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 § 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 – 13 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 1-13, the term in the parenthesis is indefinite. It is not clear the limitation in the parathesis is meant to be a part of the claim or not.
The content of SiO2 can not be over 78.5 % for claim 9.
The content of SiO2 can not be over 78.3 % for claim 10.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US20200017398A1.
Regarding claims 1- 3, US20200017398A1 discloses a glass ceramic article including a lithium disilicate crystalline phase, a petalite crystalline phased, and a residual glass phase. See abstract.
The weight percentage of the lithium disilicate crystalline phase in the glass-ceramic compositions can be in a range from about 20 to about 60 wt%. See [420].
The weight percentage of the petalite crystalline phase in the glass-ceramic compositions can be in a range from about 20 to about 30 wt %. See [0421].
The glass ceramic article comprises from 5 wt % to 30 wt % of the residual glass phase. See [0028]
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, US20200017398A1 discloses that the glass-ceramic article is transparent and has a transmittance of at least 85% for light in a wavelength range from 450 nm to 800 nm at a thickness of 1 mm. See [0072].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 5, US20200017398A1 discloses a haze (%) <0.0994t+0.12 where t is the thickness of the glass ceramic article in mm. See abstract. 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 claims 9-10, US20200017398A1 discloses the glass components content.
PNG
media_image1.png
431
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6-8, The Examiner respectfully submits that although the prior art does not disclose the claimed properties, 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, US20200017398A1 discloses that the glass ceramic articles may have a compressive stress (CS) of greater than 175 MPa. See [0488]. The glass ceramic article comprises glass sheet. See [0110-0118].
US20200017398A1 discloses that the glass-ceramic article is capable of being chemically strengthened using one or more ion exchange techniques. In these embodiments, ion exchange can occur by subjecting one or more surfaces of such glass-ceramic article to one or more ion exchange mediums (for example molten salt baths), having a specific composition and temperature, for a specified time period to impart to the one or more surfaces with compressive stress layer(s). See [0489]
Regarding claim 12, US20200017398A1 discloses that after an ion exchange process is performed, it should be understood that 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+, respectively. However, the composition of the glass-ceramic at or near the center of the depth of the glass-ceramic article will, in embodiments, still have the composition of the as-formed glass-ceramic. See [0481].
Regarding claim 13, US20200017398A1 discloses that an electronic device comprising a transparent surface, the transparent surface comprising the glass ceramic article. See claim 13.
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
Prosecution Insights