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 Species I, claims 1 and 8-10 in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 09/16/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 is directed towards the glass ceramic according to claim 1, wherein a proportion of LAS-based crystal in the crystal contained in the glass ceramic is 30% to 70% by mass.
The closest prior art is Yu (US20220048810, hereinafter referred to as Yu). Yu is directed towards a glass ceramic (See Yu at the Abstract). However, per instant claim 1, Yu does not disclose a glass ceramic which meets the limitations of claim 1 and which discloses or makes obvious a proportion of LAS-based crystal in the crystal contained in the glass ceramic is 30% to 70% by mass (see Yu at [0037], disclosing the petalite … accounts for not more than 15% of the glass ceramic by weight %.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US20220048810, hereinafter referred to as Yu).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a glass ceramic having a lithium aluminosilicate composition and comprising a crystal and a residual glass (See Yu at Table 5, Example 42, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising a crystal phase of LiAlS4O10, which Examiner notes is a lithium aluminosilicate composition), wherein the residual glass has a composition comprising, in terms of mol% based on oxides: 25% to 70% of SiO2 (see Yu at Table 5, Example 42, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 64 wt.% SiO2, which corresponds to approximately 63 mol% SiO2); 3% to 35% of Al2O3 (see Yu at Table 5, Example 42, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 7.5 wt.% Al2O3, which corresponds to approximately 4 mol% Al2O3); 0.1% to 20% of Li2O (see Yu at Table 5, Example 42, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 8.8 wt.% Li2O, which corresponds to approximately 17 mol% Li2O); 0.1% to 20% of Na2O (see Yu at Table 5, Example 42, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 7.8 wt.% Na2O, which corresponds to approximately 7 mol% Na2O); 0% to 10% of K2O (see Yu at Table 5, Example 42, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5 wt.% K2O, which corresponds to approximately 3 mol% K2O); and 1% to 15% of ZrO2 (see Yu at Table 5, Example 42, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2 wt.% ZrO2, which corresponds to approximately 1 mol% ZrO2), and a parameter V is -600 or more and 720 or less, the parameter V being calculated based on the following formula by using contents [SiO2], [Al2O3], [P2O5], [MgO], [CaO], [SrO], [Li2O], [Na2O], [K2O], [TiO2], and [ZrO2] of respective components of SiO2, Al2O3, P2O5, MgO, CaO, SrO, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, TiO2, and ZrO2 in terms of mol% based on oxides in the residual glass:
PNG
media_image1.png
95
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(See Yu at Table 5, Example 42, disclosing an example of a glass comprising the components disclosed above, which corresponds to a V value of approximately 663.)
Regarding claim 8, Yu discloses further comprising at least one LAS-based crystal selected from a β-spodumene crystal, a petalite crystal, and a eucryptite crystal (See Yu at Table 5, Example 42, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a crystal phase of LiAlSi4O10, which Examiner notes corresponds to petalite).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Click et al. (US20210238083, hereinafter referred to as Click).
Regarding claim 9, while Yu is directed towards a glass ceramic applicable to portable electronic devices (see Yu at the Abstract), Yu does not disclose a crystallization rate is 50% to 90% because Yu is silent as to the crystallization rate. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the arts would naturally look to the prior art to determine an appropriate crystallization rate.
Click is directed towards a glass ceramic article including a lithium disilicate crystalline phase (see Click at the Abstract). Click is directed towards glass for portable electronic devices (See Click at [0003]). Click teaches an undesirable amount of residual glass, which can lead to deformation during crystallization and undesirable microstructures from a mechanical property perspective (See Click at [0369]). Click discloses a residual glass content of about 5 to about 30 wt % (see Click at [0420]). Examiner notes this corresponds to a crystallization rate of 70-95%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the glass ceramic for portable electronic devices of Yu to select a crystallization rate within the overlapping claimed range as disclosed by Click with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass ceramic for portable electronic devices without undesirable microstructures from a mechanical properties perspective as taught by Click.
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