lens. In paragraph 26 Murata discloses that the glass substrate more preferably comprises 55 to 72 mol% of SiO2. In paragraph 25 Murata discloses that the glass substrate comprises 5 to 15 mol% of Al2O3. In paragraph 28 Murata discloses that the glass substrate suitably comprises 5 mol% or less of B2O3. In paragraph 29 Murata discloses that the glass substrate suitably comprises 6 mol% or more and particularly suitably 9 mol% or less of MgO. In paragraph 30 Murata discloses that the glass substrate suitably comprises 1.5 mol% or more and particularly suitably 8 mol% of CaO. In paragraph 32 Murata discloses that the glass substrate preferably contains 0 to 10 or 0 to 5 mol% of SrO. In paragraph 33 Murata discloses that the glass substrate suitably comprises 0.5 to 8 mol%, particularly suitably 2 to 3 mol%, of BaO. In paragraph 19 Murata discloses that the glass substrate is substantially free of Li2O, Na2O, and K2O, where substantially free refers to a content of less than 0.1 mol%. All the ranges discussed above fall within, overlap, or encompass the ranges recited in amended claim 1, and lead to sums and ratios at least overlapping the ranges of sums and ratios recited in amended claim 1. In particular, the total concentration of MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO from the above-discussed ranges is 9.5 to 25 mol%, the molar ratio of B2O3 to the total of MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO is 0 to about 0.53, the molar ratio of (B2O3+MgO)/SiO2 is about 0.08 (6/72) to about 0.25 (14/55), and the molar ratio of B2O3 to MgO is 0 to about 0.83, all encompassing the ranges recited in claim 1.
In paragraph 68 Murata discloses that the substrate can be formed into a sheet shape. In Table 5, Murata discloses an alkali-free glass substrate (example 35) having a Young’s modulus of 84 GPa, within the range recited in amended claim 1. While Example 35 of Murata has an Al2O3 content slightly below the lower bound of the range recited in the amended claims, the broader disclosure in paragraphs 25-26 of Murata discloses a concentration range overlapping the range recited in amended claim 1, and Murata indicates in paragraph 26 that the inclusion of Al2O3 enhances the Young’s modulus. More broadly, Murata discloses in paragraph 66 that the glass substrate particularly preferably has a specific Young’s modulus of 31.5 GPa/(g/cm3) or more, and in paragraph 60 discloses that the glass substrate preferably has a density of 2.7 g/cm3 or less. At a density of 2.7 g/cm3, within the preferred range of Murata, a specific Young’s modulus of 31.5 GPa/(g/cm3) or more yields a Young’s modulus of 85 GPa or more, within the range recited in claim 1, and even the broader preferred specific Young’s modulus ranges of Murata also yield Young’s modulus ranges encompassing the claimed ranges. In paragraph 62 Murata discloses that the glass substrates particularly preferably have a strain point of 730° C or more, encompassing the range recited in amended claim 1, and in paragraph 63 Murata discloses that the glass substrate preferably has a liquidus temperature of 1320° C or less, within the range recited in amended claim 1.
In paragraph 19 Murata discloses that the glass substrate is substantially free of As2O3 and Sb2O3, meeting the limitations of claim 3. In paragraph 40 Murata discloses that the glass substrate can comprise SnO2 in amounts within or overlapping the range recited in claim 4. In paragraph 61 Murata discloses that the glass substrate preferably has a thermal expansion coefficient within the range recited in claim 7. In paragraph 64 Murata discloses that the glass substrate preferably has a liquidus viscosity within the range recited in claim 8. In paragraph 22 Murata discloses that the glass substrate can be applied to a substrate for an OLED display, meeting the limitations of claim 9.
The difference between Murata and the currently presented claims is that some of the ranges of Murata overlap or encompass the claimed ranges rather than falling within them. See MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);” "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In light of the above, claims 1, 3-4, and 7-9 are rendered obvious by Murata.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Kawaguchi, applicant argues that the examples of Kawaguchi do not have both a B2O3 content of 0 to 4.4 mol% and a Young’s modulus of 84 GPa or more. However, as discussed in the rejection, paragraph 17 of Kawaguchi discloses a B2O3 content and a Young’s modulus in ranges encompassing the ranges recited in amended claim 1. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)
Regarding Murata, applicant argues that all the examples of Murata have less than 13 mol% of Al2O3 and no example has both a Young’s modulus of 84 GPa and a strain point of 740° C or higher. However, as discussed in the rejection above, Murata discloses an Al2O3 concentration range and a preferred strain point range each overlapping or encompassing the claimed ranges, and the preferred Young’s modulus ranges implied by the preferred specific Young’s modulus and density ranges of Murata fall within or encompass the range recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30.
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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights