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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 7, 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.
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 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%).
While the above Table may not explicitly show a range for a metal component consisting of Zr, as ‘902A does teach that other components may be added, with it being preferable that each component other than SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3 and ZnO does not exceed 5wt% (0032), and ‘902A’s Examples clearly suggests ZrO2 being a suitable additional component (see Example 3 for instance including 1.3wt% ZrO2), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to add ZrO2 as desired with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In summary, Applicants argue that ‘902A does not teach nor render obvious the composition of claim 1 which includes a metal component consisting of Zr.
This is not persuasive. While the Examiner does acknowledge that ‘902A may not provide an explicit lengthy discussion regarding adding Zr specifically, note that as ‘902A does teach that other components may be added, with it being preferable that each component other than SiO2, Al2O3, B2O3 and ZnO does not exceed 5wt% (0032), and ‘902A’s Examples clearly suggests ZrO2 being a suitable additional component (see Example 3 for instance including 1.3wt% ZrO2), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to add ZrO2 as desired with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights