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Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajihara et al. (US 2018/0170795) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2017/0283304).
Regarding claim 1, Kajihara discloses a glass that includes, in mass percentage on an oxide basis, 50 to 85% SiO2, more than 0% to 14% or less Al2O3, 0 to 10% B2O3, 2% or less Li2O, 1 to 20% Na2O, 20% or less K2O, 5 to 90 ppm Fe2O3, more than 0 to less to 0.8 ppm or less Ni, 0.1 or more to 1.0 ppm or less Cr and 1000 ppm or less TiO2, see abstract and [0056, 0081, 0084, 0093, 0095 & 0107]. Note that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges and that 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.
The reference fails to disclose the claimed amount of Al2O3.
Yamazaki discloses a glass sheet that includes Al2O3 as a component effective to improve ion exchange performance and chipping resistance or a component that increases the surface compressive stress, and is an essential component [0028]. With the content of Al2O3 which is equal to or more than 12%, a desired surface compressive stress value or compressive stress layer thickness is obtained by ion exchange [0028]. With the content of Al2O3 which is equal to or less than 20%, it is possible to prevent an increase of the viscosity of the glass and to perform uniform melting, or it is possible to avoid degradation of the acid resistance [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the glass composition of Kajihara to include the amount of Al2O3 in order to improve ion exchange and chipping resistance while preventing the increase in viscosity and avoiding degradation.
Regarding claims 2-4, Kajihara discloses a glass that includes, in mass percentage on an oxide basis, 50 to 85% SiO2, more than 0% to 14% or less Al2O3, 0 to 10% B2O3, 2% or less Li2O, 1 to 20% Na2O, 20% or less K2O, 0 to 15% or less ZrO2, 5 to 90 ppm Fe2O3, more than 0 to less to 0.8 ppm or less Ni, 0.1 or more to 1.0 ppm or less Cr and 1000 ppm or less TiO2, see abstract and [0056, 0081, 0084, 0093, 0095, 0107 & 0127]; see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges. Note that the disclosed composition does not include P2O5, see entire document.
The reference fails to disclose the claimed amount of Al2O3.
Yamazaki discloses a glass sheet that includes Al2O3 as a component effective to improve ion exchange performance and chipping resistance or a component that increases the surface compressive stress, and is an essential component [0028]. With the content of Al2O3 which is equal to or more than 12%, a desired surface compressive stress value or compressive stress layer thickness is obtained by ion exchange [0028]. With the content of Al2O3 which is equal to or less than 20%, it is possible to prevent an increase of the viscosity of the glass and to perform uniform melting, or it is possible to avoid degradation of the acid resistance [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the glass composition of Kajihara to include the amount of Al2O3 in order to improve ion exchange and chipping resistance while preventing the increase in viscosity and avoiding degradation.
Regarding claim 5, Kajihara discloses the glass contains 1% or less SnO2, which overlaps the claimed range [0130]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 6, the reference fails to disclose the composition as include from 0.001% to 0.3% Cl.
Yamazaki discloses a chloride, a fluoride, or the like may be suitably contained as a refining agent for glass melting [0040]. In the case of containing such components, the total content of the components is typically less than 1% [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the glass of Kajihara to include 1% or less of Cl in order to provide a suitable refining agent; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 7, Kajihara discloses the glass includes preferably more than 0 and 0.5% or less SO3, which overlaps the claimed range [0133]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 8, the reference discloses the glass has a sheet shape [0001].
Regarding claims 9-11, while the references do not specially disclose the claimed external transmittance values and the claimed chromaticity, given the glass of Kajihara in view of Yamazaki renders obvious the claimed glass in terms of composition, the reference is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed properties, see above discussion. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties; see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 12, Kajihara discloses the glass as a cover glass [0002].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajihara et al. (US 2018/0170795) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2017/0283304) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niida et al. (US 2009/0088309).
Kajihara in view of Yamazaki discloses the glass composition of claim 1, see above discussion. The references, however, fail to disclose the composition as include from 0.001% to 0.3% Cl.
Niida discloses a glass composition that include Cl as a suitable refining agent [0063]. Additionally, the reference discloses that Cl may cause striae in glass articles and may make it difficult to adjust the refractive index [0063]. As such the content of Cl needs to be 1% or less [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the glass of Kajihara to include 1% or less of Cl in order to provide a suitable refining agent without causing striae and without making it difficult to adjust the refractive index; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot in view of a new combination of prior art.
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 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
Prosecution Insights