DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14, 19-22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakane et al. (JP2006044997 with reference to machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Nakane).
Regarding claim 1, Nakane discloses a Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2-based crystallized glass (see Nakane at the Title, disclosing a Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2 glass), comprising: in mass%, from 0 to less than 0.5% of TiO2 (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing TiO2 0.5~10% in mass%, which is close to overlapping with the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph), from 0 to less than 0.01% of Sb2O3 + As2O3 (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing As2O3 0-2.5% and Sb2O3 0-2.5%, which provides a value of Sb2O3 + As2O3 from 0-5%, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05), and having a β-OH value from 0.001 to 2/mm (See Nakane at the third paragraph of page 2 from the machine translation, disclosing a β-OH of 0.35/mm or more, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 2, Nakane discloses further comprising: in mass%, from 40 to 90% of SiO2 (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing SiO2 50 to 75%, which is within the claimed range.); from 5 to 30% of Al2O3 (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing Al2O3 15 to 30%, which is within the claimed range.); from 1 to 10% of Li2O (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing Li2O 2~5%, which is within the claimed range.); from 0 to 20% of SnO2 (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing SnO2 0~2.5%, which is within the claimed range.); from 1 to 20% of ZrO2 (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing ZrO2 0-7%, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of MgO (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing MgO 0-8%, which is within the claimed range.); and from 0 to 10% of P2O5 (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing P2O5 0-7%, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 3, Nakane discloses further comprising: in mass%, from 0 to 10% of Na2O (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing Na2O 0-7%, which is within the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of K2O (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing K2O 0-7%, which is within the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of CaO (Nakane does not disclose CaO, which corresponds to 0% CaO, which is within the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of SrO (Nakane does not disclose SrO, which corresponds to 0% SrO, which is within the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of BaO (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing BaO 0-8%, which is within the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of ZnO (See Nakane at the second paragraph of page 3 from the machine translation, disclosing 0-8% ZnO, which is within the claimed range.); and from 0 to 10% of B2O3 (Nakane does not disclose B2O3, which corresponds to 0% B2O3, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 4, Nakane discloses further comprising: in mass%, 0.1 % or less of Fe2O3 (Nakane does not disclose Fe2O3, which corresponds to 0% Fe2O3, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of SnO2/(SnO2 + ZrO2 + P2O5 + TiO2 + B2O3) is 0.06 or greater, Nakane discloses a range of SnO2, ZrO2, P2O5, TiO2, and B2O3 as detailed above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 0.4% SnO2, 1.6% ZrO2, 0.5% P2O5, 0.5 wt.% TiO2, and 0% B2O3 corresponds to a value of 0.4/(0.4+1.6+0.5+0.5+0)= 0.13, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the SnO2, ZrO2, P2O5, TiO2, and B2O3 ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of SnO2/(SnO2 + ZrO2 + P2O5 + TiO2 + B2O3) which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of Al2O3/(SnO2 + ZrO2) is 7.1 or less because Nakane does not disclose a mass ratio of Al2O3/(SnO2 + ZrO2), Nakane discloses values of Al2O3, SnO2, and ZrO2 as detailed in the rejections above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 21% Al2O3, 0.4% SnO2, and 1.6% ZrO2 are within the range disclosed by Nakane and provides for a ratio of 17/(0.4+2.1)= 6.8, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the Al2O3, SnO2, and ZrO2 ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of Al2O3/(SnO2 + ZrO2) which overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of SnO2/(SnO2 + ZrO2) is 0.01 to 0.99 because Nakane does not disclose a mass ratio of SnO2/(SnO2 + ZrO2), Nakane discloses values of SnO2 and ZrO2 as detailed in the rejections above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 0.4% SnO2 and 1.6% ZrO2 is within the range disclosed by Nakane and provides for a mass ratio of 0.4/(0.4+1.6)= 0.2, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the SnO2 and ZrO2 ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of SnO2/(SnO2 + ZrO2) which overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose in mass%, 8% or less of Na2O + K2O + CaO + SrO + BaO, Nakane discloses 0% CaO and SrO as detailed in the rejections above, as well as a range of Na2O, K2O and BaO as disclosed in the rejections above. This provides a range of values from 0% to 7+7+0+0+8= 22%, or 0-22%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of (SiO2 + Al2O3)/Li2O is 20 or greater because Nakane does not disclose a mass ratio of (SiO2 + Al2O3)/Li2O, Nakane discloses values of SiO2, Al2O3, and Li2O as detailed in the rejections above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 67.7% SiO2, 21% Al2O3, and 4.1% Li2O provides a ratio of (SiO2 + Al2O3)/Li2O of (67.7+21)/4.1= 21.6 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the SiO2, Al2O3, and Li2O ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of (SiO2 + Al2O3)/Li2O which overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of (SiO2 + Al2O3)/SnO2 is 44 or greater because Nakane does not disclose a mass ratio of (SiO2 + Al2O3)/SnO2, Nakane discloses values of SiO2, Al2O3, and SnO2 as detailed in the rejections above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 67.7% SiO2, 21% Al2O3, and 0.4% SnO2 provides a ratio of (SiO2 + Al2O3)/SnO2 of (67.7+21)/0.4= 221.75 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the SiO2, Al2O3, and SnO2 ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of (SiO2 + Al2O3)/SnO2 which overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of (MgO + ZnO)/Li2O is less than 0.395 or greater than 0.754 because Nakane does not disclose a mass ratio of (MgO + ZnO)/Li2O, Nakane discloses values of MgO, ZnO, and Li2O as detailed in the rejections above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 1 MgO, 1 ZnO, and 3.5 Li2O provides a ratio of (MgO + ZnO)/Li2O of (1+1)/3.5= 0.57 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the MgO, ZnO, and Li2O ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of (MgO + ZnO)/Li2O which overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of (Li2O + Na2O + K2O)/ZrO2 is 2.0 or less because Nakane does not disclose a mass ratio of (Li2O + Na2O + K2O)/ZrO2, Nakane discloses values of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, and ZrO2 as detailed in the rejections above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 4.1% Li2O, 0% Na2O, 0% K2O, and 2.1% ZrO2 provides a ratio of (Li2O + Na2O + K2O)/ZrO2 of (4.1+0+0)/2.1= 1.95, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the Li2O, Na2O, K2O, and ZrO2 ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of (Li2O + Na2O + K2O)/ZrO2 which overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of TiO2/ZrO2 is 0.0001 to 5.0 because Nakane does not disclose a mass ratio of TiO2/ZrO2, Nakane discloses values of TiO2 and ZrO2 as detailed in the rejections above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 0.5% TiO2 and 0.5% ZrO2 provides a ratio of TiO2/ZrO2 of 0.5/0.5= 1 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the TiO2 and ZrO2 ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of TiO2/ZrO2 which overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of TiO2/(TiO2 + Fe2O3) is from 0.001 to 0.999 because Nakane does not disclose a mass ratio of TiO2/(TiO2 + Fe2O3), Nakane discloses values of TiO2 and Fe2O3 as detailed in the rejections above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 0.5% TiO2 and 0.08% Fe2O3 provides a ratio of TiO2/(TiO2 + Fe2O3) of 0.5/(0.5+0.08)= 0.862 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the TiO2 and Fe2O3 ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of TiO2/(TiO2 + Fe2O3) which overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Nakane discloses Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2-based crystallized glass having a colorless (Nakane does not disclose the glass has a color, which corresponds to colorless glass) and transparent appearance (see Nakane at the Title, disclosing transparent glass).
Regarding claim 20, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a transmittance of 10% or greater at a thickness of 3 mm and a wavelength of 300 nm, the transmittance of the crystallized glass is a function of the composition as evidenced by the instant specification at [0120] disclosing in a region where the content of TiO2 is less than 0.5% (in particular, 0.05% or less), in order to reduce a coloration factor other than absorption of TiO2 and the like, it is possible to significantly reduce scattering and possible to contribute to improving the transmittance. Because the composition disclosed by Nakane is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the crystallized glass of Nakane would inherently possess the claimed transmittance. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 21, Nakane discloses a β-quartz solid solution is precipitated as a main crystal (see Nakane at the sixth paragraph of the third page from the machine translation, disclosing a precipitating a β-quartz solid solution).
Regarding claim 22, Nakane discloses a thermal expansion coefficient at 30 to 380°C is 30 x 10-7/°C or less (see Nakane at the first paragraph of the third page from the machine translation, disclosing the average thermal expansion coefficient at 30 to 750°C is -10 to 10-7/°C, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 25, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of Al2O3/(Li2O + (1/2 x (MgO + ZnO)) is from 3.0 to 8.0 because Nakane does not disclose a mass ratio of Al2O3/(Li2O + (1/2 x (MgO + ZnO)), Nakane discloses values of Al2O3, Li2O, MgO, and ZnO as detailed in the rejections above. It can be shown that these values overlap with the claimed mass ratio range by selecting a point within the values disclosed by Nakane, performing the mass ratio equation, and demonstrating that value is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 21.0 Al2O3, 4.1 Li2O, 0.5 MgO, and 0.2 ZnO provides a ratio of Al2O3/(Li2O + (1/2 x (MgO + ZnO)) of 21/(4.1+(0.5*(0.5+0.2)))= 4.7 which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the Al2O3, Li2O, MgO, and ZnO ranges disclosed by Nakane as detailed in the rejections above provide for values of a mass ratio of Al2O3/(Li2O + (1/2 x (MgO + ZnO)) which overlap with the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) the 103 rejection of claim 1 in view of Shimatani (US6413906) have been fully considered and are persuasive because Shimatani does not disclose or make obvious from 0 to less than 0.01% of Sb2O3 + As2O3 (see Shimatani at the Abstract, disclosing 0.05 to 4% Sb2O3). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakane as detailed in the rejections above.
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 CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/C.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731