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 12/16/25 do not overcome the rejection set forth over Kawaguchi in the office action mailed 7/22/25, which is maintained below. The discussion of the rejection has been updated as necessitated by the amendments. The amendments do overcome the anticipation rejection over Murata. New grounds of rejection of the claims as obvious over Murata, necessitated by the amendments, are set forth below. The provisional double patenting rejections set forth in the office action mailed 7/22/25 are withdrawn in light of the approved terminal disclaimer filed 12/16/25 as well as the amendments filed in this application and the co-pending applications.
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 the claimed components in amounts and ratios within, overlapping, or encompassing the ranges recited in amended claim 1. 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 to 13 mol%, particularly suitably 5.5 to 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 13.5 to 25 mol%, the molar ratio of B2O3 to the total of MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO is 0 to about 0.38, 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 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 the tables following paragraph 73, Murata discloses numerous alkali-free glass substrates (examples 2, 4-5, and 30-35) having a Young’s modulus within the range recited in claim 1. While the examples of Murata have 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. 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 12/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Murata and Kawaguchi fail to teach alkali-free glass sheets having all the properties recited in amended claim 1. In particular, applicant argues that Murata and Kawaguchi do not disclose glass sheets having both the claimed Young’s modulus and strain point simultaneously, pointing to the examples provided in both references. Applicant further alleges, regarding Murata, that an excessively low Al2O3 content lowers both the Young’s modulus and the strain point, and also alleges, regarding Kawaguchi, that an excessively high B2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) ratio decreases the strain point. However, as discussed in the above rejections, Murata more broadly teaches an Al2O3 concentration range of 5 to 15 mol%, overlapping the range recited in amended claim 1. Kawaguchi discloses in paragraph 17 that the B2O3 content can be 0 mol%, and in paragraph 45 teaches preferred and more preferred ranges that still have a lower bound of 0 mol%. The B2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) ratio of Kawaguchi therefore clearly overlaps the range recited in amended claim 1. Since the concentration ranges of the components of the compositions of Murata and Kawaguchi fall within, overlap, or encompass the claimed ranges, as well as the implied ratios of the components, and the properties disclosed by Murata and Kawaguchi are also in ranges overlapping or encompassing the claimed ranges, the claims are rendered prima facie obvious in accordance with Wertheim and Peterson.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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