DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 108-140 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beall et al. (US 2016/0102010).
Regarding claim 108, Beall teaches a microcrystalline glass-ceramic comprising SiO2, Al2O3, Li2O, ZrO2 and P2O5, see abstract, Table 1 and [0010 & 0170]. In some embodiments, the glass-ceramic has a composition comprising, in wt %: SiO2: 55-80%; Al2O3: 2-20%; Li2O: 5-20%; P2O5: 0.5-6%; and ZrO2: 0.2-15% [0010-0018]. Based on the ranges disclosed for the claimed components, the reference is considered to render obvious the claimed situations [0010-0018]. For example, the reference renders obvious Applicant’s example 17 of Table 3, which satisfies one or more of the claimed situations, see Beall [0010-0024]. The reference further discloses the glass-ceramic contains a lithium silicate crystalline phase [0149].
Regarding claim 109, the reference discloses the composition comprises, in wt %: SiO2: 55-80%; Al2O3: 2-20%; Li2O: 5-20%; P2O5: 0.5-6%; ZrO2: 0.2-15%; B2O3: 0-10%; Na2O: 0-5%; and ZnO: 0-10%, which overlap the claimed ranges [0010-0018]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 110-112, the reference renders obvious Applicant’s example 17 of Table 3, which satisfies one or more of the claimed situations, see Beall [0010-0024].
Regarding claim 113, the reference discloses the composition comprises, in wt %: SiO2: 55-80%; Al2O3: 2-20%; Li2O: 5-20%; P2O5: 0.5-6%; ZrO2: 0.2-15%; B2O3: 0-10%; Na2O: 0-5%; and ZnO: 0-10%, which overlap the claimed ranges [0010-0018]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 114-116, the reference discloses the glass-ceramic contains a lithium silicate crystalline phase of lithium disilicate or lithium metasilicate, which corresponds to lithium monosilicate, in range amounts that are the same as the claimed ranges and with examples within the claimed ranges [0149 & 0151]; see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 117, the reference discloses the glass ceramic contains petalite in about 20%, which is considered to overlap the claimed range [0150]; see MPEP 2144.05 I: a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding claim 118, the reference discloses the glass-ceramic has an ion exchange depth of layer of 40 microns of greater [0188].
Regarding claim 119, the reference discloses Cu2O as from 0 to about 3%, which overlaps the claimed [0173]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 120, Beall teaches a microcrystalline glass-ceramic comprising SiO2, Al2O3, Li2O, ZrO2 and P2O5, see abstract, Table 1 and [0010 & 0170]. In some embodiments, the glass-ceramic has a composition comprising, in wt %: SiO2: 55-80%; Al2O3: 2-20%; Li2O: 5-20%; P2O5: 0.5-6%; and ZrO2: 0.2-15% [0010-0018]. Based on the ranges disclosed for the claimed components, the reference is considered to render obvious the claimed situations [0010-0018]. For example, the reference renders obvious Applicant’s example 17 of Table 3, which satisfies one or more of the claimed situations, see Beall [0010-0024]. The reference further discloses the glass-ceramic contains a lithium silicate crystalline phase [0149]
Regarding claim 121, the reference discloses the composition comprises, in wt %: SiO2: 55-80%; Al2O3: 2-20%; Li2O: 5-20%; P2O5: 0.5-6%; ZrO2: 0.2-15%; B2O3: 0-10%; Na2O: 0-5%; and ZnO: 0-10%, which overlap the claimed ranges [0010-0018]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 122-124, the reference renders obvious Applicant’s example 17 of Table 3, which satisfies one or more of the claimed situations, see Beall [0010-0024].
Regarding claim 125, the reference discloses the composition comprises, in wt %: SiO2: 55-80%; Al2O3: 2-20%; Li2O: 5-20%; P2O5: 0.5-6%; ZrO2: 0.2-15%; B2O3: 0-10%; Na2O: 0-5%; and ZnO: 0-10%, which overlap the claimed ranges [0010-0018]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 126-128, the reference discloses the glass-ceramic contains a lithium silicate crystalline phase of lithium disilicate or lithium metasilicate, which corresponds to lithium monosilicate, in range amounts that are the same as the claimed ranges and with examples within the claimed ranges [0149 & 0151]; see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 129, the reference discloses the glass ceramic contains petalite in about 20%, which is considered to overlap the claimed range [0150]; see MPEP 2144.05 I: a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding claim 130, the reference teaches examples of glass-ceramics with crystallinity amount that is within the claimed range [0150-0151] see MPEP 2131.03 I.
Regarding claim 131, the reference discloses Cu2O as from 0 to about 3%, which overlaps the claimed [0173]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 132, Beall teaches a microcrystalline glass-ceramic comprising SiO2, Al2O3, Li2O, ZrO2 and P2O5, see abstract, Table 1 and [0010 & 0170]. In some embodiments, the glass-ceramic has a composition comprising, in wt %: SiO2: 55-80%; Al2O3: 2-20%; Li2O: 5-20%; P2O5: 0.5-6%; and ZrO2: 0.2-15%, which overlaps the claimed ranges [0010-0018]; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Based on the ranges disclosed for the claimed components, the reference is considered to render obvious the claimed situations [0010-0018]. For example, the reference renders obvious Applicant’s example 17 of Table 3, which satisfies one or more of the claimed situations, see Beall [0010-0024]. The reference further discloses the glass-ceramic contains a lithium silicate crystalline phase [0149]
Regarding claim 133, the reference discloses the composition comprises, in wt %: SiO2: 55-80%; Al2O3: 2-20%; Li2O: 5-20%; P2O5: 0.5-6%; ZrO2: 0.2-15%; B2O3: 0-10%; Na2O: 0-5%; and ZnO: 0-10%, which overlap the claimed ranges [0010-0018]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 134-136, the reference renders obvious Applicant’s example 17 of Table 3, which satisfies one or more of the claimed situations, see Beall [0010-0024].
Regarding claim 137, the reference discloses the composition comprises, in wt %: SiO2: 55-80%; Al2O3: 2-20%; Li2O: 5-20%; P2O5: 0.5-6%; ZrO2: 0.2-15%; B2O3: 0-10%; Na2O: 0-5%; and ZnO: 0-10%, which overlap the claimed ranges [0010-0018]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 138-140, the reference discloses the glass-ceramic as useful for display applications and hand-held, desk-top and wall-mounted consumer device coverings [0007 & 0149].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note to the extent Applicant argues that Beall does not anticipate the claimed invention, those arguments are moot given the current rejection is under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding an obviousness rejection, Applicant argues that Beall fails to direct one to compositions that satisfy all of the claimed situations (1)-(4). Additionally, Applicant argues that a composition satisfying situations (1)-(4) achieves unexpected results that promotes crystalline formation, controls haze, increase the depth of layer, reduces grain size, optimizes chemical strengthening and increases the dielectric constant. According to Applicant, the unexpected results are confirmed by the levels of crystallinity, the dielectric constant and the dielectric loss. As such, Applicant requests the withdrawal of the rejections over Beall. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above and previously, Beall renders obvious the composition of at least one example in Applicant’s specification that satisfies the claimed situations. Note that Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing criticality of the claimed range, generally by showing unexpected results achieved to the prior art range; see MPEP 2144.05 III A. In order to show criticality of the claimed range, "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims"; see MPEP 716.02(d). The examples cited from Applicant’s specification are for glass compositions containing specific metal oxides, for a glass made using a specific method, all of which are not claimed. Given the claims do not include these limitations, Applicant’s argument of criticality is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Additionally, any assertion of unexpected results must be compared with the closest prior art, see MPEP 716.02(e). Applicant has failed to provide a comparison between the claimed range and the closest prior art. While Applicant argues the prima facie case of obviousness regarding the claimed ranges is overcome by showing unexpected results, Applicant has failed to provide a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed ranges, the evidence of nonobviousness is not commensurate in scope with the claims and there is no comparison to the closest prior art. For the above reasons, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are respectfully maintained.
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 LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights