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 of Group I, claims 1-11 and 21-25 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 26-31, 33-34, and 41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/23/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Example A from Table III of Arauji et al. (US4166745A, hereinafter referred to as Arauji).
Regarding claim 1, Arauji discloses a glass composition, comprising tin oxide, wherein a content of the tin oxide is, in mass%, 0.1 ≤ T-SnO2 ≤ 2.5 where T-SnO2 represents total tin oxide calculated as SnO2 (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.16 weight % SnO2, which is 0.2 wt.% SnO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.)
Regarding claim 2, Arauji discloses further comprising the following components, in mass%: 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 80 (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 50.6 weight % SiO2, which is 51 wt.% SiO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 10 ≤ B2O3 ≤ 40 (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 19.2 weight % B2O3, which is 19 wt.% B2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 0.1 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 20 (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 10.2 weight % Al2O3, which is 10 wt.% Al2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 0.1 ≤ (MgO+CaO) ≤ 10 (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.3 weight % MgO and 0% CaO, which is 6 wt.% MgO+CaO when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); and 0 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 5 (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.3 weight % Li2O, 3 wt.% Na2O, and 0% K2O, which is 5 wt.% Li2O+Na2O+K2O when accounting for the claimed significant figures.), wherein MgO/(MgO + CaO) > 0.5 is satisfied on a mass basis (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.3 weight % MgO and 0% CaO, which provides a MgO/(MgO + CaO) value of 1.).
Regarding claim 3, Arauji discloses wherein 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 65 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 50.6 weight % SiO2, which is 51 wt.% SiO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 5, Arauji discloses wherein 5 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 20 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 10.2 weight % Al2O3, which is 10 wt.% Al2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 7, Arauji discloses wherein 0.1 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.3 weight % Li2O, 3 wt.% Na2O, and 0% K2O, which is 5 wt.% Li2O+Na2O+K2O when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 8, Arauji discloses wherein 0.1 ≤ Li2O ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.3 weight % Li2O, which is 2 wt.% Li2O when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 9, Arauji discloses wherein 0 ≤ P2O5 ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% P2O5).
Regarding claim 10, Arauji discloses wherein 0 ≤ F2 ≤ 1 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example A, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.9 weight % F2, which is 1 wt.% F2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures).
Regarding claim 22, while Arauji does not explicitly disclose when a temperature at which a viscosity of the glass composition is 1000 dPa*sec is defined as a working temperature, the working temperature is 1450°C or lower, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as evidenced by the instant specification at [0062] of PGPub US20240132393 which states SiO2 is a component that adjusts ... viscosity. Additionally, [0064] states B2O3 is a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. [0066] discloses Al2O3 is also a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. [0071] states MgO is a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. [0081] states Li2O is a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. [0082] states Na2O is a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. Because the composition of Arauji is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Arauji would inherently possess the claimed property. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 23, while Arauji does not explicitly disclose when a temperature at which a viscosity of the glass composition is 1000 dPa*sec is defined as a working temperature, a temperature difference ΔT determined by subtracting a devitrification temperature from the working temperature is 0°C or more, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification and noted in the rejection of claim 22. Because the composition of Arauji is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Arauji would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 24, while Arauji does not explicitly disclose an amount of alkali dissolution measured for the glass composition according to an alkali dissolution test defined in JIS R 3502: 1995 is 0.001 to 0.40 mg, the alkali dissolution is a measure of water resistance as noted by the PGPub US20240132393 at [0382]-[0383]. This is a property which is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant PGPub at [0038], which states SnO2 is a component that improves the water resistance of the glass. Additionally, [0064] states excessive inclusion of B2O3 decreases the water resistance of the glass. [0066] states Al2O3 ... improves the water resistance of the glass. [0070] states MgO is more advantageous than addition of CaO also from the viewpoint of further increasing the water resistance. [0081] states excessive inclusion of Li2O decreases the water resistance of the glass. [0082] states excessive inclusion of Na2O decreases the water resistance of the glass. As such, because the composition of Arauji is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Arauji would inherently possess the claimed property.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-10, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Example B from Table III of Arauji et al. (US4166745A, hereinafter referred to as Arauji).
Regarding claim 1, Arauji discloses a glass composition, comprising tin oxide, wherein a content of the tin oxide is, in mass%, 0.1 ≤ T-SnO2 ≤ 2.5 where T-SnO2 represents total tin oxide calculated as SnO2 (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.25 weight % SnO2, which is 0.3 wt.% SnO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.)
Regarding claim 2, Arauji discloses further comprising the following components, in mass%: 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 80 (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 50.5 weight % SiO2, which is 51 wt.% SiO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures); 10 ≤ B2O3 ≤ 40 (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 20.0 weight % B2O3, which is 20 wt.% B2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 0.1 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 20 (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 10.2 weight % Al2O3, which is 10 wt.% Al2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 0.1 ≤ (MgO+CaO) ≤ 10 (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.0 weight % MgO and 0% CaO, which is 5 wt.% MgO+CaO when accounting for the claimed significant figures); and 0 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 5 (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.36 weight % Li2O, 3.7 weight % Na2O, and 0% K2O which is 5 wt.% Li2O+Na2O+K2O when accounting for the claimed significant figures), wherein MgO/(MgO + CaO) > 0.5 is satisfied on a mass basis (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.0 weight % MgO and 0% CaO, which provides a MgO/(MgO + CaO) value of 1.).
Regarding claim 4, Arauji discloses wherein 20 ≤ B2O3 ≤ 40 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 20.0 weight % B2O3, which is 20 wt.% B2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 6, Arauji discloses wherein 0.1 ≤ (MgO + CaO) ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 5.0 weight % MgO and 0% CaO, which is 5 wt.% MgO+CaO when accounting for the claimed significant figures).
Regarding claim 7, Arauji discloses wherein 0.1 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.36 weight % Li2O, 3.7 weight % Na2O, and 0% K2O which is 5 wt.% Li2O+Na2O+K2O when accounting for the claimed significant figures).
Regarding claim 8, Arauji discloses wherein 0.1 ≤ Li2O ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.36 weight % Li2O, which is 1 wt.% Li2O when accounting for the claimed significant figures).
Regarding claim 9, Arauji discloses wherein 0 ≤ P2O5 ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% P2O5).
Regarding claim 10, Arauji discloses wherein 0 ≤ F2 ≤ 1 in mass% is satisfied (see Arauji at Table III, Example B, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.25 weight % F2, which is 1 wt.% F2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures).
Regarding claim 22, while Arauji does not explicitly disclose when a temperature at which a viscosity of the glass composition is 1000 dPa*sec is defined as a working temperature, the working temperature is 1450°C or lower, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as evidenced by the instant specification at [0062] of PGPub US20240132393 which states SiO2 is a component that adjusts ... viscosity. Additionally, [0064] states B2O3 is a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. [0066] discloses Al2O3 is also a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. [0071] states MgO is a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. [0081] states Li2O is a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. [0082] states Na2O is a component that adjusts ... the viscosity. Because the composition of Arauji is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Arauji would inherently possess the claimed property. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 23, while Arauji does not explicitly disclose when a temperature at which a viscosity of the glass composition is 1000 dPa*sec is defined as a working temperature, a temperature difference ΔT determined by subtracting a devitrification temperature from the working temperature is 0°C or more, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification and noted in the rejection of claim 22. Because the composition of Arauji is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Arauji would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 24, while Arauji does not explicitly disclose an amount of alkali dissolution measured for the glass composition according to an alkali dissolution test defined in JIS R 3502: 1995 is 0.001 to 0.40 mg, the alkali dissolution is a measure of water resistance as noted by the PGPub US20240132393 at [0382]-[0383]. This is a property which is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant PGPub at [0038], which states SnO2 is a component that improves the water resistance of the glass. Additionally, [0064] states excessive inclusion of B2O3 decreases the water resistance of the glass. [0066] states Al2O3 ... improves the water resistance of the glass. [0070] states MgO is more advantageous than addition of CaO also from the viewpoint of further increasing the water resistance. [0081] states excessive inclusion of Li2O decreases the water resistance of the glass. [0082] states excessive inclusion of Na2O decreases the water resistance of the glass. As such, because the composition of Arauji is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Arauji would inherently possess the claimed property.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hausrath et al. (US20200181004, hereinafter referred to as Hausrath).
Regarding claim 1, Hausrath discloses a content of the tin oxide is, in mass%, 0.1 ≤ T-SnO2 ≤ 2.5 where T-SnO2 represents total tin oxide calculated as SnO2 (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.00 weight % SnO2, which is 1 wt.% SnO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.)
Regarding claim 2, Hausrath discloses further comprising the following components, in mass%: 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 80 (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 55.41 weight% SiO2, which is 55 wt.% SiO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 10 ≤ B2O3 ≤ 40 (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 24.49 weight % B2O3, which is 25 wt.% B2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 0.1 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 20 (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 12.86 weight% Al2O3, which is 13 wt.% Al2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 0.1 ≤ (MgO+CaO) ≤ 10 (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO and 5.94 weight % CaO, which provides a sum of MgO+CaO of 5.94 wt.%, which is 6 wt.% when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); and 0 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 5 (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% Li2O, 0.01 weight% Na2O, and 0.01 weight % K2O, which is just over 0% Li2O+K2O+Na2O when accounting for the claimed significant figures), wherein MgO/(MgO + CaO) > 0.5 is satisfied on a mass basis (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% MgO and 5.94 weight % CaO, which provides MgO/(MgO + CaO) value of 1.).
Regarding claim 3, Hausrath discloses wherein 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 65 in mass% is satisfied (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 55.41 weight% SiO2, which is 55 wt.% SiO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 4, Hausrath discloses wherein 20 ≤ B2O3 ≤ 40 in mass% is satisfied (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 24.49 weight % B2O3, which is 25 wt.% B2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 5, Hausrath discloses wherein 5 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 20 in mass% is satisfied (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 12.86 weight% Al2O3, which is 13 wt.% Al2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 9, Hausrath discloses wherein 0 ≤ P2O5 ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.25 weight% P2O5, which is just over 0% P2O5 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 25, while Hausrath does not explicitly disclose a permittivity of 5.0 or less at a frequency of 1 GHz, this is a property which is a function of the SiO2 and B2O3 composition as detailed by the instant PGPub US20240132393 at [0059], which states to achieve a low permittivity, the composition A-1 may satisfy, in mass %, (SiO2+B2O3)≥78. Hausrath at Table 6, Example 59 discloses a glass comprising 55.41 weight % SiO2 and 24.49 weight % B2O3, which provides a SiO2+B2O3 content of 79.9 wt% SiO2+B2O3, which is 80 wt.% SiO2+B2O3 when accounting for the disclosed significant figures, which is within the disclosed range of [0059]. Because the composition of Example 59 of Hausrath is substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed herein, the glass of Hausrath would inherently possess the claimed property. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (JP2010064922A, hereinafter referred to as Goto).
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses a glass composition, comprising tin oxide, wherein a content of the tin oxide is, in mass%, 0.1 ≤ T-SnO2 ≤ 2.5 where T-SnO2 represents total tin oxide calculated as SnO2 (see Goto at Table 1, Example 3 from the original Japanese publication, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.5 mass% SnO2.)
Regarding claim 11, Goto discloses further comprising the following components, in mass%: 50 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 75 (see Goto at Table 1, Example 3 from the original Japanese publication, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 58.8 mass% SiO2, which is 59 mass% SiO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 15 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 30 (see Goto at Table 1, Example 3 from the original Japanese publication, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 16.4 mass% Al2O3, which is 16 mass% Al2O3 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); 5 ≤ MgO + CaO ≤ 25 (see Goto at Table 1, Example 3 from the original Japanese publication, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 13.6 mass% MgO and 1.8 mass% CaO, which provides a MgO+CaO value of 15.4 mass% MgO+CaO, which is 15 mass% MgO+CaO when accounting for the claimed significant figures.); and 0 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 4 (see Goto at Table 1, Example 3 from the original Japanese publication, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% Li2O, 3.6 mass% Na2O, and 0% K2O, which provides a sum of Li2O+Na2O+K2O of 3.6 mass%, which is 4 mass% when accounting for the claimed significant figures.).
Regarding claim 21, Goto discloses wherein 0.1 ≤ CeO2 ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see Goto at Table 1, Example 3 from the original Japanese publication, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.8 mass% CeO2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-11, 21-23, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4-5, 9-10, 12-14, and 16-17 of copending Application No. 18/263,974 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the ‘974 application claims a content of the tin oxide is, in mass%, 0.1 ≤ T-SnO2 ≤ 2.5 where T-SnO2 represents total tin oxide calculated as SnO2 (see the ‘974 application at claim 1, claiming 0.1 ≤ T-SnO2 ≤ 2, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, the ‘974 application claims further comprising the following components, in mass%: 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 80 (see the ‘974 application at claim 1, claiming 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 58, which is within the claimed range); 10 ≤ B2O3 ≤ 40 (see the ‘974 application at claim 1, claiming 24.84 ≤ B2O3 ≤ 40, which is within the claimed range.); 0.1 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 20 (see the ‘974 application at claim 1); 0.1 ≤ (MgO+CaO) ≤ 10 (see the ‘974 application at claim 1); and 0 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 5 (see the ‘974 application at claim 1), wherein MgO/(MgO + CaO) > 0.5 is satisfied on a mass basis (see the ‘974 application at claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the ‘974 application claims wherein 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 65 in mass% is satisfied (see the ‘974 application at claim 1, claiming 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 58, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, the ‘974 application claims 20 ≤ B2O3 ≤ 40 in mass% is satisfied (see the ‘974 application at claim 1, claiming 24.84 ≤ B2O3 ≤ 40, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, the ‘974 application claims 5 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 20 in mass% is satisfied (see the ‘974 application at claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, the ‘974 application claims wherein 0.1 ≤ (MgO + CaO) ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see the ‘974 application at claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, the ‘974 application claims wherein 0.1 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see the ‘974 application at claim 9).
Regarding claim 8, the ‘974 application claims 0.1 ≤ Li2O ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see the ‘974 application at claim 10).
Regarding claim 9, the ‘974 application claims 0 ≤ P2O5 ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see the ‘974 application at claim 12).
Regarding claim 10, the ‘974 application claims 0 ≤ F2 ≤ 1 in mass% is satisfied (see the ‘974 application at claim 13).
Regarding claim 11, the ‘974 application claims further comprising the following components, in mass%: 50 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 75; (see the ‘974 application at claim 1, claiming 45 ≤ SiO2 ≤ 58, which overlaps with the claimed range) 15 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 30 (see the ‘974 application at claim 1, claiming 0.1 ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 20 which overlaps with the claimed range); 5 ≤ MgO + CaO ≤ 25 (see the ‘974 application at claim 1, claiming 0.1 ≤ MgO + CaO ≤ 10, which overlaps with the claimed range); and 0 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 4 (see the ‘974 application at claim 1, claiming 0 ≤ (Li2O + Na2O + K2O) ≤ 5, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 21, the ‘974 application claims wherein 0.1 ≤ CeO2 ≤ 5 in mass% is satisfied (see the ‘974 application at claim 14).
Regarding claim 22, the ‘974 application claims wherein when a temperature at which a viscosity of the glass composition is 1000 dPa*sec is defined as a working temperature, the working temperature is 1450°C or lower (see the ‘974 application at claim 15).
Regarding claim 23, the ‘974 application claims wherein when a temperature at which a viscosity of the glass composition is 1000 dPa*sec is defined as a working temperature, a temperature difference ΔT determined by subtracting a devitrification temperature from the working temperature is 0°C or more (see the ‘974 application at claim 16).
Regarding claim 25, the ‘974 application claims having a permittivity of 5.0 or less at a frequency of 1 GHz (see the ‘974 application at claim 17).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,688,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the ‘565 patent claims a glass composition, comprising tin oxide, wherein a content of the tin oxide is, in mass%, 0.1 ≤ T-SnO2 ≤ 2.5 where T-SnO2 represents total tin oxide calculated as SnO2 (see the ‘565 patent at claim 1, claiming 0 to 0.3 mass% SnO2, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,960,301. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the ‘301 patent claims a glass composition, comprising tin oxide, wherein a content of the tin oxide is, in mass%, 0.1 ≤ T-SnO2 ≤ 2.5 where T-SnO2 represents total tin oxide calculated as SnO2 (see the ‘301 patent at claim 13, claiming SnO2 in the amount of greater than 0 mass% and no greater than 3 mass%, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 4,472,030. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the ‘030 patent claims a glass composition, comprising tin oxide, wherein a content of the tin oxide is, in mass%, 0.1 ≤ T-SnO2 ≤ 2.5 where T-SnO2 represents total tin oxide calculated as SnO2 (see the ‘030 patent at claim 1, claiming SnO2 0-5 weight %, which overlaps with the claimed range.)
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