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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered.
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. (JP2012041260A 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 based crystallized glass), comprising: in mass%, from 0 to less than 0.38% of TiO2 (see Nakane at [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing TiO2 0-8%, 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), from 0 to less than 0.01% of Sb2O3 + As2O3 (see Nakane at [0013] from the machine translation, disclosing the crystallized glass substantially does not contain As2O3 or Sb2O3.), and having a β-OH value from 0.001 to 2/mm (see Nakane at [0013] from the machine translation, disclosing a β-OH value of 0.2/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 [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing SiO2 50-80%, which is within the claimed range.); from 5 to 30% of Al2O3 (see Nakane at [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing Al2O3 12-30%, which is within the claimed range.); from 1 to 10% of Li2O (see Nakane at [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing Li2O 1-6%, which is within the claimed range.); from 0 to 20% of SnO2 (see Nakane at [0016] from the machine translation, disclosing a SnO2 content of 0.5% by mass or less, which is within the claimed range.); from 1 to 20% of ZrO2 (see Nakane at [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing ZrO2 0-7%, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of MgO (see Nakane at [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing MgO 0-5%, which is within the claimed range.); and from 0 to 10% of P2O5 (see Nakane at [0019] 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 [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing Na2O 0-5%, which overlaps with the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of K2O (see Nakane at [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing K2O 0-10%, which is the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of CaO (see Nakane at [0052] from the machine translation, disclosing up to 5% CaO, which is within the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of SrO (Nakane does not disclose SrO, which corresponds to 0% SrO); from 0 to 10% of BaO (see Nakane at [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing BaO 0-8%, which is within the claimed range.); from 0 to 10% of ZnO (see Nakane at [0019] from the machine translation, disclosing ZnO 0-10%, which is the claimed range.); and from 0 to 10% of B2O3 (see Nakane at [0052] from the machine translation, disclosing up to 10% B2O3, which is 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).
Regarding claim 5, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of SnO2/(SnO2 + ZrO2 + P2O5 + TiO2 + B2O3), Nakane at [0016] discloses a SnO2 content of 0.5% by mass or less, at [0019] discloses ZrO2 0-7%, discloses no P2O5, at [0019] discloses TiO2 0-8%, and at [0052] disclosing up to 10% B2O3. 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 0.5% B2O3 corresponds to a value of 0.4/(0.4+1.6+0+0.5+0.5)= 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, and thus the compositional ranges of Nakane overlap with 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 5+10+0+0+8= 23%, or 0-23%, 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 0.1% TiO2 and 0.1% ZrO2 provides a ratio of TiO2/ZrO2 of 0.1/0.1= 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. See Nakane at [0017], disclosing impurities such as Fe. 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 0.1% TiO2 and > 0.0% Fe2O3 provides a ratio of TiO2/(TiO2 + Fe2O3) of 0.1/(0.1+>0)= less than 1 which is close to touching 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 are close to touching 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).
Regarding claim 19, Nakane discloses a colorless (see Nakane at [0025], disclosing a colorless Li2O-SiO2-Al2O3 based crystallized glass.) and transparent appearance (see Nakane at [0036], disclosing transparent crystallized 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 [0081] disclosing β-quartz solid solution precipitated as the main crystal.).
Regarding claim 22, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a thermal expansion coefficient at 30 to 380°C is 30 x 10-7/°C or less, the coefficient of thermal expansion of a crystallized glass is a function of the composition of the crystallized glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0054] which state if the content of SiO2 is excessively small, the thermal expansion coefficient tends to be high. Because the composition of Nakane is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections above, the crystallized glass of Nakane would inherently possess the claimed thermal expansion coefficient.
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 page 6 of the Remarks, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 in view of Nakane from the Final rejection dated 02/12/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Nakane reference cited above, which Examiner notes is a different Nakane publication from the Nakane cited in the Final rejection dated 02/12/2026.
Conclusion
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
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights