DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., US PGPub. No. 2017/0233287 A1.
Regarding claims 1-4, Li teaches a glass composition comprising SiO2 in an amount of 10-90 wt %, Li2O in an amount of 0-30 wt %, Na2O in an amount of 1-30 wt %, CaO in an amount of 0-40 wt %, MgO in an amount of 0-40 wt %, Al2O3 in an amount of 0-40 wt %, TiO2 in an amount of 0-40 wt %, and ZrO2 in an amount of 0-10 wt % ([0150]). Note that when a claimed range overlaps with or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Li teaches that the TiO2 and ZrO2 may be present as nucleating agents ([0158]).
Regarding the limitation in claim 1 stating that the glass is manufactured via a calendering forming process, the limitation is a product-by-process limitation that cannot distinguish the claimed invention because there is no apparent reason why glass formed via a calendaring process would materially differ from a similar glass formed according to any other process (eg, a fusion forming process); see MPEP 2113 (I). Nevertheless, Li teaches in [0154] that the glass may be manufactured via a rolling process (ie, calendering).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-22-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the teachings of Li, Applicant argues that modifying the Li reference to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention “lacks the initial problem-driven motivation and logical starting point.” This is unpersuasive because Applicant’s claimed ranges lie entirely inside the ranges taught Li, and when a claimed range overlaps with or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Applicant further argues that the presently-claimed invention demonstrates unexpected technical effects. This argument is unpersuasive because Applicant has not provided any data to demonstrate the alleged unexpected effect or the criticality of the claimed ranges.
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 Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights