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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, and 12-25 remain pending. Claims 4-5, 7-8 and 11 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer to any subject matter therein. Claims 21-25 are new. Claims 1 and 20 are amended. Note: Applicant cites Claim 10 was cancelled but this is not reflected in the Claims. The cancelled claim was 11.
Applicant' s arguments and Amendments, filed 12/15/2025, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 6- 7, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to Claim 10 rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, is acknowledged yet the Applicant did not delete Claim 10 to reflect the Remarks. Applicant does not point out that these rejections listed the wrong claim number and should have been directed to claim 11, which was cancelled. The rejection under 101 and 112b for a “use” claim are withdrawn as claim 11 has been cancelled.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 8- 18, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of Claim 1 of previously applied reference Fu.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that, with bold underlined words added emphasis by the Applicant,
I. Benefits
The distinguishing features of amended Claim 1 provide for microcrystalline cover glass with specific shapes with low glass deformation rate and high glass transmittance simultaneously.
In prior art, the molding process of secondary crystallization is prone to irregular deformation.
Long-term research had discovered that processes of crystallization and growth may lead to the deformation rate of the glass being reduced, but the optical properties such as transmittance of the glass will be deteriorated .
The instant application controls the temperature and duration of the primary crystallization subjected to the secondary crystallization to improve product yield. Further that secondary crystallization temperature is controlled precisely for each stage to improve consistency of the finished product and enhance production yield. As well, by controlling the temperature change curve, the optical properties of the glass can also be improved.
The claimed method for microcrystalline glass under the specific conditions provides prepared glass with ideal transmittance.
to ensure low glass deformation and excellent transmittance after secondary crystallization, a specific primary crystallization temperature and specific glass density is utilized after primary crystallization.
II. In regard to Fu,
the process of Fu is completely different than the instant application. Fu fails to involve the secondary crystallization process and 3D shape forming in Fu is set after primary nucleation. Fu fails to disclose the preparation of microcrystalline glass for cover plates with specific shapes (such as curved edges) via a two-step crystallization process. As such, Fu does not disclose the distinguishing technical features and cannot provide for a teaching or suggestion to apply those features to Hu.
Fu does not specifically disclose the combination of 657°C and 60 minutes for crystallization by Fu citing crystallization temperature range from 650°C to 700°C for 1min to 240min and that within Fu’s crystallization temperature and time ranges, there are combinations that do NOT satisfy the specific equations as defined in Claim 1. Therefore, Fu cannot be deemed to effectively disclose the distinguishing technical features in Claim 1.
Fu does not disclose what technical problems might exist, nor mention the means to solve those technical problems, noted above.
Fu cannot provide any teachings for applying the aforementioned distinguishing features to Hu.
III. Motivation:
further, no motivation to combine since the processes of Hu and Fu are completely different.
further, no motivation to combine in that those skilled in the art cannot be aware/conceive which crystallization processes in Hu combine (obviousness) with features disclosed by Fu.
those skilled in the art would have no motivation to combine Hu and Fu to arrive at the technical solution of Claim 1.
IV. Amendment to Claim 1:
by incorporating features into Claim 1 from the cancelled Claims 4-5, 7-8, renders Claim 1 non-obvious and patentable over Hu in view of Fu.
Hu fails to disclose the technical features of amended Claim 1.
Hu fails to disclose features specific to primary crystallization.
Hu does not disclose a process for preparing microcrystalline glass for cover plates with specific curved edges using a two-step crystallization process nor disclose technical problems may be encountered in doing as such.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies,
Benefits, a-e,
While in agreement of the noted benefits, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,
the combination alleged in the Office Action fails to achieve the technical effect of the claimed invention
) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification,
limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26
USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, Applicants argument is moot.
II. In regard to Fu,
Respectful disagreement. The Examiner interprets that Hu discloses primary nucleation-primary crystallization-secondary nucleation-secondary crystallization. Fu discloses a pre-nucleating step that produces a level of crystallinity, suggesting the pre-nucleating step is a combined crystallinity step, i.e. Fu teaches primary nucleation-primary crystallization. As the claims provide separate primary nucleation and primary crystallization steps, the Examiner reminds the Applicant that in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959). Fu then teaches a second nucleation followed by a crystallization process, i.e. secondary nucleation-secondary crystallization. Fu does provide for microcrystalline glass via a two-step crystallization process. Further, Fu provides similar glass compositions as Hu in the arena of lithium alumino silicate glasses in crystallizations processes. All of the above provide a nexus with Hu to provides teachings and/or suggestions to apply to Hu. Continuing, while the crystallization processes of Fu and Hu disclose use for curves glass/edges similar to the specification of the instant application and although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, Applicants argument is moot.
The Examiner agrees in that Fu discloses a second crystallization temperature range from 650°C to 700°C for 1min to 240min, which is not a primary crystallization. As defined, Fu provides a primary crystallization in combination with primary nucleation. Hence, Fu teaches a first nucleation (crystallization) temperature of 500°C to 650°C and a first nucleating (crystallization) time between 1min and 16 hrs. (960min) ([0105], [0107]) with a specific embodiment Example 2 providing 600°C for 15 min ([0148]. While Fu does not disclose the exact temperature and time values to satisfy equations ① and ②, these result-effective variables would be optimized to satisfy equations ① and ②. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Fu is not relied upon to teach what technical problems might exist nor are these technical problems disclosed in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (what technical problems may exist) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Hence, Applicants argument is moot.
In stating that Fu cannot provide any teachings for applying the aforementioned distinguishing features to Hu, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Hence, Applicants argument is moot.
III. In regard to Motivation,
a), b) c) Respectfully disagree. In II .a) above in regard to Fu, a nexus was illustrated. Further, Fu
notes a motivation of tailoring the haze and transparency of the glass ceramic article, as well as the degree of crystallinity to control the dimension and reduce distortion of the glass article. Further, the Examiner further recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Fu cites tailoring the haze and transparency of the glass ceramic article, as well as the degree of crystallinity to control the dimension and reduce distortion of the glass article.
IV. Regarding Amendment to Claim 1,
a), b), c) Examiner agrees with the Applicant yet there are new grounds of rejection made in view of a different interpretation of Claim 1 of previously applied reference Fu.
Respectfully disagree. The claims do not recite forming specific curved edges during crystallization nor recite disclosed technical problems may be encountered in doing as such.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (what technical problems may exist) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Hence, Applicants argument is moot.
Overall, the rejection to Claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see page 18, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 12-25 rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 12-25 of previously applied reference Fu.
As the Applicant’s Arguments are the same for Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 12-25 as for Claim 1, the Examiner provides the same response to Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 12-25 as for Claim 1. Hence, the argument is moot. The rejection to Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 12-25 are maintained.
Further,
New Claims 21-22 represent present teachings of present references.
New Claims 23-25 represent a narrowing of ranges that overlap ranges presently taught by the combination, creating a prima facie case for obviousness for overlapping ranges.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CNTF are maintained with the additions below.
Claim 20, 21 and 22 – all material mol% ranges are inclusive.
Claim 21 and 22 – the Examiner understands that the raw glass sheet contains at least one of
the claimed components with the respective mol%, as the word “or” is used between each
component/mol% combination in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 12-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of
CN111253087A by Hu et. al. (herein “Hu”) and in further view of US PGPUB 20210155524A1
by Fu et. al (herein “Fu”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu teaches:
A method for manufacturing a microcrystalline glass wherein the method comprises steps of,
on a raw glass sheet; Page 11, lines 58-60, Page 12 lines 1-2, “to obtain a…precursor plate”
performing nucleation, followed by primary crystallization, performing secondary
crystallization on the raw glass sheet after the primary crystallization; Page 10 lines 9, 17-
18, 20, “After nucleation, the glass article is heated from the nucleation temperature to the
crystallization temperature”, “After the glass product reaches the crystallization temperature,
the glass product is maintained at the crystallization temperature for a period of time”, “The
crystallization treatment is performed 1 to 2 times”.
a second crystallization on the raw glass sheet after primary crystallization ) ; Page 10 lines 17-
18, 20, “After the glass product reaches the crystallization temperature, the glass product is
maintained at the crystallization temperature for a period of time”, “The crystallization
treatment is performed 1 to 2 times”,
While Hu teaches a primary crystallization temperature and time (Page 13 line 31, Example 5), Hu fails to
teach the instant claim regarding equations I. and II. being true.
In a similar endeavor of crystallizing a glass ceramic composition, Fu teaches a primary crystallization
in combination with primary nucleation ([0006]). Further, Fu teaches the same/similar material composition ranges as Hu Example 5 ([0069], [0070]-[0074], [0077-0078]. Fig. 6 below illustrates that first crystallization peak occurs at 660°C, which suggests a maximum primary crystallization temperature that could be deployed is near this temperature.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fu teaches a first nucleation (crystallization) temperature of 500°C to 650°C and a first nucleating (crystallization) time between 1min and 16 hrs. (960min) ([0105], [0107]) with a specific embodiment Example 2 providing 600°C for 15 min ([0148]. While Fu does not disclose an exact temperature (ex. 657°C) and time value (ex. 60 minutes) to satisfy equations ① and ②, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the temperature and time of Fu to satisfy equations ① and ②, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the temperature and time for the purpose of providing the proper crystallinity and viscosity that enables more efficient methods of forming glass ceramic articles, as noted by Fu ([0098]). It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). For the optimized examples above:
② y1=0.0029x1+b, where y1 is a glass density after the primary crystallization, and
2.440g/cm3 ≤ y1
≤
2
.
490g/cm3; and b is a constant, and 0.55<b<0.60;
If x1 = 657°C and b = 0.58, then y1 = .0029 (657) + 0.58 = 2.485 g/cm3 and the
inequality is true: 2.440g/cm3 ≤ 2.485g/cm3
≤
2
.
490g/cm3.
① -a x t + 652 ≤ x1 ≤ -a x t +667 where a is a constant, and 0.1 ≤a ≤ .25; and t is 10- 300min, and the
primary crystallization temperature xi has a unit of °C;
For the equation -a * t +652 ≤ x1
≤
-a * t +667, a temperature of 657°C and the time of 60min, and a
= 0.1 (minimum) then the inequality is true:
-.1 *60 +652 ≤ 657
≤
-1 * 60 +667
-6 +652 ≤ 657
≤
-6 +667
646 ≤ 657
≤
661
While Hu fails to teach all of the following, Fu further teaches all of the following:
wherein,
a process of the secondary crystallization comprises, in sequence, a heating stage, a thermoforming stage, and a cooling stage;
Fu teaches a simultaneous 3D forming and crystallization process for lithium alumino silicate glass [0069] with claimed compositional ranges ([0070]-[0081]), where the precursor glass sheet before forming is a pre-nucleated glass sheet such that the pre-nucleated glass sheet has a sufficiently low viscosity suitable for forming, which generally does not occur if crystallinity is too high [0110, lines 14-17], suggesting the pre-nucleated sheet has low crystallinity. Fu further teaches first a heating stage that includes a first nucleation, then a 3D forming stage (which could be pressing/sagging/rolling/ molding [0112]) during the first nucleation and the second nucleation [0006], then a crystallization stage [0101] followed by a cooling stage after crystallization [0122]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use crystallization process of Fu to produce a desired cover glass shape in reduced time and energy, as note by Fu [0004].
wherein,
the heating stage is to raise a temperature from a room temperature at a rate of 10-60°C/min to a first target temperature; [0115], “ In embodiments, the heating rate from…room temperature to the second nucleation temperature may be in a range from… from 20° C./min to 40° C./min”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Fu’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05
wherein,
the first target temperature is of 650-750°C; [0113],[0114] ,“In embodiments, the second nucleation temperature can be in a range from…650°C. to 700°C.” Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Fu’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05
the thermoforming stage is to raise a temperature from the first target temperature to a second target temperature; [0118], “In embodiments, the heating rate from
second nucleation temperature to the crystallization temperature…”
wherein a heating rate is 15-50°C/min; [0118], “5-50 0C./min”.
the second target temperature is of 680-850°C; ; [0119], “650° C. to 900° C.”
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the
portion of Fu’s heating rate range and Fu’s second target temperature range that corresponds to the
claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
and the cooling stage is to cool down from the a second target temperature to the a room temperature at a rate of 10-50°C/min ; [0122], “In embodiments, the glass-ceramic article is cooled after being held at the crystallization temperature. In embodiments, the glass-ceramic article may be cooled to room temperature in a single stage...”,“at a constant cooling rate, in two stages with a different cooling rate, or in three or more stages each with a different cooling”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to determine a proper cooling rate of the crystallized glass-ceramic article to room temperature in order to minimize temperature gradients across the articles as well as minimize residual stress across the article, as noted by Fu [0122]. Where 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
Regarding Claim 2 and, 12,13 and 14 (which depend on Claim 2) - Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 1
above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fu teaches wherein for Claim 2,
the glass density after the primary crystallization meets 2.440g/cm3 ≤ y1
≤
2
.
490g/cm3;
See Claim 1; 2.440g/cm3 ≤ 2.485g/cm3
≤
2
.
490g/cm3. Further,
Claim 12: 2.455g/cm3 ≤ 2.485g/cm3
≤
2
.
490g/cm3
Claim 13: 2.460g/cm3 ≤ 2.485g/cm3
≤
2
.
490g/cm3
Claim 14: 2.481g/cm3 ≤ 2.485g/cm3
≤
2
.
490g/cm3
Regarding Claim 3 and, 15, 16, 17, 18 (which depend on Claim 3) – Hu and Fu in the rejection of
claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hu teaches wherein for Claim 3,
a nucleation temperature is of 520-580°C; and a nucleation duration is of 180-360min;
Page 13, line 31-32, , “ The nucleation temperature is 580°C, time 4h (240min).” Further
wherein,
Claim 17 – the nucleation duration is 200-280min,
Claim 18– the nucleation duration is 220-250min,
Hu fails to teach the claimed temperature ranges of claims 15 and 16:
Claim 15 – the nucleation temperature is 545°C to 575°C,
Claim 16 – the nucleation temperature is 550°C to 570°C,
Fu teaches a first nucleation process wherein the temperature 500°C to 650°C [0012] for 1 minute to 6
hours (360min) [0020]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
have selected the portion of Fu's temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP
2144.05. Further, Fu teaches the same/similar material composition ranges as Hu Example 5 ([0069],
[0070]-[0074], [0077-0078]).
Regarding Claim 6 - Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Fu further teaches wherein:
a heating rate of the heating stage is of 20- 50°C/min; [0115], “heating rate
from… room temperature to the second nucleation temperature may be in a range from 30°C-
40° C./min”.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the
portion of Fu’s heating rate range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding Claim 9 - Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hu teaches wherein,
the raw glass sheet is a lithium-aluminum- silicon glass; Page 12 line 1, Page 7-9, “to obtain…a precursor plate”. Page 7-9 identify glass composition components which include Li2O, Al2O3 and SiO2.
Regarding Claim 10 - Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hu teaches,
A microcrystalline glass, wherein the microcrystalline glass is manufactured by the method according to claim 1; Page 13 line 19, 30-32, “ The precursor glass plate was obtained by…” Hu further cites the glass plate was obtained via a nucleation temperature and time, a crystallization temperature and time, and second crystallization temperature and time.
Regarding Claim 19 (which depends on claim 6) - Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 6 above
teach all of the limitations of claim 6.
Fu further teaches wherein,
the heating rate of the heating stage is of 30-40°C/min; Fu teaches the instant claim previously in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, which depends on claim 9 - Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 9 above teach all of the limitations of claim 9.
Hu teaches wherein,
the raw glass sheet; Page 13 line 19, 30-32 “ The precursor glass plate was obtained by…” l
contains, in mol%, following components; Page 13 lines 23-25
SiO2 65-72; 67.5%
ZrO2 0.5-5; 1.8%
Li2O 10-25; 19.0%
Na2O 0.5-5; 1.0%
P205 0.5-2; 0.7%
B203 0.1-2; 1.5%
Hu teaches Al2O3 of 8.5 % but fails to teach specifically, Al2O3 3-7.
Fu further teaches a composition that reads on all of the composition components in the instant claim, ([0070-[0074], [0077]-[0078]) including Al2O3 of 0.2-10% ([0071]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of Al2O3 of Hu with an amount from the range of Fu, to control viscosity and to support the desired crystallization, as noted by Fu [0084]. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding Claim 21- Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 20 above teach all of the limitations of claim 20.
Hu teaches wherein the raw glass sheet contains in mol% (material claim; Hu),
ZrO2 1-4; 1.8%
and/or
Li2O 14-20; 19.0%
and/or
Na2O 0.7-3.2; 1.0%
and/or
B203 0.5-1.5; 1.5%
and/or
SiO2 67-71; 67.5%
Al2O3 4-6; not addressed
and/or
P205 0.8-1.5; not addressed
Regarding Claim 22- Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 21 above teach all of the limitations of claim 21.
Hu teaches wherein the raw glass sheet contains in mol% (material claim; Hu),
Li2O 16-19; 19.0%
and/or
Na2O 1.0-2.5; 1.0%
and/or
B203 0.8-1.2; not addressed
and/or
SiO2 68-70;
and/or
ZrO2 2.5-3.5; not addressed
and/or
Al2O3 4.5-5.5; not addressed
and/or
P205 0.8-1.5; not addressed
Regarding Claim 23 – Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 21 above teach all of the limitations of claim 21.
Fu further teaches wherein,
the first target temperature is of 670-730°C; ; [0113],[0114] ,“In embodiments, the second nucleation temperature can be in a range from…650°C. to 700°C.” Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Fu’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding Claim 24 – Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
XXX teaches wherein,
the heating rate in the thermoforming stage is 20-40°C/min.; [0118], “5-50 0C./min”.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the
portion of Fu’s heating rate range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 25– Hu and Fu in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
XXX teaches wherein,
the second target temperature is of 700-780°C; [0119], “650° C. to 900° C.”
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the
portion of Fu’s second target temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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 Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/
Examiner, Art Unit 4164
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741