DETAILED ACTION The claims 1 and 3-25 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 statement s (IDS) submitted on 08/04/2023, 12/24/2024, 04/11/2025, 10/28/2025, and 01/09/2026 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 , 3-7, 9 , 18 -21 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. The condition (a) in claim 1 is one that must be satisfied. However, it is only possible to satisfy the condition when the BaO content is 2x4 mol% +2 mol% = 10 mol% BaO . This is when the minimum permissible levels of TiO 2 and B 2 O 3 are used. Thus, condition (a) must be met and the minimum BaO content is thus 10 mol%, but the range for BaO in claim 1 extends to 2 mol%. The range 2-10 mol% BaO is therefore not compatible with the requirement that the condition (a) be met. This renders ambiguous the metes and bounds of the claim because it is not possible to form glasses meeting certain range limitations while also meeting the condition (a) limitation. Claims 3-7 are indefinite as depending from claim 1 and thus containing the ambiguous limitations therein. Claim 9 is indefinite because, as discussed above for claim 1, the claim contains incompatible limitations. Condition (a) cannot be met by the portion of the claimed BaO range from 2-10 mol%, and thus the intended scope of the claim is unclear. Claim 18 contains limitations to “the glass-ceramic” having certain properties, but the claim depends from instant claim 10, which does not have mention of a glass-ceramic. The claim 18 therefore lacks antecedent basis for the limitations to the glass-ceramic. Claim 19 contains limitations to “the glass phase” and “the glass-ceramic” having certain properties, but the claim depends from instant claim 10, which does not have mention of a glass phase or glass-ceramic. The claim 19 therefore lacks antecedent basis for the limitations to the glassy phase and glass-ceramic. Claim 20 contains limitations to “the glass phase” and “the glass-ceramic” having certain properties, but the claim depends from instant claim 10, which does not have mention of a glass phase or glass-ceramic. The claim 20 therefore lacks antecedent basis for the limitations to the glassy phase and glass-ceramic. Claim 21 contains limitations to “the glass-ceramic” having certain properties, but the claim depends from instant claim 10, which does not have mention of a glass-ceramic. The claim 21 therefore lacks antecedent basis for the limitations to the glass-ceramic. 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 1, 4- 7 , 10, 13- 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (EP 1961710 A1). Regarding claim 1 , Tanaka teaches a glass composition comprising SiO 2 , B 2 O 3 , Al 2 O 3 , TiO 2 , CeO 2 , SrO , and BaO in ranges each overlapping the corresponding range of the instant claim (see Abstract). Tanaka further teaches embodiments wherein SiO 2 , B 2 O 3 , Al 2 O 3 , SrO , and BaO contents fall within said corresponding ranges (see Tables 1 and 2). An embodiment is taught wherein the TiO 2 content is 6.2 wt%, which falls within the range of the instant claim when converted to molar percent. The CeO 2 content of the Tanaka glass is up to 3 wt%, which would constitute an amount of greater than 1 mol% when converted. Because embodiments are taught wherein the contents of each of SiO 2 , B 2 O 3 , Al 2 O 3 , SrO , BaO , and TiO 2 fall within the claimed ranges, and the CeO 2 range of Tanaka closely overlaps that of the instant claim, routine optimization and experimentation with the Tanaka ranges would lead to a glass meeting each range limitation of the instant claim 1. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. The conditions (a), (b), and (c) are not specified by Tanaka. However, the overlapping ranges are such that routine optimization and experimentation therewith would lead one to a BaO content sufficiently high to be greater than 2 x TiO 2 + B 2 O 3 . For instance, embodiments 23-24 of Table 6 disclose such high BaO contents, and thus condition (a) would be met by the Tanaka teachings. Similarly, the overlapping ranges for the BaO , SrO , TiO 2 , B 2 O 3 , and SiO 2 contents in Tanaka would lead to embodiments wherein condition (b) and/or (c) are met through routine optimization and experimentation. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 4 , Tanaka teaches a range for CaO of 0-10%, and as such, glasses that do not contain CaO are obvious from said prior art teaching. Regarding claim 5 , ZrO 2 is an optional component in the Tanaka glasses and embodiments are taught that do not comprise this component. Regarding claim 6 , as discussed above for claim 1, each range for the components SiO 2 , B 2 O 3 , Al 2 O 3 , TiO 2 , CeO 2 , SrO , and BaO overlaps and thus renders obvious the corresponding range of instant claim 6. The claim is therefore not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 7 , the Tanaka glass composition comprises SiO 2 , B 2 O 3 , Al 2 O 3 , SrO , and BaO in ranges overlapping and thus rendering obvious the corresponding ranges of the claim. Regarding claim 10 , Tanaka teaches that the inventive glass is used as an envelope for external electrode fluorescent lamp (an electrochemical device), and that the glass has sealing functions (see paragraph 0043) because the glass envelope seals the components there within. Regarding claim 13 , the further limitations of the claim are drawn to resultant effects that occur after the glass composition is subject to a thermal cycling. Because, as discussed above, Tanaka teaches a glass that is compositionally equivalent to that of the instant claims, subjecting said glass to a sintering thermal cycle would necessarily result in softening and crystallization to form one or more crystalline phases. The instant claim 13 is drawn to a sealing material and not to said crystallized glass/glass-ceramic. As such, the Tanaka sealing glass meets the further limitations to the capability as found in the instant claim, and claim 13 is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 14 , as discussed above, the further limitations of the claim are drawn to resultant effects that occur after the glass composition is subject to a specific thermal cycling treatment. Subjecting the equivalent Tanaka glass to a sintering thermal cycle would necessarily result in softening and crystallization to form one or more crystalline phases. The instant claim 14 is drawn to a sealing material and not to said crystallized glass/glass-ceramic or to the heating treatment itself. As such, the Tanaka sealing glass meets the further limitations to the capability as found in the instant claim, and claim 14 is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 15 , the claim depends from claim 13, drawn to a sealing material capable of forming a crystalline and a glassy phase after heat treatment, and ultimately from claim 10, drawn to a sealing material “for use” in a device. Claim 15 is itself drawn to a sealing material and not an electrochemical device. As such, the further limitations to the sintered glass forming a hermetic seal are necessarily interpreted to be intended use or capability limitations. Thus, a glass that is capable of forming a sintered glass according to claim 13 (from which the instant claim 15 depends) and capable of forming a hermetic seal would thus fall within the bounds of the claim. Such is the case with the Tanaka glass, which because it is equivalent to that of the instant claims and is a sealing material, would be equivalently capable to perform as described in claim 15. Regarding claim 16 , the claim depends from claim 13, drawn to a sealing material capable of forming a crystalline and a glassy phase after heat treatment, and ultimately from claim 10, drawn to a sealing material “for use” in a device. Claim 16 is itself drawn to a sealing material and not to a glass-ceramic. The further limitations of the claim regarding the crystalline and glassy phase contents are therefore necessarily interpreted to be limitations to the formed phases the sealing material is capable of forming after undergoing heat treatment. Thus, a glass that is capable of forming a glass ceramic with the phase contents of claim 16 after undergoing some unspecified heat treatment would fall within the bounds of claim 16. Such is the case with the Tanaka glass, which because it is equivalent to that of the instant claims and is a sealing material, would be equivalently capable of forming the phase contents of said claim. Regarding claim 17 , the claim depends from claim 13, drawn to a sealing material capable of forming a crystalline and a glassy phase after heat treatment, and ultimately from claim 10, drawn to a sealing material “for use” in a device. Claim 17 is itself drawn to a sealing material and not to a glass-ceramic. The further limitations of the claim regarding the crystalline phase contents are therefore necessarily interpreted to be limitations to the formed phases the sealing material is capable of forming after undergoing heat treatment. Thus, a glass that is capable of forming a glass ceramic with the phase contents of claim 17 after undergoing some unspecified heat treatment would fall within the bounds of claim 17. Such is the case with the Tanaka glass, which because it is equivalent to that of the instant claims and is a sealing material, would be equivalently capable of forming the phase contents of said claim. Regarding claim 18 , as discussed above, the equivalent glass taught by Tanaka would be capable of forming a glass ceramic that is also equivalent to that of the instant claims. There is therefore necessarily some stack component with which the thermal mismatch falls within the -0.04 to 0.10 range of the instant claim, as compared to a glass ceramic that the Tanaka glass is capable of forming. The further limitations of claim 18 are drawn to intended properties of a glass-ceramic that is able to be formed from the glass sealing material that is actually claimed, and said properties are in comparison to an unspecified stack component. The Tanaka material is equivalent in terms of glass composition and thus meets these further intended property limitations. Regarding claim 19 , the Tanaka glass is equivalent to that that makes up the sealing material of instant claim 10. This equivalent glass would therefore necessarily be able to form a glass phase substantially free of BaO when subject to some heat cycle treatment that forms a glass-ceramic therefrom. Regarding claim 20 , the Tanaka glass is equivalent to that that makes up the sealing material of instant claim 10. This equivalent glass would therefore necessarily be able to form a glass phase substantially free of B 2 O 3 when subject to some heat cycle treatment that forms a glass-ceramic therefrom. Regarding claim 21 , the Tanaka glass is equivalent to that that makes up the sealing material of instant claim 10. This equivalent glass would therefore necessarily be able to form a glass-ceramic having CTE properties also equivalent to the glass-ceramic formed from the instant claimed glass. The claim 21 is drawn to a sealing material and not to a glass-ceramic, and so the further limitations of the claim are necessarily interpreted to be indicative of properties of a glass-ceramic formed from the claimed sealing material. The equivalent Tanaka glass sealing material would necessarily share these properties, and as such the further limitations of claim 21 are met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding claim 24 , Tanaka teaches that the inventive glass is used as an envelope for external electrode fluorescent lamp (an electrochemical device), and that the glass has sealing functions (see paragraph 0043) because the glass envelope seals the components there within. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is allowed. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a glass meeting each limitation of said claim 8. Claims 11-12, 22-23, 25 are 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. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a sealing material meeting each limitation of instant claim 10 and further comprising one or more fillers. The prior art also does not teach or suggest an electrochemical device comprising a sealing material meeting each limitation of instant claim 10 and having the structural features of instant claim 22. Finally, the prior art does not teach or suggest a method of forming a seal in an electrochemical device meeting each structural and process limitation of instant claim 25, wherein the sealing material used meets each limitation of instant claim 10. Conclusion 1 3 . Claim 8 is allowed. Claims 11-12, 22-23, 25 are objected to. Claims 1, 3 -7, 9- 10, 13-21 and 24 are rejected. 1 4 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1 5 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3596 . The exam iner 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 NSW 3 March 2026