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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/21/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed ranges are significantly different from the examples of Omori. This is not persuasive. References are not limited to the examples provided. In this instance, Omori teaches the claimed composition at, e.g., ¶ 0012, where Omori teaches concentration ranges which overlap the claimed concentration ranges.
Applicant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have inferred to vary the composition of Omori to arrive at the present claims. This is not persuasive. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). In this case, Omori teaches concentrations for each compound which overlap the claimed ranges. Absent some evidence of unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected from the disclosed ranges and arrived at the claimed ranges.
Applicant also argues that the claimed ranges achieve a combination of advantages, namely high millimeter wave transmissibility as well as favorable visible transmissibility. This is not persuasive. Applicant has not provided any evidence that demonstrates that these unexpected results occur due to the claimed composition. If applicant could provide evidence of these unexpected results which was commensurate in scope with the claims, that evidence would be considered and would likely overcome the art on record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omori (JPH08239237, machine translation).
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10: Omori teaches borosilicate glass (“BSG”) comprising 80 mass% SiO2,(approx. 81 molar%), 9% B2O3 (approx. 7.9 molar%), 1 mass% Al2O3 (approx. 0.6 mol%), 4.5 mass% Na2O (approx. 0.65 mol%), 1.0% K2O (approx. 0.65 mol%), 1.0 mass% BaO (approx. 0.4 mol%), 2.3 mass% ZnO (approx. 1.72 mol%), and 0.2 mass% Fe2O3 (approx. 3.2 mol%) (¶ 0012). This would correlate with a ratio of Al2O3/(SiO2 + B2O3) of approx. 0.0067. Omori does not expressly discuss basicity. However, Omori teaches the same composition of BSG as that which applicant discloses to have the claimed basicity. Therefore the claimed basicity is considered inherent.
Omori teaches that the ratio of Fe2+ and Fe3+ can be adjusted depending on the desired transmittance (¶ 0032). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected the claimed ratio depending on the desired transmittance with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 3: Omori teaches that an amount of Li2O can be substituted for an amount of Na2O within a range of 1-12 mass% (¶ 0013). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included 1.5-5 molar% Li2O with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 6 and 7: Omori teaches that, for a sample thickness of 2 mm (¶ 0028), transmittance of light at 500 nm is over 78% and, at 1000 nm, is under 80% (¶ 0029, Fig. 1).
Claims 8 and 9: Omori teaches that, for a sample thickness of 2 mm (¶ 0028), transmittance of light between 450 and 700 nm is over 78% and, between 900 and 1300 nm, is under 80% (¶ 0029, Fig. 1).
Claims 12 and 13: Omori does not discuss a relative dielectric constant or dielectric loss tangent. However, Omori teaches the same composition of BSG as that which applicant discloses to have these claimed properties. Therefore these claimed properties are considered inherent.
Claims 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omori in light of Sienerth et al. (US 2017/0113520).
Claims 14-15 and 20-21: Omori fails to teach use of the BSG as a laminated vehicle glass. Sienerth teaches that BSG is useful as the inner or outer pain of a laminated structure to make vehicle glass (Abst.) wherein the laminated structure comprises a chemically strengthened inner glass plate of BSG (¶¶ 0022, 0026), a second glass plate (Abst.; ¶ 0026) and an interlayer between the two plates (¶ 0026). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized the BSG of Omori as a glass plate in the vehicle window of Sienerth with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 16-17: Sienerth further teaches that the total thickness of the laminate is less than 5mm (¶¶ 0017, 0019, 0032) and that the light and solar transmittance of the glass is greater than 70% (¶ 0034).
Claims 18-19: Sienerth does not discuss the radio wave transmission loss. However, the combination of Omori and Sienerth teach the same composition of BSG in the same structure as that which applicant discloses to have these claimed properties. Therefore these claimed properties are considered inherent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
