DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-10 and 21-30 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 (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 and 10/15/2024 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 3 and 29-30 rare 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 3 recites that the glass raw material has a certain average transmittance “at a wavelength of light of 380-780nm” or 360-400nm. However, these are wavelength ranges, and thus the use of the phrasing “a wavelength of light” renders unclear the intention of the property limitation, i.e. if it is meant to indicate a transmittance in the ranges of the claims at any wavelength within the respective ranges, or if a glass must have the transmittance value as measured across the entirety of one of the wavelength ranges in order to fall within the bounds of the claim. Because of this, the scope of claim 3 is ambiguous and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 29 is drawn only to the use of the raw material of claim 1 in a bending process, with no positive process steps included. The claim is not drawn to the process of hot bending per se, and thus it is not clear if the intended claim coverage is the method itself, or to a glass raw material able to be used thusly. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 30 is drawn only to the use of the raw material of claim 1 in certain articles, with no positive process steps included. The claim is not drawn to said articles per se, and thus it is not clear if the intended claim coverage is for the listed articles themselves, or to a glass raw material able to be used thusly. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite under USC 112.
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 1-3, 5-10, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan (US 2020/0131080 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yuan teaches a glass-ceramic article comprising a material having a crystallinity of 70% or greater and a thickness of 0.55 mm (see claim 9 and claim 10). The Yuan glass-ceramic constitutes a crystallized glass raw material, and as such each limitation of claim 1 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Yuan teaches embodiments wherein the crystallinity falls within the instant ranges and wherein the thickness is 0.55 mm for purposes of measuring transmittance (see Table 4).
Regarding claim 3, Yuan teaches embodiments wherein the average transmittance of 400-800 nm light through a 0.55 mm thickness falls within the range of 83-93% (see Table 4, i.e. 0.85, 0.86, 0.88 which are 85%, 86%, 88%). Because Yuan teaches a glass with an equivalent composition to that of the instant claims and that has equivalent crystallinity, this average transmittance from 400-800 nm is considered to show that the transmittance in the very similar range of 380-780 nm would also be equivalent, and this further limitation of claim 3 is thus met by Yuan. 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 5, Yuan teaches embodiments wherein each of the compositional features in the limitations are present (see i.e. Table 4, example 3, containing when converted to mol%: 72.05 % SiO2, 0.81% P2O5, 4.70% Al2O3, 19.24% Li2O, 0.31% K2O, 1.43% MgO, 0.35% ZnO, and 1.03% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned Yuan example glass comprises 76.75 mol% SiO2+Al2O3.
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned Yuan example glass comprises P2O5 and ZrO2.
Regarding claim 8, Yuan teaches that SnO2, Sb2O3, and CeO2 can each be present in the inventive composition as fining agent (see paragraph 0064), and teaches embodiments comprising Sb2O3 (see Table 2).
Regarding claim 9, Yuan teaches a crystallite size of 40 nm.
Regarding claim 10, Yuan does not specify the Vickers hardness at a force load of 300N for 10s. However, as above, the equivalent Yuan glass ceramic would inherently have an equivalent Vickers hardness property to that of the instant 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 claims 22-24, as discussed above, Yuan teaches a glass ceramic meeting each limitation of instant claims 2-4, and Yuan further teaches embodiments wherein each of the compositional features in the limitations are present (see i.e. Table 4, example 3, containing when converted to mol%: 72.05 % SiO2, 0.81% P2O5, 4.70% Al2O3, 19.24% Li2O, 0.31% K2O, 1.43% MgO, 0.35% ZnO, and 1.03% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 25, as discussed above, Yuan teaches a glass ceramic meeting each limitation of instant claim 6, and wherein the aforementioned Yuan example glass comprises P2O5 and ZrO2.
Regarding claim 26, as discussed above, Yuan teaches a glass ceramic meeting each limitation of instant claim 6, and further teaches that SnO2, Sb2O3, and CeO2 can each be present in the inventive composition as fining agent (see paragraph 0064), and teaches embodiments comprising Sb2O3 (see Table 2).
Regarding claim 27, Yuan teaches embodiments wherein the inventive material has high transparency (see paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 28, Yuan teaches sheet (planar) shaped bodies formed from the inventive material (see paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 29, Yuan teaches shaping the inventive glass ceramic by hot bending (see paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 30, Yuan teaches that the inventive glass ceramic is used as a screen for mobile phones (see paragraph 0139).
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.
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 2020/0131080 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yuan teaches a haze value through a thickness of 0.55 mm that falls within the instantly claimed range (see Table 4). Yuan does not specify the haze value through a 0.7 mm thickness instead. However, as above, the equivalent Yuan glass ceramic would inherently have an equivalent haze percentage property to that of the instant claim. This is further evidenced by the equivalent value through the similar thickness taught in the prior art of record. As such, this further property limitation of claim 4 is considered to be met by Yuan.
Claim 4 differs from Yuan as applied above because Yuan does not specify the b value of the inventive glass. However, as discussed above, Yuan teaches a crystallized glass that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass therefore necessarily also has equivalent properties, and as such the b value would be within the range of 0.2-3. 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 21, Yuan teaches a haze value through a thickness of 0.55 mm that falls within the instantly claimed range (see Table 4). Yuan does not specify the haze value through a 0.7 mm thickness instead. However, as above, the equivalent Yuan glass ceramic would inherently have an equivalent haze percentage property to that of the instant claim. This is further evidenced by the equivalent value through the similar thickness taught in the prior art of record. As such, this further property limitation of claim 21 is considered to be met by Yuan.
Claim 21 differs from Yuan as applied above because Yuan does not specify the b value of the inventive glass. However, as discussed above, Yuan teaches a crystallized glass that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass therefore necessarily also has equivalent properties, and as such the b value would be within the range of 0.2-3. 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).
Conclusion
13. No claim is allowed.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. 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 6221
NSW22 December 2025