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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/22/2025.
Examiner notes claims 7-8 do not appear to contain the allowable subject matter of claim 1. Claim 7 is directed towards a glass ceramic with all limitations directed towards the total wt.%, and no apparent claims directed to the aggregate. Claim 8 is directed towards a sintered article, where it is not apparent that the aggregate of claim 1 remains as a phase separate and distinct from the glass of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 claims “the weight ratio of the SiO2 to the B2O3 (SiO2/B2O3) is 1.21 to 3.67, however it is unclear whether this limitation is directed towards the SiO2 and B2O3 of the glass from line 2 of claim 1, from the aggregate of line 14 of claim 1, or from the sum total composition of the glass ceramic of line 1 of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as referring to the SiO2/B2O3 weight ratio of the glass of line 2 of claim 1 unless otherwise clarified by Applicant during the course of prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are allowed.
Claim 1 is directed towards a glass ceramic comprising: a glass containing: SiO2 at a content of 20% by weight to 55% by weight; B2O3 at a content of 15% by weight to 30% by weight; Al2O3; and ZnO, wherein a weight ratio of the SiO2 to the B2O3 (SiO2/B2O3) is 1.21 or higher, and a weight ratio of the Al2O3 to the ZnO (Al2O3/ZnO) is 0.8 to 1.3, and a TiO2 content, a ZrO2 content, a SnO2 content, and a SrO content in the glass each being 0% by weight to 5% by weight; and aggregates including: 20% by weight to 50% by weight of a SiO2 aggregate, 1% by weight to 10% by weight of a TiO2 aggregate, 3% by weight or less of a ZrO2 aggregate, and 1% by weight or less of a ZnO aggregate, each relative to a weight of the glass ceramic.
The closest prior art is Khadilkar et al. (US20080053592, hereinafter referred to as Khadilkar). Khadilkar discloses a glass (see Khadilkar at [0005]). Khadilkar discloses MIX H from Table 2 comprising 65 wt.% S-46/6, 24 wt.% cristobalite, 3 wt.% TiO2, 3 wt.% ZrO2, 3 wt.% alumina, and 2 wt.% V9250. Khadilkar discloses S46/6 is a low alkali zinc borosilicate glass (see Khadilkar at [0049]). Examiner notes cristobalite is a SiO2 aggregate. However, per instant claim 1, Khadilkar fails to disclose or make obvious a glass containing SiO2 from 20-55 wt.%, B2O3 from 15-30 wt.%, Al2O3, and ZnO. As such, the cited prior art neither teaches nor fairly suggests the glass ceramic as claimed in independent claim 1.
All claims not specifically addressed are allowed due to their dependence on an allowed claim, or because they contain all of the allowable limitations of an allowed claim.
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