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
Newly submitted claim 17 is directed to a species that is independent or distinct from the species originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
The content of SiO2 is 15% by weight to 65% by weight (original claim 2)
The content of SiO2 is 20% by weight to 49.1% by weight (new claim 17).
The species are independent or distinct because they are completely different compositions. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 17 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009274902A cited by Applicants.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5 and 18: ‘902A teaches the following glass composition in wt% (0010).
Wt%
SiO2
50-60
B2O3
15-22
Al2O3
8-15
ZnO
5-20
Li2O
0-2
Na2O
0-5
Na2O+Li2O
0-5
MgO
0-2
SrO
0-2
BaO
0-2
SnO
0-2
As2O3 and/or Sb2O3
0-1
As shown above, the glass comprises SiO2, B2O3, Al2O3 and ZnO with the SiO2 and B2O3 contents falling within the ranges of claim 1 and overlapping those of claims 2 and 3 (MPEP 2144.05).
As also shown above, the glass can include a metal component of Sn, the ranges shown for the alkali (Li and Na) and alkaline (Mg, Sr, Ba) metals allows for 0wt% of these metals thereby overlapping Applicants recited “excluded” limitation (i.e. 0%) (MPEP 2144.05), and there is no copper halide disclosed (0%).
Regarding the ratios recited in claims 1, 5 and 18, the above taught ranges for SiO2, B2O3, Al2O3 and ZnO allow for ratios of SiO2 to B2O3 and Al2O3 to ZnO overlapping those claimed (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, it is noted for the record that given that all of ‘902’s 10 Examples suggests SiO2/B2O3 and Al2O3/ZnO ratios meeting that of claims 1 and 5 as shown below and some of the Examples even suggests Al2O3/ZnO ratios meeting that of claim 18 (see Examples 1, 4, 7 and 10), arriving at the claimed ratios using ‘902’s overlapping ranges would have been considered obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SiO2/B2O3
2.66
2.66
3.24
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.81
2.82
3.59
3.38
Al2O3/ZnO
1.05
0.8
0.95
1.05
0.95
0.95
1.04
0.94
1.26
1.05
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784