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/JP2022/01970 4 . A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 9 May 2024. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 19 January 2024, 16 July 2025, 8 October 2025, 16 October 2025(2), 21 January 2026, 2 February 2026, 4 February 2026, and 9 March 2026 have been considered by the Examiner. Drawings The original drawings received on 9 November 2023 are accepted by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph 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. Claim s 1 and 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites a range of 3 to less than 9 mol% of CaO , and a range of 0 to 2 mol% of SrO , and further recites that the mol% ratio of SrO / CaO is from 0 to 0. 2 . It is unclear how SrO can be present in an amount greater than 1.8 mol% and still meet the required ratio. This renders the claim indefinite. Claim 2 recites a range of 3 to less than 9 mol% of CaO , and a range of 0 to 2 mol% of SrO , and further recites that the mol% ratio of SrO / CaO is from 0 to 0. 1 . It is unclear how SrO can be present in an amount greater than 0. 9 mol% and still meet the required ratio. This renders the claim indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 10 3 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- 4 and 7- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokunaga et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0407265 A1. Tokunaga et al. disclose an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 62-67% SiO 2 , 12.5-16.5% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-3% of B 2 O 3 , 8-13% of MgO , 6-12% of CaO , 0.5-4% of SrO , 0-0.5% of BaO , and 0-0.5% of SnO 2 . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0008]-[0015], [0024], and [0039]-[0057]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a Young’s modulus of at least 88 GPa. See paragraph [0071]. 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 paragraphs [0067]-[0070]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for information recording media and various displays including organic EL displays. See paragraphs [0001], [0002], [0030], [0032], [0097]-[0100], and [0103]-[0104]. The compositional ranges of Tokunaga et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the alkali-free glass composition as recited in claims 1- 4 and 7- 11. See MPEP 2131.03. Specifically, as to claim 1, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example 14 (see Table 3 ), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 64-72% of SiO 2 , 12-16% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-3% of B 2 O 3 , 0-0.5% of Li 2 O + Na 2 O + K 2 O , 6-12% of MgO , 3-<9 % of CaO , 0-2% of SrO , 0-1% of BaO , and a mol% ratio of SrO / CaO of 0-0. 2 and a mol% ratio of ( MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO ) x CaO/( SiO 2 x MgO ) of 0-0.3 , as recited in instant claim 1. As to claim 2, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example 1 4 (see Table 3), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 64-72% of SiO 2 , 12-16% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-3% of B 2 O 3 , 0-0.5% of Li 2 O + Na 2 O + K 2 O , 6-12% of MgO , 6 -<9% of CaO , 0-2% of SrO , 0-1% of BaO , and a mol% ratio of SrO / CaO of 0-0. 1 and a mol% ratio of ( MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO ) x CaO/( SiO 2 x MgO ) of 0-<0.25 , as recited in instant claim 2. As to claim 3, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example 1 4 (see Table 3 ), which reads on an alkali-free glass which does not substantially contain As 2 O 3 and Sb 2 O 3 , as recited in instant claim 3. As to claim 4, Tokunaga et al. disclose the alkali-free glass comprises 0-0.5 mol% of SnO 2 as a refining agent (see paragraphs [0024] and [0057], which reads on an alkali-free glass comprising 0.001-1 mol% of SnO 2 , as recited in instant claim 4. As to claim 7, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example 1 4 (see Table 3 ), 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 1 4 (see Table 3 ), 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 10 3.9 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 including organic EL displays (see paragraphs [0001], [0002], [0030], and [0097]-[0100]), 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 information recording medium (see paragraphs [0001], [0002], [0032], and [0103]-[0104]), which reads on an alkali-free glass sheet used for a magnetic recording medium, as recited in instant claim 11. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito , U.S. Patent Application Publication US 201 8 / 0086660 A1. Saito disclose s an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-80 % SiO 2 , 12- 30 % of Al 2 O 3 , 0- 3 % of B 2 O 3 , 0-15 % of MgO , 2-20 % of CaO , 0-10 % of SrO , 0-1 5 of BaO , 0-5% of ZnO , 0- 5 % of ZrO 2 , 0-5% of TiO 2 , 0-5% of P 2 O 5 , 0-1% of SnO 2 , 0-1% of refining agents: CeO 2 , SO 3 , C, and metal powders and 0- <0.1 % of As 2 O 3 , Sb 2 O 3 , F, and Cl . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [00 03 ], [00 13] , and [0 26]-[0052 ]. Saito disclose s that the alkali-free glass has a Young’s modulus of at least 75 GPa, preferably at least 8 0 GPa. See paragraph [0 060 ]. Saito disclose s that the alkali-free glass has a strain temperature of at least 7 50 ° C , preferably at least 800 °C. See paragraphs [00 20 ], [0 021 ], and [0 059 ]. Saito disclose s 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 paragraphs [00 13 ] and [ 0058 ]. Saito disclose s that the alkali-free glass is used for various displays including organic EL displays. See paragraphs [000 2 ], [00 03 ], [0 025 ], and [0 084 ]. The compositional ranges of Saito are sufficiently specific to anticipate the alkali-free glass composition as recited in claims 1 -10 . See MPEP 2131.03. Specifically, as to claim 1, Saito discloses Examples 12 and 15 (see Table 1), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 64-72% of SiO 2 , 12-16% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-3% of B 2 O 3 , 0-0.5% of Li 2 O + Na 2 O + K 2 O , 6-12% of MgO , 3-<9% of CaO , 0-2% of SrO , 0-1% of BaO , and a mol% ratio of SrO / CaO of 0-0.2 and a mol% ratio of ( MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO ) x CaO/( SiO 2 x MgO ) of 0-0.3, as recited in instant claim 1. As to claim 2, Saito discloses Example s 12 and 15 (see Table 1 ), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 64-72% of SiO 2 , 12-16% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-3% of B 2 O 3 , 0-0.5% of Li 2 O + Na 2 O + K 2 O , 6-12% of MgO , 6-<9% of CaO , 0-2% of SrO , 0-1% of BaO , and a mol% ratio of SrO / CaO of 0-0.1 and a mol% ratio of ( MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO ) x CaO/( SiO 2 x MgO ) of 0-<0.25, as recited in instant claim 2. As to claim 3, Saito discloses Examples 12 and 15 (see Table 1) , which reads on an alkali-free glass which does not substantially contain As 2 O 3 and Sb 2 O 3 , as recited in instant claim 3. As to claim 4, Saito discloses Examples 12 and 15 (see Table 1) , which reads on an alkali-free glass comprising 0.001-1 mol% of SnO 2 , as recited in instant claim 4. As to claim 5, Saito discloses Example 15 (see Table 1) , which reads on an alkali-free glass having a Young’s modulus of at least 83 GPa , a liquidus temperature of at most 1350°C , and a strain point of at least 730°C, as recited in instant claim 5. As to claim 6, Saito discloses Examples 12 and 15 (see Table 1) , which reads on an alkali-free glass having a strain point of at most 735°C , as recited in instant claim 6. As to claim 7, Saito discloses Examples 12 and 15 (see Table 1) , 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, Saito discloses Examples 12 and 15 (see Table 1) , 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, Saito discloses Example 15 (see Table 1), which reads on an alkali-free glass having a liquidus viscosity of at least 10 3.9 dPa·s, as recited in claim 9. See MPEP 2112. As to claim 10, Saito discloses that the alkali-free glass is used for various display technologies including organic EL displays (see paragraphs [000 2 ], [0003], [002 5 ], and [0 084 ]), which reads on an alkali-free glass sheet used for an organic EL device, as recited in instant claim 10. Claims 1 and 3 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokunaga et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014 / 0366581 A1. Tokunaga et al. disclose an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 6 6 - 70 % SiO 2 , 12-15 % of Al 2 O 3 , 0- 1.5 % of B 2 O 3 , >9.5-13 % of MgO , 4-9 % of CaO , 0.5-4 .5 % of SrO , 0- 1 of BaO , 0-2% of ZrO 2 , and 0- 5 % of refining agents, ZnO , Fe 2 O 3 , SO 3 , F, Cl, and SnO 2 . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [00 37 ] , [0040], [0041], [0077]-[0088], [ 0100 ], [0106] and [0 10 7]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a Young’s modulus of at least 8 4 GPa , preferably at least 90 GPa . See paragraph [0 175 ]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a strain temperature of at least 725°, preferably at least 735°C . See paragraphs [0056], [016 6 ], [0167], and [0202]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 30 x 10 -7 to 4 0 x 10 -7 /°C . See paragraphs [00 56 ] , [0169], and [0 202 ]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for information recording media and various displays including organic EL displays. See paragraphs [000 3 ], [00 20 ], [0 167 ], and [0 208 ]. The compositional ranges of Tokunaga et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the alkali-free glass composition as recited in claims 1 and 3 -11. See MPEP 2131.03. Specifically, as to claim 1, Tokunaga et al. disclose Examples 3, 4, 6, 8, and 16 (see Tables 1- 3 ), which reads on an alkali free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 64-72% of SiO 2 , 12-16% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-3% of B 2 O 3 , 0-0.5% of Li 2 O + Na 2 O + K 2 O , 6-12% of MgO , 3-<9% of CaO , 0-2% of SrO , 0-1% of BaO , and a mol% ratio of SrO / CaO of 0-0.2 and a mol% ratio of ( MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO ) x CaO/( SiO 2 x MgO ) of 0-0.3 , as recited in instant claim 1. As to claim 3, Tokunaga et al. disclose Examples 3, 4, 6, 8, and 16 (see Tables 1-3), which reads on an alkali-free glass which does not substantially contain As 2 O 3 and Sb 2 O 3 , as recited in instant claim 3. As to claim 4, Tokunaga et al. disclose the alkali-free glass comprises 0-5 mol% of SnO 2 as a refining agent (see paragraphs [ 0107 ], which reads on an alkali-free glass comprising 0.001-1 mol% of SnO 2 , as recited in instant claim 4. As to claim 5, Tokunaga et al. discloses Example s 3, 4, 6, 8, and 16 (see Table s 1- 3), which reads on an alkali-free glass having a Young’s modulus of at least 83 GPa and a strain point of at least 730°C, as recited in instant claim 5. Furthermore, 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 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, Tokunaga et al. disclose Example s 3, 4, 6, 8, and 16 (see Table s 1- 3), which reads on an alkali-free glass having a strain point of at most 735°C , as recited in instant claim 6. As to claim 7, Tokunaga et al. disclose Examples 3, 4, 6, 8, and 16 (see Tables 1- 3 ), 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 Examples 3, 4, 6, 8, and 16 (see Tables 1- 3 ), 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 10 3.9 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 including organic EL displays (see paragraphs [000 3 ], [00 20 ], and [0 167 ]), 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 information recording medium (see paragraph [ 0208 ]), which reads on an alkali-free glass sheet used for a magnetic recording medium, as recited in instant claim 11. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0366581 A1. Tokunaga et al. teach an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 66-70% SiO 2 , 12-15% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-1.5% of B 2 O 3 , >9.5-13% of MgO , 4-9% of CaO , 0.5-4.5% of SrO , 0-1 of BaO , 0-2% of ZrO 2 , and 0-5% of refining agents, ZnO , Fe 2 O 3 , so2, F, Cl, and SnO 2 . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0037], [0040], [0041], [0077]-[0088], [0100], [0106] and [0107]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a Young’s modulus of at least 84 GPa, preferably at least 90 GPa. See paragraph [0175]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a strain temperature of at least 725°, preferably at least 735°C. See paragraphs [0056], [0166], [0167], and [0202]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 30 x 10 -7 to 40 x 10 -7 /°C . See paragraphs [0056], [0169], and [0202]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for information recording media and various displays including organic EL displays. See paragraphs [0003], [0020], [0167], and [0208]. Tokunaga et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claim 2 . However, the mole percent ranges taught by Tokunaga et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 2 . See paragraphs [0037], [0040], [0041], [0077]-[0088], [0100], [0106] and [0107 ] . 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. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2018/0086660 A1 in view of Tokunaga et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2014/0366581 A1 . Saito discloses an alkali-free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-80% SiO 2 , 12-30% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-3% of B 2 O 3 , 0-15% of MgO , 2-20% of CaO , 0-10% of SrO , 0-15 of BaO , 0-5% of ZnO , 0-5% of ZrO 2 , 0-5% of TiO 2 , 0-5% of P 2 O 5 , 0-1% of SnO 2 , 0-1% of refining agents: CeO 2 , SO 3 , C, and metal powders and 0-<0.1% of As 2 O 3 , Sb 2 O 3 , F, and Cl. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0003], [0013], and [026]-[0052]. Saito discloses that the alkali-free glass has a Young’s modulus of at least 75 GPa, preferably at least 80 GPa. See paragraph [0060]. Saito discloses that the alkali-free glass has a strain temperature of at least 750°C, preferably at least 800°C. See paragraphs [0020], [0021], and [0059]. Saito discloses 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 paragraphs [0013] and [0058]. Saito discloses that the alkali-free glass is used for various displays including organic EL displays. See paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0025], and [0084]. Saito fails to disclose that the glass is used for a magnetic recording medium. Tokunaga et al. disclose a similar alkali-free glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 66-70% SiO 2 , 12-15% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-1.5% of B 2 O 3 , >9.5-13% of MgO , 4-9% of CaO , 0.5-4.5% of SrO , 0-1 of BaO , 0-2% of ZrO 2 , and 0-5% of refining agents, ZnO , Fe 2 O 3 , SO 3 , F, Cl, and SnO 2 . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0037], [0040], [0041], [0077]-[0088], [0100], [0106] and [0107]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a Young’s modulus of at least 84 GPa, preferably at least 90 GPa. See paragraph [0175]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a strain temperature of at least 725°, preferably at least 735°C. See paragraphs [0056], [0166], [0167], and [0202]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range of 30 x 10 -7 to 40 x 10 -7 /°C . See paragraphs [0056], [0169], and [0202]. Tokunaga et al. disclose that the alkali-free glass is used for information recording media and various displays including organic EL displays. See paragraphs [0003], [0020], [0167], and [0208]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a glass composition substrate of Saito as suggested by Tokunaga et al. because the resultant magnetic recording medium would have the superior strain temperature as taught by Tokunaga et al . 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/ . The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claims 1- 7 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,209,052 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional and property ranges overlap. 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 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. Claims 1- 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-1 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 441 , 653 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional and property ranges overlap. 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 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. Claims 1- 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-9 of copending Application No. 1 7 / 920 , 962 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. 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 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. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-1 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 5, 7-10, 12, and 13 of copending Application No. 1 8 / 573 , 117 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. 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 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. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 14 of copending Application No. 18/ 708 , 829 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. 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 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. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 7 , 9 , and 11- 13 of copending Application No. 1 9 / 100 , 742 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. 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 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. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above. Specifically, US 2013/0288877 A1 by Tsujimura et al. disclose Example s 3, 5, and 6 , which reads on at least claim 1. US 201 7 / 0217826 A1 by Ono et al. disclose Example 1 1 , which reads on at least claim 1, and JP 2015-083533 A by Koyama et al. disclose Example s 4 and 11 , which reads on at least claim 1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1363 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber R. Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 16 March 2026