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 .
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 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20020009602 A1.
Regarding claims 1-8, and 21-23, US 20020009602 A1 discloses glass substrate for an information recording medium constitutes a magnetic recording medium by successively laminating a matrix layer, a magnetic layer, a protective layer and a lubricating layer. Here, as materials of the glass substrate of the magnetic recording medium, for example, there are pointed out aluminosilicate glass, soda lime glass, soda aluminosilicate glass, alminoborosilicate glass, borosilicate glass, quartz glass, chainsilicate glass and glass ceramics such as crystallized glass. Further, preferably, there is used glass having the following compositions.
The crystallized glass(glass ceramic) includes in weight %, 60 through 87% of SiO 2, 5 through 20% of Li2O, 0 through 5% of Na2O, 0 through 10% of K2O, a total of 0.5 through 10% of Na2O and K2O, 0.5 through 7.5% of MgO, 0 through 9.5% of CaO, 0 through 15% of SrO, 0 through 13% of BaO, 0 through 13% of ZnO, 0 through 10% of B2O3, 0 through 10% of Al2O3, 0.5 through 8% of P2O5, 0 through 5% of TiO2, 0 through 3% of ZrO2, 0 through 3% of SnO2, a total of 0 through 2% of As2O3 and Sb2O3, and a total of 0 through 5% of a total amount in F of a fluoride of a metal element of one kind or more of the above-mentioned metal oxides, including, depending on cases as a coloring component, 0 through 5% of at least one kind selected from the group consisting of V2O5, CuO, MnO2, Cr2O3, CoO, MoO3, NiO, Fe2O3, TeO2, CeO2, Pr2O3, Nd2O3, and Er2O3, including, as main crystal, lithium disilicate, depending on cases, α-cristobalite, α-quartz, lithium monosilicate, and β-spodumene and having a size of a crystal particle equal to or smaller than 3.0 μm. See [0095-0097].
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “encompassing” ranges and overlapping or encompassing ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 9-10, the Examiner respectfully submits that although the prior art does not disclose the claimed properties fracture toughness, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art, since the prior art 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 11, The Examiner respectfully submits that although the prior art does not disclose the claimed properties flexural strength, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art, since the prior art 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 12, the Examiner respectfully submits that although the prior art does not disclose the claimed properties strength, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art, since the prior art 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 24, the crystallized glass (glass ceramic) includes as main crystal, lithium disilicate, depending on cases, α-cristobalite, α-quartz, lithium monosilicate, and β-spodumene and having a size of a crystal particle equal to or smaller than 3.0 μm.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 6, 9-13 and 21 - 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US20160060159A1
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, and 21-23, US20160060159A1 discloses dental lithium disilicate glass-ceramics containing cristobalite crystal with high strength as well as aesthetic traits. See [0009].
US20160060159A1 discloses a crystalline glass containing lithium disilicate crystal, cristobalite, lithium phosphate crystal, which also contains 11-13 wt % Li2O and 70-77 wt % SiO2 as main components of the crystalline glass, 2-3 wt % P2O5 working as nuclei formation agent, 2-5 wt % Al2O3 to increase glass transition temperature and softening temperature as well as chemical durability of the glass, 2-3 wt % ZrO2, 0.5-3 wt % CaO for enhancing thermal expansion coefficient, 0.5-3 wt % Na2O, 0.5-2 wt % K2O, 1-4 wt % for other coloring agents (colorants). See [0034].
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “encompassing” ranges and overlapping or encompassing ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 9-10, the Examiner respectfully submits that although the prior art does not disclose the claimed properties fracture toughness, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art, since the prior art 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 11, the lithium disilicate glass-ceramics has higher biaxial flexural strength than that of previously proposed lithium disilicate crystalline based glasses (approximately 350 MPa). See [0032].
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner respectfully submits that although the prior art does not disclose the claimed properties strength, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art, since the prior art 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 13, US20160060159A1 discloses a method to manufacture a lithium disilicate crystalline glass component having a cristobalite crystal phase, the method comprising: melting of the glass component of claim 1; performing a first heat treatment to form a nuclei at 350-400° C. for 1-120 minutes; and performing a second heat treatment for a crystal growth at 550-690° C. for 1-120 minutes. The recommended ZrO2 content is 2-3 wt %, at which level opacity increase after the crystallization heat treatment, because the aforementioned components promote the crystal growth resulting in increased content of crystal phases in the crystalline glass. See [0037] and claim 11. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the Content of the zirconia to obtain the desired crystallinity. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (
Regarding claim 24, US20160060159A1 discloses less than 30 wt % cristobalite crystal phase. See [0056].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 07/15/2026 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 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
Prosecution Insights