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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art, relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Receipt is acknowledged of the International Application PCT/JP2022/019703. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 3 May 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 6 April 2026, 14 April 2026, 27 April 2026, and 26 May 2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 9 November 2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of the Claims
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Claims 1-12 are currently rejected.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokunaga et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2015/0045203 A1.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2015/0045203 A1.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peuchert et al., U.S. Patent, US 6,329,310 B1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peuchert et al., U.S. Patent, US 6,329,310 B1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokunaga et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2015/0045203 A1.
Tokunaga et al. disclose an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 66-70% SiO2, 12-14% of Al2O3, >0-1.5% of B2O3, 5-9.5% of MgO, 4-11% of CaO, 0.5-4.5% of SrO, 0-0.5% of BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of a total of ZnO, Fe2O3, SO3, F, Cl, and SnO2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0043]-[0050], [0052]-[0054], [0057], [0060]-[0063], and [0076]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a Young’s modulus of at least 84 GPa. See paragraph [0090]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 30 x 10-7 to 43 x 10-7/°C. See paragraph [0084]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for substrates and various displays including organic EL displays. See paragraph [0124]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a devitrification temperature of at most 1350°C. See paragraph [0088]. The compositional ranges of Tokunaga et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the alkali-free glass composition as recited in claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 10-12. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example 12 (see Table 12), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 67.2-72% of SiO2, 12-16% of Al2O3, 0-3% of B2O3, 0-0.5% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 6-12% of MgO, 9-13% of CaO, 0-2% of SrO, 0-1% of BaO, and a mol% ratio of SrO/SiO2 of 0-0.03, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 3, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example 12 (see Table 2), which reads on an alkali-free glass which does not substantially contain As2O3 and Sb2O3, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 7, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example 12 (see Table 2), which reads on an alkali-free glass having a Young’s modulus of greater than 84 GPa, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example 12 (see Table 2), which reads on an alkali-free glass having a coefficient of thermal expansion of 30 x 10-7 to 50 x 10-7/°C, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Tokunaga et al. would inherently possess a liquidus viscosity of at least 104.0 dPa·s, as recited in claim 9. See MPEP 2112.
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).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 10, Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for various display technologies (see paragraph [0124]), which reads on an alkali-free glass sheet used for an organic EL device, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for substrates (see paragraph [0124]), which reads on an alkali-free glass sheet used for a magnetic recording medium, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example 12 (see Table 2), which reads on an alkali-free glass comprising 67.5-72 mol% of SiO2, as recited in instant claim 12.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2015/0045203 A1.
Tokunaga et al. teach an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 66-70% SiO2, 12-14% of Al2O3, >0-1.5% of B2O3, 5-9.5% of MgO, 4-11% of CaO, 0.5-4.5% of SrO, 0-0.5% of BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of a total of ZnO, Fe2O3, SO3, F, Cl, and SnO2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0043]-[0050], [0052]-[0054], [0057], [0060]-[0063], and [0076]. Tokunaga et al. teach that the alkali-free glass has a Young’s modulus of at least 84 GPa. See paragraph [0090]. Tokunaga et al. teach that the alkali-free glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 30 x 10-7 to 43 x 10-7/°C. See paragraph [0084]. Tokunaga et al. teach that the alkali-free glass is used for substrates and various displays including organic EL displays. See paragraph [0124]. Tokunaga et al. teach that the alkali-free glass has a devitrification temperature of at most 1350°C. See paragraph [0088].
Tokunaga et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 2 and 4. However, the mole percent ranges taught by Tokunaga et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 2 and 4. See paragraphs [0043]-[0050], [0052]-[0054], [0057], [0060]-[0063], and [0076]. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Tokunaga et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 2, Tokunaga et al. teach 66-70% SiO2, 12-14% of Al2O3, >0-1.5% of B2O3, 5-9.5% of MgO, 4-11% of CaO, 0.5-4.5% of SrO, 0-0.5% of BaO, 0-2% of ZrO2, and 0-5% of a total of ZnO, Fe2O3, SO3, F, Cl, and SnO2 (see paragraphs [0043]-[0050], [0052]-[0054], [0057], [0060]-[0063], and [0076]), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 67.2-72% of SiO2, 12-16% of Al2O3, 0-<1% of B2O3, 0-0.5% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 6-12% of MgO, 9-13% of CaO, 0-2% of SrO, and 0-1% of BaO, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 4, Tokunaga et al. teach 0-5% of a total of ZnO, Fe2O3, SO3, F, Cl, and SnO2 (see paragraph [0076]), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 0.001-1% of SnO2, as recited in instant claim 4.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peuchert et al., U.S. Patent, US 6,329,310 B1.
Peuchert et al. disclose an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 60.5-69% SiO2, 15-24% of Al2O3, 0.5-4.5% of B2O3, 3-10% of MgO, 0-10% of CaO, 0.5-8% of SrO, 0.5-5% of BaO, 0.1-2% of SnO2, 0-2% of ZrO2, 0-2% of TiO2, 0-1% of CeO2, and 0-<1% of ZnO. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, column 4, lines 23-29, column 4, lines 37-59, column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 12, and column 5, lines 20-61. Peuchert et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 28 x 10-7 to 40 x 10-7/°C. See column 4, line 60-62 and column 7, lines 30-32. Peuchert et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for substrates and various displays. See column 1, line 10 to column 2, line 34 and column 4, lines 17-22. Peuchert et al. disclose that “UDL” is the upper devitrification temperature or liquidus temperature. See column 6, lines 56-57. The compositional ranges of Peuchert et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the alkali-free glass composition as recited in claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Peuchert et al. disclose Example 2 (see Table), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 67.2-72% of SiO2, 12-16% of Al2O3, 0-3% of B2O3, 0-0.5% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 6-12% of MgO, 9-13% of CaO, 0-2% of SrO, 0-1% of BaO, and a mol% ratio of SrO/SiO2 of 0-0.03, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 3, Peuchert et al. disclose Example 2 (see Table), which reads on an alkali-free glass which does not substantially contain As2O3 and Sb2O3, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Peuchert et al. disclose Example 2 (see Table), which reads on an alkali-free glass comprising 0.001-1 mol% of SnO2, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Peuchert et al. would inherently possess a Young’s modulus of at least 83 GPa, a strain point of at least 730°C, and a liquidus temperature of at most 1350°C, as recited in claim 5. See MPEP 2112.
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).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 6, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Peuchert et al. would inherently possess a strain point of at least 735°C. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 7, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Peuchert et al. would inherently possess a Young’s modulus of more than 84 GPa. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 8, Peuchert et al. disclose Example 2 (see Table), which reads on an alkali-free glass having a coefficient of thermal expansion of 30 x 10-7 to 50 x 10-7/°C, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Peuchert et al. would inherently possess a liquidus viscosity of at least 104.0 dPa·s, as recited in claim 9. See MPEP 2112.
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).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 10, Peuchert et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for substrates and various display technologies (see column 1, line 10 column 2, line 34 and column 4, lines 17-22), which reads on an alkali-free glass sheet used for an organic EL device, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Peuchert et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for substrates (see column 1, line 10 column 2, line 34 and column 4, lines 17-22), which reads on an alkali-free glass sheet used for a magnetic recording medium, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Peuchert et al. disclose Example 2 (see Table), which reads on an alkali-free glass comprising 67.5-72 mol% of SiO2, as recited in instant claim 12.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peuchert et al., U.S. Patent, US 6,329,310 B1.
Peuchert et al. teach an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 60.5-69% SiO2, 15-24% of Al2O3, 0.5-4.5% of B2O3, 3-10% of MgO, 0-10% of CaO, 0.5-8% of SrO, 0.5-5% of BaO, 0.1-2% of SnO2, 0-2% of ZrO2, 0-2% of TiO2, 0-1% of CeO2, and 0-<1% of ZnO. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, column 4, lines 23-29, column 4, lines 37-59, column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 12, and column 5, lines 20-61. Peuchert et al. teach that the alkali-free glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 28 x 10-7 to 40 x 10-7/°C. See column 4, line 60-62 and column 7, lines 30-32. Peuchert et al. teach that the alkali-free glass is used for substrates and various displays. See column 1, line 10 to column 2, line 34 and column 4, lines 17-22. Peuchert et al. teach that “UDL” is the upper devitrification temperature or liquidus temperature. See column 6, lines 56-57.
Peuchert et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claim 2. However, it is believed that the weight percent ranges taught by Peuchert et al. would have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 2 if the weight percent ranges were able to be converted into mole percent ranges. See column 4, lines 23-29, column 4, lines 37-59, column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 12, and column 5, lines 20-61 and above rejection and Example 2 of the Table. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Peuchert et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 2, Peuchert et al. teach an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 60.5-69% SiO2, 15-24% of Al2O3, 0.5-4.5% of B2O3, 3-10% of MgO, 0-10% of CaO, 0.5-8% of SrO, 0.5-5% of BaO, 0.1-2% of SnO2, 0-2% of ZrO2, 0-2% of TiO2, 0-1% of CeO2, and 0-<1% of ZnO (see column 4, lines 23-29, column 4, lines 37-59, column 4, line 62 to column 5, line 12, and column 5, lines 20-61), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 67.2-72% of SiO2, 12-16% of Al2O3, 0-<1% of B2O3, 0-0.5% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 6-12% of MgO, 9-13% of CaO, 0-2% of SrO, and 0-1% of BaO, as recited in instant claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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 R. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
1 July 2026
Prosecution Insights