DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claim 1, was entered on 3/30/26.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues that none of the examples in Omori teach the claimed composition with the claimed Fe ion relationship. This is not persuasive. References are not limited to the examples provided. In this instance, Omori teaches the claimed composition at, e.g., ¶ 0012 and explains that the ratio of Fe ions is a result effective variable.
Applicant argues that Omori teaches an Fe2+/Fe3+ ratio which is not the same as the claimed Fe2+/(Fe2+ +Fe3+) ratio. This is not persuasive. While the examiner agrees that these two ratios are not identical, Omori’s Fe2+/Fe3+ ratio is relied upon to show that each of the Fe2+ and Fe3+ ions can be adjusted to arrive at applicant’s claimed ratio.
Applicant argues that Omori teaches away from Fe2+/Fe3+ ratios of 0.3 and therefore teaches away from applicant’s claimed range of 0.25-0.8. This is not persuasive. Omori only teaches that 0.3 is undesirable, which is outside applicant’s claimed range (0.25< Fe2+/(Fe2+ +Fe3+<0.8 is equivalent to 0.33< Fe2+/Fe3+<4). At most, Omori teaches that values of 0.3 or less are undesirable because Omori teaches that higher values are suitable (see, e.g., the table provided in applicant’s response).
If applicant is able to persuasively show any unexpected results associated with the claimed range, such evidence 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights