DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-19, 23, 28, and 33 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/06/2023 is being considered by the examiner. 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- 8 , 10-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (US 10059621 B2) in view of Lahiri et al (US 2019/0029261 A1). Regarding claim 1 , Gross et al teaches a substrat e comprising a continuous glass phase ( see column 5, lines 5-10 - a continuous first glass phase comprising SiO 2 , B 2 O 3 , P 2 O 5 , and R 2 O; see also Claim 1) and a magnetizable component ( see column 5, lines 10-15 , a discrete magnetizable crystalline phase dispersed in the discontinuous second phase; see also Claim 1). Claim 1 differs from Gross et al because Gross does not explicitly teach that the inventive substrate comprises an antimicrobial component. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gross et al in view of Lahiri et al in order to include an antimicrobial component in the inventive glass substrate. Lahiri et al teaches a copper-containing glass containing an antimicrobial component ( see paragraph 0031 - T he copper-containing oxides in the glass composition form the Cu 1+ ions present in the resulting glass [ ... ] provide antimicrobial activity). One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to mod ify the substrate of Gross et al to include an antimicrobial component as taught by Lahiri et al because doing so would lead to a colorless material exhibiting improved antimicrobial efficacy including . As the Gross et al glass substrate is taught to be used for applications in the biomedical field, antimicrobial properties would be seen as a beneficial improvement by a skilled artisan. One would have had a reasonable success in the modification because Gross et al and Lahiri et al are each drawn to substrates comprising glass main components and crystalline portions dispersed therein, and because both are drawn to materials used in medical applications. Each limitation of claim 1 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding c laim 2 , Gross et al teaches that the inventive substrate comprises a discontinuous glass phase disposed in the continuous glass phase (see column 7, lines 25-35 - The background or surround region (110) is the continuous matrix phase that is compositionally enriched in SiO 2 relative to discontinuous second glassy phases (circles) (120) and the discrete magnetite crystalline phases (squares) (130) within or encapsulated by the second glassy phases (120).). Gross et al further teaches that the magnetizable component is disposed in the discontinuous glass phase (see Claim 1). Lahiri et al teaches the antimicrobial component of the inventive material is disposed in the discontinuous glass phase (see [0049] - the copper-containing glasses formed form the glass compositions disclosed herein include Cu1+ ions that are dispersed in the glass matrix). Because of this Lahiri teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying Gross in view of Lahiri as discussed above, to include the antimicrobial component so as to be disposed in the discontinuous glass phase. Each further limitation of instant claim 2 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding c laim 3 , Gross et al teaches that the inventive substrate has a mole percentage of SiO 2 in the continuous glass phase that is greater than a mole percentage of SiO 2 in the discontinuous glass phase ( see column 5, lines 12-18 - the continuous first glass phase can be, for example, en r iched in S i O 2 r e lativ e to the di s continuous second glass phase , the discrete magnetizable phase, or both); a mole percentage of P 2 O 5 the discontinuous glass phase that is greater than a mole percentage of P 2 O 5 in the continuous glass phase ( see column 7, lines 50-56 - The EDS analysis indicates that Fe, K, and P, are enriched in the discontinuous spherical phase containing both glassy and crystalline material; Table 1, Magnetizable glass ceramic compositions analysis in wt % and mol %, showing P 2 O 5 ); magnetite is disposed in the discontinuous glass phase ( ibid. showing Fe 2 O 3 ). Lahiri teaches that one or more of cuprite and metallic copper is disposed in the discontinuous glass phase of the inventive material ( see [0049] - the copper-containing glasses formed form the glass compositions disclosed herein include Cu 1+ ions that are dispersed in the glass matrix; [0049] - the Cu 1+ crystals may be present in the form of cuprite) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , when modify ing the substrate of Gross et al to include one or more of cuprite and metallic copper as discussed above, to include said components as disposed in the discontinuous glass phase as taught by Lahiri et al. Regarding c laim 4 , Gross et al teaches that the inventive material compris es SiO 2 , В 2 O 3 , P 2 O 5 , and K 2 O ( see Table 1 ). R egarding c laim 5 , Gross et al teaches that the inventive material comprises, in mole percentage, 60 to 70% SiO 2 ; 3 to 5% P 2 O 5 ; 5 to 8% B 2 O 3 ; 5 to 8% R 2 O where R 2 O can be selected as K 2 O; and 10 to 22% Fe 2 O 3 (see claim 13) , with all Fe-containing components considered to be Fe 2 O 3 . Each aforementioned component range overlaps the corresponding range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Grossman et al does not teach that the material comprises 15 percent to 25 percent CuO . However, as discussed above, obvious modification of Grossman et al in view of Lahiri et al would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to include the Lahiri copper oxide antimicrobial component in the Grossman substrate in order to realize beneficial antimicrobial properties. Lahiri et al teaches 10 to about 50 % copper component that can be chosen as CuO , and teaches embodiments with all Cu-containing components considered to be CuO ( see [0030]). As above, this range overlaps and thus renders obvious the copper oxide range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate of Gross to include 15 percent to 25 percent CuO as taught by Lahiri for the purpose of providing a material exhibiting improved antimicrobial efficacy . Each limitation of claim 5 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding claim 6 , Lahiri teaches a ratio of the mole percentage of CuO in the composition to the mole percentage of Fe 2 O 3 in the composition that is 1.3 to 3.0 ( see [0025] - a copper-containing oxide in the range from about 10 to about 50 [ ... ] Fe 2 O 3 in the range from about 0 to about 5). As can be seen, these overlapping ranges lead to a molar ratio that can also overlap the 2.0-3.0 portion of the instantly claimed ratio range. Regarding claim 7 , the Gross et al substrate comprises magnetite. Regarding claim 8 , Lahiri et al teaches that the antimicrobial component comprises cuprite ( see [0049] - the Cu 1+ crystals may be pres e nt in the form of cuprite; [0031] - Th e copper-containing oxides in the glass composition form the Cu 1+ ions present in the resulting glass [ ... ] provide antimicrobial activity) . Regarding claim 10 , Gross et al does not specify magnetic permeability at a frequency of 10 MHz. However, as shown above, Gross in view of Lahiri teaches a glass material meeting each compositional and structural limitations of the instant claims. This compositionally and structurally equivalent material would therefore necessarily also have equivalent magnetic properties, said properties arising from the composition and structure of the material. As such, the equivalent Gross in view of Lahiri glass material would have a magnetic permeability of 1.02 µR or greater at the frequency of the claim. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Regarding claim 11 , Lahiri et al teaches that the substrate exhibits greater than 3 log 10 reduction of Staphylococcus Aureus ( see [0057] - The copper-containing glass of one or more embodiments may exhibit a 2 log reduction or greater (e.g., 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5 and all ranges and sub-ranges therebetween) in a concentration of at least one of Staphylococcus aureus ). Regarding claim 12 , as discussed above, Gross et al in view of Lahiri et al teaches a glass material meeting each limitation of instant claim 1. Gross et al teaches that the inventive glass is formed by melting a mixture of starting oxides, and that the magnetizable iron component is included in said oxide mixture. Lahiri teaches that the copper-containing glass is produced from a melt and that the copper component is included among the starting oxides. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art, when preparing a glass material according to Gross et al that further includes the antimicrobial copper component as taught by Lahiri et al, would have produced the material from a melt of a starting oxide mixture. Cooling after the melting step would necessarily be carried out. Each limitation of the method claim 12 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 13 , Gross et al teaches annealing of the glass substrate at 600 °C for 8 hours (see column 9, example 1). Regarding claim 15 , Gross et al teaches that particulate is produced from the inventive substrate after melting, cooling, and heat treatment (see column 9, lines 33-42). Regarding c laim 16 , Gross et al teaches that the inventive material is produced by melting sources of SiO 2 , В 2 O 3 , P 2 O 5 , and R 2 O, wherein R 2 O can be K 2 O ( see 13). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from this claim 13 teaching that the batch to be melted could be formed from the component oxides there listed, as well as from carbonates or other starting compounds. The further limitations of claim 16 are thus obvious from the prior art of record. Regarding claim 17 , Gross et al teaches iron oxide (see Example 1) as a source of Fe 2 O 3 (claim 13). Lahiri teaches that the copper-containing oxide can be CuO (see paragraph 0030). As such, when modifying Gross et al in view of Lahiri et al as discussed above, one would have used a method wherein iron oxide and copper oxide are included in the precursor mixture (plurality of oxides) that are melted together. Regarding claim 18 , as discussed above, Gross et al teaches iron oxide as a source of Fe 2 O 3 , and as such one would have found it obvious that Fe 2 O 3 can be used as a starting material in the melted batch. Further, Lahiri et al teaches that CuO can be used as the copper oxide component. Regarding claim 19 , as discussed above, Gross et al teaches that the inventive material comprises, in mole percentage, 60 to 70% SiO 2 ; 3 to 5% P 2 O 5 ; 5 to 8% B 2 O 3 ; 5 to 8% R 2 O where R 2 O can be selected as K 2 O; and 10 to 22% Fe 2 O 3 . As such, the amount of SiO 2 is greater than that of the instant claim. However, the obvious modification of Gross et al in view of Lahiri et al would involve the additional inclusion of the 10-50 mol% copper oxide taught therein. This additional component would thus reduce the amount of SiO 2 . One of ordinary skill would therefore arrive at a method wherein the starting batch mixture of oxides meets the compositional limitations of claim 19, wherein copper oxide is added to the Gross et al starting batch so as to realize the advantageous antimicrobial benefits. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (US 10059621 B2) in view of Lahiri et al (US 2019/0029261 A1) and in further view of Sugiura (US 8470374 B2). Regarding claim 23 , Lahiri et la teaches that the inventive glass is used in particulate form to be added to products in order to impart antimicrobial (sanitizing) properties thereto. However, Lahiri et al does not teach a form of sanitation wherein a liquid is sanitized by placing the inventive glass particles therein and then removing upon completion of antimicrobial activity. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gross and Lahiri in view of Sugiura in order to use the modified glass as discussed above in the method taught by Sugiura . Sugiura teaches a method of using a granular antimicrobial agent in water processing, with the intention being to purify and remove microbes from water used in the household. Sugiura teaches that the antimicrobial particles are glass particles, and these are placed into contact with water (placing a plurality of in a liquid) so as to affect antimicrobial activity, and thereinafter removed from contact with the water, before testing the thus treated water for microbial presence. This constitutes a method meeting the steps of the instantly claimed process. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the glass particles taught by Gross in view of Lahiri in such a method because doing so would provide a form of sanitation and microbe reduction that Lahiri teaches is a capability of the inventive glass particulate. As such, one would recognize that the Sugiura method is a manner to carry out the treatment abilities said to be shown by the materials taught by the prior art. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification because of this aforementioned equivalence in the abilities taught by Lahiri and the call by Sugiura for a glass with these properties. Each limitation of claim 23 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Claim s 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (US 10059621 B2) in view of Lahiri et al (US 2019/0029261 A1) and in further view of Sitter et al (US 10353214 B2). Regarding claim 28 , as discussed above, Gross et al in view of Lahiri et al teaches a glass ceramic particulate that meets each of the structural and property (magnetic, antimicrobial) limitations of instant claim 1 and thus also of instant claim 28. Gross teaches an article comprising the inventive glass ceramic as a particulate powder having a particle size, for example, of from 1 to 100 microns) . Gross et al does not explicitly disclose a surface; a plastic section forming part of the surface; and a plurality of particles held in place by the plastic section, the plurality of particles positioned so that a portion of the plurality of particles also form part of the surface of the article . However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gross and Lahiri in view of Sitter et al in order to use the magnetic and antimicrobial particulate in the field of optical stacks taught by said Sitter et al. Sitter et al teaches a surface ( see FIG. 5A shows optical stack 500 including uncoated optical stack 505, first major surface 581, outer major surface 582); a plastic section forming part of the surface ( see columns 7-8, lines 62-20 - Binder 583 may be selected from any optically clear adhesive or other clear materials such as transparent polymers; column 5, lines 25-30 - a layer having a surface structure can be made by using diamond tooling to cut a structure into a layer of any of a wide variety of non-polymeric materials such as glass, or thermoplastic or crosslinked polymeric materials); and a plurality of particles held in place by the plastic section, the plurality of particles positioned so that a portion of the plurality of particles also form part of the surface of the article ( see column 8, lines 20-30 - Embedded particles 585 are included in first layer 510; see Fig. 5B where the embedded particles make up the surface of the article), and each of the plurality of particles comprising a glass ( see columns 7-8, lines 62-20 - suitable embedded particles 585 include glass beads). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the article taught by Gross et al to include a surface; a plastic section forming part of the surface; and a plurality of particles held in place by the plastic section, the plurality of particles positioned so that a portion of the plurality of particles also form part of the surface of the article , as taught by Sitter et al, for the purpose of providing particles with the desired physical and mechanical properties for the products desired application thereby producing a more desirable product. This would have had the obvious benefit of allowing for the practical application of the particles taught by Gross in view of Lahiri in their intended use, and thus this beneficial result would have provided motivation for the modification. Each limitation of claim 28 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 33 , Sitter et al teaches that the inventive article can be produced by casting the polymeric layer component and as the glass particles are embedded, this casting with the particles constitutes molding plastic and the particles together. As Gross et al teaches separation and placement of the inventive particles via an applied magnetic field, carrying out this step in the Sitter process would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. Each limitation of claim 33 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art, and the claim is patentably indistinct. Conclusion 1 0 . No claim is allowed. 1 1 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1 2 . 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 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 6221 NSW 13 December 2025