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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment Submitted/Entered with Filing of Continued Prosecution Application (CPA)/Request for Continued Examination (RCE) After Final Rejection filed 02/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, and 22 are amended. Claims 9 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6, 10, and 12-19, 22-25 remain pending.
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks, see pages 6-11, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to Amended Claim 1, under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and due to the Amendment filed 05/13/2026, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment. The Examiner will address applicable arguments.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant outlines Distinguishing Technical Features:
primary crystallization temperature and time, satisfying equations ① and ②.
a secondary crystallization process with a sequential stages of heating, thermoforming and cooling.
raw glass sheet composition in mol% from a group of typical oxides that make a lithium aluminosilicate glass, and captures the Amendment to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues with respect to the above Distinguishing Technical Features,
Impermissible hindsight is present due to the Office using the broad temperature and time ranges of Fu and citing routine optimization of the Fu time and temperature to satisfy equations ① and ②, where the office extracted specific values from the ranges of Fu without motivation to do so.
Relationships ① and ② are not merely results of routine optimization, where the Applicant acknowledges while a single parameter falls within the scope of optimization, discovering mathematical relationships among time, temperature and density go far beyond routine optimization of a “results-effective variable”. The mathematical relationships of ① and ② represent insight into LAS glass crystallization and was attained by experimentation, where the model can guide production.
The sequence of heating/thermoforming/cooling (Distinguishing Technical Feature 2) ) during secondary crystallization is not taught by Fu as illustrated by Fu [0006], stating that the sequence of Fu has the forming stage prior to secondary crystallization.
Distinguishing Feature 3) is non-obvious, as using a Al2O3 mol% from the range of Fu (0.1-10.0 mol%) and a ZrO2 mol% from the range of Fu (0.1-10%) , as there is absent a teaching to reduce the Al2O3 mol% to 4.5-5.5 mol% and further, a PHOSITA would have no motivation to simultaneously decrease Al2O3 and increase ZrO2. Further, that the application involves synergistic optimization of multiple parameters due to complex interactions among parameters and components.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues with respect to the above Distinguishing Technical Features,
Respectfully disagree that impermissible hindsight is present. Fu teaches a 1st crystallization peak of 660°C , which suggests a maximum primary crystallization temperature that could be deployed is near this temperature, as well as a range 500°C to 650°C and a first nucleating (crystallization) time between 1min and 16 hrs. (960min) ([0105], [0107]). Motivation is provided by Fu 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 a [0098], where forming glass ceramic articles with the variables of crystallinity and viscosity relate directly to crystallization of the instant Amended Claim 1. The Examiner provided example time and temperature values from the Fu ranges to illustrate that Fu can meet the criteria of equations ① and ② when optimized for those values.
That the mathematical relationships were obtained by experimentation, as noted by the Applicant, supports the Examiner’s assertion of routine optimization.
The limitation of claim 1 states “ a process of secondary crystallization comprises, in sequence, a heating stage, a thermoforming stage, and a cooling stage”. Fu [0006] cites pre-nucleating a precursor glass to a first nucleating temperature to obtain a pre-nucleated crystallizable glass composition, i.e. a heating stage. Further, then forming the pre-nucleated crystallizable glass composition into a 3D shape, i.e. a thermoforming stage. Then, nucleating the pre-nucleated crystallizable glass composition 3D shaped component (time/temperature). Then, ceramming the nucleated crystallizable glass composition 3D shaped component (time/temperature). This would be labelled the nucleating/ceramming stage. This sequence is cited again in Fu [0101] and
the types of thermoforming are cited in Fu [0112], and the cooling stage is cited in [0122]. The noted limitation of the Amended instant Claim 1 plainly states that “a process of secondary crystallization comprises a heating stage, a thermoforming stage, and a cooling stage” without acknowledging a point in the sequence when secondary crystallization occurs.
That the limitation of Amended Claim 1 of Al2O3 4.5-5.5 mol% in non-obvious over Fu, there is absent a limitation that specifically links/ties this limitation to mol% of other components, such as ZrO2 mol%, wherein a change in one component necessitates a change in a particular other component. Hence, motivation to simultaneously decrease Al2O3 and increase ZrO2 is mute. While the application involves complex synergies may be true, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also MPEP 2145.
As Fu discloses Al2O3 mol% from the range of Fu (0.1-10.0 mol%), there is a teaching for using Al2O3 mol% values, or optimize values (In re Aller, Al2O3 4.5-5.5 mol%) that are in 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the minor informalities listed below:
Figures, when more than one (1) figure, are to be labeled “FIG. X” where X is an Arabic numeral. For example, “Figure 1” should read “FIG. 1”. FIG. 1 needs amending.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-3, 6, 12-19, 22-25 – all numerical ranges (mol%, time, temperature, density, heating
rate), unless otherwise noted, are inclusive.
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, 10, 12-19 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”
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.
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”.
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 discloses 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.
the raw glass sheet contains; Page 13 lines 23-25 (Hu)
ZrO2 1-3.5 mol%; 1.8 mol%
Li2O 14-25 mol%; 19.0 mol%
Na2O 0.5-2.5 mol%; 1.0 mol%
P205 0.1-2 mol%; 0.7 mol%
B203 0.1-2 mol%; 1.5%
Hu teaches Al2O3 8.5 mol% (Page 13 line 24) but fails to disclose specifically, Al2O3 4.5-5.5 mol%.
Fu discloses a composition that reads on all of the composition components in the instant claim, ([0070-[0074], [0077]-[0078]) including Al2O3 0.2-10 mol% ([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 optimize the Al2O3 mol%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the Al2O3 mol%, for the purpose of controlling control viscosity and to support the desired crystallization, as noted by Fu [0084]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hu teaches SiO2 67.6 mol% but fails to disclose specifically, SiO2 mol% 68-72.
Fu discloses a composition that reads on all of the composition components in the instant claim, ([0070-[0074], [0077]-[0078]) including SiO2 of 60-75 mol% ([0082]). ]). 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 SiO2 mol%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the SiO2 mol%, for the purpose of stabilize the network forming structure of the glass and glass-ceramic and well as control melting temperature, as noted by Fu [0083]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
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 discloses 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 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 - 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 22- 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 contains in mol%; Page 13 lines 24-25,
Li2O 16-19; 19.0%
Na2O 1.0-2.5; 1.0%
Hu teaches Al2O3 8.5 mol% (Page 13 line 24) but fails to disclose specifically, Al2O3 4.5-5.5 mol%.
Fu discloses a composition that reads on all of the composition components in the instant claim, ([0070-[0074], [0077]-[0078]) including Al2O3 0.2-10 mol% ([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 optimize the Al2O3 mol%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the Al2O3 mol%, for the purpose of controlling control viscosity and to support the desired crystallization, as noted by Fu [0084]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hu teaches ZrO2 1.8 mol% (Page 13 line 24) but fails to disclose specifically, ZrO2 2.5-3.5 mol%.
Fu discloses a composition that reads on all of the composition components in the instant claim, ([0070-[0074], [0077]-[0078]) including ZrO2 of 0.1-10 mol% 60-75 ([0074]). 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 ZrO2 mol%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the ZrO2 mol% for the purpose to promote a decrease in grain side of the crystals to aid in the formation of a transparent glass ceramic, as noted by Fu [0088]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hu teaches P205 0.7 mol% (Page 13 line 24) but fails to disclose specifically, P205 1.0-1.3 mol%.
Fu discloses a composition that reads on all of the composition components in the instant claim, ([0070-[0074], [0077]-[0078]) including P205 of 0.2-3.0 mol% ([0073]). 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 P205 mol%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the P205 mol% for the purpose to promote bulk nucleation and control devitrification upon cooling of the precursor glass, as noted by Fu [0087]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hu teaches B203 1.5 mol% (Page 13 line 24) but fails to disclose specifically, B203 0.8-1.2 mol% .
Fu discloses a composition that reads on all of the composition components in the instant claim, ([0070-[0074], [0077]-[0078]) including B203 of 0-5 mol% ([0077]). 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 B203 mol%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the B203 mol% for the purpose , to promote an interlocking crystal structure and improve damage resistance of the glass ceramic. As well, provide for a glass that can tolerate some deformation which increases Vickers hardness and fracture toughness of the precursor glass and the glass-ceramic, as noted by Fu [0090]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hu teaches SiO2 67.6 mol% but fails to disclose specifically, SiO2 mol% 68-72.
Fu discloses a composition that reads on all of the composition components in the instant claim, ([0070-[0074], [0077]-[0078]) including SiO2 of 60-75 mol% ([0082]). 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 SiO2 mol%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the SiO2 mol%, for the purpose of stabilize the network forming structure of the glass and glass-ceramic and well as control melting temperature, as noted by Fu [0083]. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
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
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 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights