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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 03/24/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the claims recite “4.5<Al2O3/Na2O<5.5” and “8 to 18 mol% of Al2O3”, thus the largest value of Na2O cannot be over 4%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140170380A1.
Regarding claim 1, US20140170380A1 discloses a tempered glass having a compression stress layer in a surface thereof, the tempered glass comprising, as a glass composition in terms of mol %, 58 to 66% of SiO2, 3 to 15% of Al2O3, 0.3 to 20% of Na2O, 0-5% ZnO, 0 to 12% of B2O3, and 0 to 15% of CaO, and a molar ratio Na2O/Al2O3 of 1.2-2.3. See [0013,0042-0044,0046,00500058,0064]. The ratio of Al2O3/ Na2O is 0.83-0.43. The tempered glass has a thickness 0.1 mm. See [0085].
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "encompassing" ranges, and encompassing ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, the tempered glass has a thickness 0.1 mm. See [0085].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art, since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully submits that the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the substantial ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Regarding claim 5, a density of the glass article may be in 2.60 grams per cubic centimeters (g/cm3). See [0025].
Regarding claims 6-11, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art, since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully submits that the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the substantial ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwises
Regarding claim 12, US20140170380A1 discloses a tempered glass having a compression stress layer in a surface thereof, the tempered glass comprising, as a glass composition in terms of mol %, 58 to 66% of SiO2, 3 to 15% of Al2O3, 0.3 to 20% of Na2O, 0-5% ZnO, 0 to 12% of B2O3, and 0 to 15% of CaO, and a molar ratio Na2O/Al2O3 of 1.2-2.3. See [0013,0042-0044,0046,00500058,0064]. The ratio of Al2O3/ Na2O is 0.83-0.43. The tempered glass has a thickness 0.1 mm. See [0085]. The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "encompassing" ranges, and encompassing ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
