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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 5/21/26 have been entered. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 9-13 stand withdrawn. Claims 14-20 are to be rejoined.
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 3-5 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 claim 3, it is unclear if the recited “a composition” is the same composition or an additional, different composition from the “predetermined composition” now recited in claim 1. Therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be treated as the same as the “predetermined composition.”
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear if the recited “composition” is the same composition or an additional, different composition from the “predetermined composition” now recited in claim 1. Therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be treated as the same as the “predetermined composition.”
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if the “a glass composition” or “a glass-ceramic composition” are the same or different from the “predetermined composition” of claim 1. Further, it is unclear if the post-consumer recycled substrate comprising “a glass composition or a glass-ceramic composition” is required to be the same or different than the “a glass composition or a glass-ceramic composition” from line 2. Finally, it is unclear which of the elements of this claim are required in relation to the “predetermined composition” and “post-consumer recycled cover substrate” of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the ‘a glass composition’ or ‘a glass-ceramic composition’ of line 2 will be applied to the ‘predetermined composition’ of claim 1. The post-consumer recycled substrate is therefore an additional glass or glass-ceramic composition in itself.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1, 2, and 6-8 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(b), claims 14-20, directed to the process of making or using the allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 9-13, directed to the invention(s) of a method of making a different substrate DO NOT require all the limitations of an allowable product claim, and HAVE NOT been rejoined.
Because a claimed invention previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 has been rejoined, the restriction requirement between product claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 14-20 as set forth in the Office action mailed on 1/2/26 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant has amended in that the base glass composition is a “predetermined composition” and argues that the instant specification defines “predetermined composition” as “new raw material” (see e.g. instant specification at paragraphs 80-82).
Applicant further cites the ISO 12021:2016 specification as evidence that “post-consumer recycled” materials specifically requires that the material be no longer suitable for its intended purpose and thus necessarily possesses unrecited additional impurities.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/L.B.F/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 9/20/2026
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights