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Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 2018/0037493) in view of Hamzawy et al. (“Sintered Mono-Cordierite Mg2Al4-xBxSi5O18 Glass-Ceramic with B/Al Replacement at the Nano- and Micro-Scale”).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses a cordierite glass-ceramic comprising at least 5% by volume amorphous material and not more than 30% by volume amorphous regions, see abstract and [0022]. While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed mass% of the crystal phase, given the crystalline phase can be present up to 95% by volume in the disclosed glass-ceramic and given the density of the green glass compared to the density of the cerammed glass is relatively similar, it is expected that the disclosed glass will have a crystal amount of 40 mass% or more, see Schneider Table 1; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Additionally, the reference discloses that foreign ions can be incorporated into the cordierite [0024]. The reference further discloses the glass-ceramic has a composition that include 0-8 TiO2 in terms of weight percent [0039]. Note that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
The reference, however, fail to disclose that the foreign ions are at an Al site.
Hamzawy discloses sintered glass ceramics based on cordierite modified glass with partial substitution of aluminum by boron, which corresponds to a crystallized glass comprising a crystal of cordierite with the crystal comprising a different element at an Al site, see abstract. The reference further discloses that the substitution of B3+ for Al3+ in the cordierite crystal structure can effectively improve the near-infrared spectral emissivity of the glass-ceramic, see page 439 col. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to partially substitute aluminum with boron in the cordierite of Schneider in order to improve the near-infrared spectral emissivity of the glass-ceramic.
Regarding claim 2, Schneider discloses that the proportion of foreign ions should only be so great that the properties of the glass-ceramic according to the invention are not too greatly influenced by the crystal phases formed or that the ions can still be incorporated into the crystal phases and the properties of these crystal phases are not altered adversely, but no separate undesirable crystal phases are formed [0034]. While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed total of Al sites with a different element, wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the percentage of substitutions so as to not adversely alter the properties of the crystal phases.
Regarding claim 3, Schneider discloses ranges for the claimed oxide components that overlap the claimed ranges [0039]. Note that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”; see also MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 5, the reference discloses that the glass ceramic contains not more than 10% by weight of P2O5, which overlaps the claimed range [0061]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 6, the reference discloses glass ceramic plates with a size of at least 50 cm x 50 cm and a thickness of 0.5 mm to 40 mm [0108]. Note that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges and that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 7, the reference discloses that the thermal conductivity is at least 1.5 W/(K x m), which overlaps the claimed range [0083]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 8, the reference discloses that the dielectric constant is in the range from 5 to 8 in the GHz range, which overlaps the claimed range [0086]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, while the references do not specifically disclose the claimed properties, given the references render obvious a crystallized glass with the claimed composition and crystalline structure, the references are considered to render obvious a crystallized glass with the claimed dielectric loss tangent and coefficient of thermal expansion, see above discussion; see MPEP 2112.01 I: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Schneider in view of Hamzawy, Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejections over Schneider in view of Hamzawy should be withdrawn because claim 1 has been amended to recite that the crystallized glass comprises 8.2-15% TiO2 whereas Schneider discloses 0 to 8% TiO2. Examiner notes, however, that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; see MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, 8% and 8.2% are considered so close that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Further note, that the disclosed range for TiO2 does not constitute a teaching away given the reference does not discredit or otherwise criticize higher values; see MPEP 2123.
As such, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Schneider are respectfully maintained.
Note that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hamzawy are withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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