DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 and 10/16/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains limitations to a plot of average hydroxyl concentration in a plurality of segments, but there are no dimensions specified for any segments. It is unclear if a certain size segment must be taken for measuring OH concentration and thus plotting the y=Ax2+Bx+C formula of the claim, or if this plot can be made based on all measurements done of the 50 mm or more length specified in the claim. Further, it is not clear if there is any y dimension for the segments, or if this feature of any segments is not needed to measure and plot, or if any segments falling within the bounds of the claim are strictly one-dimensional along the length. Because of these ambiguities, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it contains a limitation to the plot extending a distance of 50 mm or more along the glass. The claim is drawn to a glass, and so it is unclear if this limitation to the 50 mm distance is meant to indicate that what is intended to be claimed is actually a glass article having this minimum dimension, or if the plot can be made and extrapolated to the distance, and thus taken to be a material property of the glass that is actually claimed.
Claims 10-11 contain limitations to this extension of the plot feature that also render the claims indefinite as discussed above for claim 1.
Claims 12-13 contain further limitations to “segments” that are undefined in size, and thus are indefinite for similar reasons to those discussed for claim 1 above.
Claim 15 is further indefinite because it contains limitations to segments with relatively higher hydroxyl concentration, however the formula describing any hydroxyl concentration can have zero values for the A and B variables, and in such cases the hydroxyl concentration would be C, the same average hydroxyl concentration. These situations are covered by the claim limitations and do not have any hydroxyl concentration variation, and thus there are not segments with relatively higher hydroxyl concentrations. It is not clear, then, how the claim 15 limitations are meant to be interpreted for these instances, i.e. if there is some minimum hydroxyl concentration variance that the claim 15 limitations necessarily impart in order for zero temperature crossing variation to actually be present. Because of this ambiguity, the metes and bounds of claim 15 are not clear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claims 17 and 20 contain limitations to segments and to the extending of the compositional plot that are indefinite for the same reasons as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claims 2-16 and 18-19 are indefinite as depending from indefinite independent claims and therefore containing the indefinite limitations thereof.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Annamalai et al (US 9382150 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Annamalai et al teaches a titania-silica glass having a hydroxyl content of more than 10 ppm. Embodiments are taught containing 35 ppm and 120 ppm OH (see column 10, lines 20-25). In the formula of the instant claim that represents the hydroxyl concentration over distance, the A and B variables can each be zero according to the ranges of claim 1. In this situation, the average hydroxyl concentration y is equal to C. Thus, a prior art glass having a hydroxyl concentration C that falls within the corresponding range of the claim (less than 450 in the instant claim), and that has a uniform hydroxyl concentration such that the hydroxyl concentration is the same over the length, would thus have a plot meeting the formula limitation of instant claim 1. The concentration at all points (C) would be equal to y, and as shown above this scenario is covered by the instant claim limitation.
Annamalai et al teaches a uniform glass that has uniformity in CTE property. This further shows that there is no variation in composition taught by Annamalai, and the hydroxyl group concentration must therefore be considered to be uniform over the glass length. Annamalai further teaches that the inventive glass can have a dimension of 10-60 cm (see column 3, lines 40-45). Thus, the compositional and structural limitations of the instant claim are met by the teachings of Annamalai, and the OH concentration is uniform such that the formula limitation is met and the segments each have a concentration meeting the limitations of the instant claim. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 2-3, Annamalai et al teaches an embodiment wherein the OH concentration is 120 ppm. This would be a C value of 120, and thus the further range limitations of the instant claims are met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 4-5, as discussed above, the Annamalai glass contains a uniform composition and the OH concentration must also be taken to be uniform. This would therefore be described by A and B values of the formula of claim 1 being 0, with no compositional variation over length.
Regarding claims 6-7, as discussed above, the Annamalai glass contains a uniform composition and the OH concentration must also be taken to be uniform. This would therefore be described by A and B values of the formula of claim 1 being 0, with no compositional variation over length.
Regarding claims 8-9, because the OH concentration of the Annamalai glass is taken to be uniform across the length and diameter, the A and B values of the claim 1 formula are each 0, the concentration y is equal to the C value, and the R2 best fit value for the plot is greater than 0.5.
Regarding claims 10-11, Annamalai et al teaches glass articles having diameters greater than 100 mm and having uniform OH concentrations. The plot describing the Annamalai et al concentration profile that meets the formula of instant claim 1 would therefore extend a distance of 100 mm or more.
Regarding claims 12-13, Annamalai et al teaches a glass having diameter greater than 50 mm and having uniform OH concentration, and thus the adjacent segments across a length and a width of greater than 50 mm meet the formula limitations of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 14, Annamalai et al teaches that the inventive glass is used in the form of a photomask.
Regarding claim 15, the zero temperature crossing property of the glass is dependent on composition, including OH concentration. As such, any segments in the Annamalai et al glass that have a higher OH concentration would inherently have a lower zero temperature crossing stemming therefrom. MPEP 2112.01 states "A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present."
Regarding claim 16, Annamalai et al teaches an embodiment wherein the OH concentration is 120 ppm.
Regarding claim 17, Annamalai et al teaches a titania-silica glass having a hydroxyl content of more than 800 ppm (see claim 15). In the formula of the instant claim that represents the hydroxyl concentration over distance, the A and B variables can each be zero according to the ranges of claim 17. In this situation, the average hydroxyl concentration y is equal to C. Thus, a prior art glass having a hydroxyl concentration C that falls within the corresponding range of the claim (greater than 800 in the instant claim), and that has a uniform hydroxyl concentration such that the hydroxyl concentration is the same over the length, would thus have a plot meeting the formula limitation of instant claim 17. The concentration at all points (C) would be equal to y, and as shown above this scenario is covered by the instant claim limitation.
Annamalai et al teaches a uniform glass that has uniformity in CTE property. This further shows that there is no variation in composition taught by Annamalai, and the hydroxyl group concentration must therefore be considered to be uniform over the glass length. Annamalai further teaches that the inventive glass can have a dimension of 10-60 cm (see column 3, lines 40-45). Thus, the compositional and structural limitations of the instant claim are met by the teachings of Annamalai, and the OH concentration is uniform such that the formula limitation is met and the segments each have a concentration meeting the limitations of the instant claim. Claim 17 is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 18, Annamalai teaches a OH concentration (C value) of 800 ppm (see claim 15).
Regarding claim 19, as discussed above, the Annamalai glass contains a uniform composition and the OH concentration must also be taken to be uniform. This would therefore be described by A and B values of the formula of claim 1 being 0, with no compositional variation over length.
Regarding claim 20, Annamalai et al teaches a titania-silica glass having a hydroxyl content. In the formula of the instant claim that represents the hydroxyl concentration over distance, the A and B variables can each be zero according to the ranges of claim 20. In this situation, the average hydroxyl concentration y is equal to C. As C is undefined in this claim, any hydroxyl content in a uniform distribution over length would thus have a plot meeting the formula limitation of instant claim 20. The concentration at all points (C) would be equal to y, and as shown above this scenario is covered by the instant claim limitation.
Annamalai et al teaches a uniform glass that has uniformity in CTE property. This further shows that there is no variation in composition taught by Annamalai, and the hydroxyl group concentration must therefore be considered to be uniform over the glass length. Annamalai further teaches that the inventive glass can have a dimension of 10-60 cm (see column 3, lines 40-45). Thus, the compositional and structural limitations of the instant claim are met by the teachings of Annamalai, and Claim 17 is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
9. No claim is allowed.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW9 January 2026