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Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon et al. (US 3,275,492) in view of Beall et al. (US 2017/0210665).
Regarding claim 1, Leon discloses an opal glass comprising a normally transparent base glass and an ingredient that dissolves during melting and precipitates in finely dispersed form during cooling or other subsequent treatment of the glass, see col. 1 lines 1-21. Note that the disclosed opal glass comprising a transparent base with precipitates of an ingredient finely dispersed within the glass corresponds to the claimed phase-separated opal glass with a dispersed phase present.
The reference further discloses the components of the opal glass, in mol percent, as B2O3 and SiO2 present in total amount of from 75 to 95% with the mol ratio of B2O3 to SiO2 varying from 0.1 to 0.6, 1 to 7% R2O selected from Li2O, K2O and Na2O, and Al2O3 not exceeding 1%, see col. 2 lines 8-32. 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. Also note that based on the total sum of B2O3 and SiO2 and the ratio disclosed by the reference, the reference is considered to render obvious the claimed ranges for those components, see col. 2 lines 14-20. For example, if the amount of SiO2 is 45 mol%, then the disclosed opal glass will have from 4.5% to 27% B2O3 based on the disclosed molar ratio, see above discussion.
The reference fails to disclose the claimed particle size of the dispersed phase.
Beall discloses that the term “opal” refers to an opaque, optically dense white and/or light scattering glass, ceramic or glass ceramic material [0024]. The reference further discloses that an opal or opalized material comprises at least one crystalline or ceramic phase in which the crystalline particles have a mean particle size that is within or greater than the wavelength range of visible light (400 nm – 750nm) [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the dispersed phase of Leon to have the particle size of Beall as a suitable size for crystalline particles in an opal glass; see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 9, Leon discloses the opal glass comprises RO, monovalent oxides selected from a group that includes MgO and CaO, in an amount totaling from 3 to 24 mol%, see col. 2 lines 8-21. Note that the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 5 and 10-12, while the references do not specifically disclose the claimed variation of light transmittance, the references render obvious an opal glass with the claimed composition and particle size, see above discussion. As such, the references are considered to render obvious an opal glass with the claimed variation of light transmittance given products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties; see MPEP 2112.01 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 9-12 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