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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no evidence of the record to show the claimed product can be made as the office has alleged. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes claim 1 does not require any temperature change rate, and therefore could be made using any temperature change rate. Applicant further argues that the office has failed to show that a heating rate of less than 0.5°C is materially different from the claimed process of 0.5°C or more. Examiner notes that two mathematically exclusive ranges are de facto materially different, and this argument is not convincing. Applicant further argues that a search and examination of all claims would not impose a serious burden, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons outlined in the restriction requirement dated 06/04/2026, and therefore this is not convincing. Applicant further argues that the restriction requirement failed to assert that the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together, can have materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect, and therefore the restriction requirement should be withdrawn. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Applicant is quoting the “related products” section of 806.05(j) when the relevant section is the “Intermediate-Final Product” section reproduced at form paragraph 8.14 within the same section of the MPEP. In form paragraph 8.14, an intermediate-final relationship is established if distinctness is proven and the products are not obvious variants. Per FP 8.14 “Distinctness is proven for claims in this relationship if the intermediate product is useful to make other than the final product and the species are patentably distinct”. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Click et al. (US20200017398, hereinafter referred to as Click).
Regarding claim 1, Click discloses a glass ceramic (see Click at the Abstract, disclosing a glass ceramic), wherein a crystal contained in the largest amount on a mass basis is a lithium disilicate-based crystal (see Click at [0420], disclosing lithium disilicate is the crystalline phase with the highest weight percentage.).
While Click does not explicitly disclose a ratio of Li ions in Li ion sites of the lithium disilicate-based crystal is less than 95%, Click teaches a composition at the surface of the glass-ceramic may be different than the composition of the as-formed glass-ceramic (i.e., the glass-ceramic before it undergoes an ion exchange process). This results from one type of alkali metal ion in the as-formed glass-ceramic, such as, for example Li+ or Na+, being replaced with larger alkali metal ions, such as, for example Na+ or K+ (see Click at [0491]). Click discloses The glass-ceramic samples were then ion exchanged in a molten salt bath containing 95 wt % NaNO3 and 5 wt % KNO3 at 470° C. A first set samples was ion exchanged for 2 hours (see Click at [0509]), which is substantially identical to the instant specification at [0193] which states the chemical strengthening treatment at preferably 450° C. or lower for preferably 1 hour or shorter. Specifically, for example, a treatment of immersion in a molten salt (for example, a mixed salt of lithium nitrate and sodium nitrate) preferably containing 0.3 mass % of Li and 99.7 mass % of Na at preferably 450° C. Therefore, because the ion exchange treatment of Click is substantially identical to the ion exchange treatment of the instant specification, the glass-ceramic of Click would inherently possess the claimed ratio percentage. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, while Click does not explicitly disclose a light transmittance in terms of a thickness of 0.7 mm of 85% or more in a wavelength range of 400 nm to 1,000 nm, the glass ceramic of click would inherently possess this property as evidenced by Click at [0072], disclosing a transmittance of at least 85% for light in a wavelength range from 450 nm to 800 nm at a thickness of 1 mm.
Regarding claim 4, while Click does not explicitly disclose a total value of a relative dielectric constant Dk at 10 GHz and 20°C and a dielectric loss tangent tan S at 10 GHz and 20°C by 100 is 7.5 or less, this is a function of the composition of the glass and the ratio of Li ions in Li ion sites of the lithium disilicate-based crystal as shown by the instant specification at [0243] and [0009] of the PGPub. Because the glass ceramic of glass has a composition substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed in the rejections of claims 6 and 7 below, and because the glass ceramic has a ratio of Li ions to Li ion sites substantially identical to the instant glass ceramic as detailed in the glass ceramic of claim 1 above, the glass of Click would inherently possess the claimed relative dielectric constant and dielectric loss tangent.
Regarding claim 5, while Click does not explicitly disclose a relative dielectric constant Dk at 10 GHz and 20°C of 5.8 or less, this is a function of the composition of the glass and the ratio of Li ions in Li ion sites of the lithium disilicate-based crystal as shown by the instant specification at [0243] of the PGPub. Because the glass ceramic of glass has a composition substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed in the rejections of claims 6 and 7 below, and because the glass ceramic has a ratio of Li ions to Li ion sites substantially identical to the instant glass ceramic as detailed in the glass ceramic of claim 1 above, the glass of Click would inherently possess the claimed relative dielectric constant.
Regarding claim 6, Click discloses a glass ceramic comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on oxides: 55% to 85% of SiO2 (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 70 mol% SiO2); 1% to 5% of Al2O3 (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 4.3 mol% Al2O3); 0% to 5.0% of B2O3 (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 0% B2O3); 0.5% to 5.0% of P2O5 (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 0.9 mol% P2O5); 0% to 5.0% of TiO2 (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 0% TiO2); 0% to 5.0% of ZrO2 (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 2 mol% ZrO2); 15% to 25% of Li2O (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 21.9 mol% Li2O); 0% to 5.0% of Na2O (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 1 mol% Na2O); 0% to 5.0% of K2O (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 0 mol% K2O); and 0% to 5.0% in total of one or more selected from MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 0 % MgO).
Regarding claim 7, Click discloses the glass ceramic comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on an oxide: 0.1% to 5.0% of Na2O (see Click at Table 3, Example 8, disclosing an example of a glass ceramic comprising 1 mol% Na2O).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Click.
Regarding claim 3, Click makes obvious having a haze value in terms of a thickness of 0.7 mm of less than 5% in a wavelength range of 400 nm to 1,000 nm (see Click at [0427], disclosing a haze of less than 0.2, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11, or 0.1, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN103086703A and machine translation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights