DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024, 05/02/2025, and 09/16/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfinger et al (US 2019/0194062 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wolfinger et al teaches a lithium aluminum silicate glass ceramic having a CTE in the range of 20-700 °C that is at most ±0.5 x 10-6/K (see paragraph 0101). Embodiments are taught wherein the value of CTE for the glass ceramic is below 0.1 x 10-6/K (see Tables 2 and 4). As such, a glass ceramic component having a CTE less than 0.1 x 10-6/K at a temperature the range of 0-50 °C is taught by Wolfinger et al. Wolfinger et al does not teach any hysteresis data from which the parameters regarding hysteresis or the variable F can be determined. As such, claim 1 differs from the applied prior art because the further property limitations of the claim are not explicitly taught. However, it is disclosed in the instant Specification that these properties are resultant from the glass ceramic composition and phase structure.
Wolfinger et al does not teach a single exemplary embodiment meeting each claim limitation of the instant claims (most specifically laid out in instant claim 9), but does teach an embodiment wherein the glass ceramic contains 70% beta-quartz mixed crystals as the main crystal phase, and comprises 71.1 mol% SiO2, 9.0 mol% Li2O, 0.39 mol% MgO, 2.9 mol% TiO2, and 0.34 mol% ZrO2, wherein the glass ceramic further comprises P2O5, Na2O, and K2O (see Table 3, glass no 32. As can be seen, the aforementioned composition differs from that of the instant claims only in the 0.1 mol% greater silica content. Wolfinger et al teaches that the SiO2 content range extends to values below that of said glass no 32 content (see claim 6). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a glass ceramic meeting each limitation of the instant claims through routine optimization and experimentation with the overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Because a glass ceramic meeting each compositional and structural limitation is taught by Wolfinger et al, said glass would necessarily be considered to have equivalent thermal hysteresis and F index properties to the instantly disclosed and claimed component. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patetanbly distinct.
Regarding claim 2, similarly to above, Wolfinger et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent CTE-T curve slope properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 2 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 3, similarly to above, Wolfinger et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent differential CTE properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 3 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 4, similarly to above, Wolfinger et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent CTE homogeneity properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 4 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, as above, Wolfinger et al teaches a glass ceramic that, due to its compositional and structural equivalence, would necessarily have an equivalent thermal hysteresis to the component of the instant claims. The further limitations of instant claim 5 are thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6, the relative change of length properties of the material taught by Wolfinger et al are necessarily equivalent to those of the instant claim, as these properties are closely related to CTE, which as discussed above, is equivalent in the Wolfinger et al glass ceramics as compared to the instantly claimed component.
Regarding claim 7, the relative change of length properties of the material taught by Wolfinger et al are necessarily equivalent to those of the instant claim, as these properties are closely related to CTE, which as discussed above, is equivalent in the Wolfinger et al glass ceramics as compared to the instantly claimed component.
Regarding claim 8, Wolfinger et al teaches a lithium aluminum silicate glass ceramic.
Regarding claim 9, Wolfinger et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises 71.1 mol% SiO2, 9.0 mol% Li2O, 0.39 mol% MgO, 2.9 mol% TiO2, and 0.34 mol% ZrO2, wherein the glass ceramic further comprises P2O5, Na2O, and K2O, and teaches SiO2 in a range such that contents of 60-71 mol% are overlapped and thus rendered obvious by the Wolfinger et al teachings.
Regarding claim 11, Wolfinger et al teaches a lithium aluminum silicate glass ceramic having a CTE in the range of 20-700 °C that is at most ±0.5 x 10-6/K (see paragraph 0101). Embodiments are taught wherein the value of CTE for the glass ceramic is below 0.1 x 10-6/K (see Tables 2 and 4). As such, a glass ceramic component having a CTE less than 0.1 x 10-6/K at a temperature the range of 0-50 °C is taught by Wolfinger et al. Wolfinger et al does not teach any hysteresis data from which the parameters regarding hysteresis or the alternative index variables f(20;40), f(20;70), or f(-10;30), can be determined. As such, claim 11 differs from the applied prior art because the further property limitations of the claim are not explicitly taught. However, it is disclosed in the instant Specification that these properties are resultant from the glass ceramic composition and phase structure.
Wolfinger et al does not teach a single exemplary embodiment meeting each claim limitation of the instant claims (most specifically laid out in instant claim 9), but does teach an embodiment wherein the glass ceramic contains 70% beta-quartz mixed crystals as the main crystal phase, and comprises 71.1 mol% SiO2, 9.0 mol% Li2O, 0.39 mol% MgO, 2.9 mol% TiO2, and 0.34 mol% ZrO2, wherein the glass ceramic further comprises P2O5, Na2O, and K2O (see Table 3, glass no 32. As can be seen, the aforementioned composition differs from that of the instant claims only in the 0.1 mol% greater silica content. Wolfinger et al teaches that the SiO2 content range extends to values below that of said glass no 32 content (see claim 6). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a glass ceramic meeting each limitation of the instant claims through routine optimization and experimentation with the overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Because a glass ceramic meeting each compositional and structural limitation is taught by Wolfinger et al, said glass would necessarily be considered to have equivalent thermal hysteresis and alternative index properties to the instantly disclosed and claimed component. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Each limitation of claim 11 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patetanbly distinct.
Regarding claim 12, similarly to above, Wolfinger et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent CTE-T curve slope properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 12 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, similarly to above, Wolfinger et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent differential CTE properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 13 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 14, similarly to above, Wolfinger et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent CTE homogeneity properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 14 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15, as above, Wolfinger et al teaches a glass ceramic that, due to its compositional and structural equivalence, would necessarily have an equivalent thermal hysteresis to the component of the instant claims. The further limitations of instant claim 15 are thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, the relative change of length properties of the material taught by Wolfinger et al are necessarily equivalent to those of the instant claim, as these properties are closely related to CTE, which as discussed above, is equivalent in the Wolfinger et al glass ceramics as compared to the instantly claimed component.
Regarding claim 17, the relative change of length properties of the material taught by Wolfinger et al are necessarily equivalent to those of the instant claim, as these properties are closely related to CTE, which as discussed above, is equivalent in the Wolfinger et al glass ceramics as compared to the instantly claimed component.
Regarding claim 18, Wolfinger et al teaches a lithium aluminum silicate glass ceramic.
Regarding claim 19, Wolfinger et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises 71.1 mol% SiO2, 9.0 mol% Li2O, 0.39 mol% MgO, 2.9 mol% TiO2, and 0.34 mol% ZrO2, wherein the glass ceramic further comprises P2O5, Na2O, and K2O, and teaches SiO2 in a range such that contents of 60-71 mol% are overlapped and thus rendered obvious by the Wolfinger et al teachings.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebers et al (EP 1291328 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Siebers et al teaches a lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic with beta-quartz mixed crystalline phase and comprising in terms of mol%: Li2O 9.18%, F 0.39%, MgO 0.17%, SiO2 66.0%, Na2O 0.22%, TiO2 3.25%, ZnO 0.084%, K2O 0.58%, Al2O3 16.43%; SrO 0.20%; ZrO 0.56%; P2O5 1.93%; BaO 0.67%; Sb2O3 0.35% (see table 1, glass no 6). Each compositional limitation of the instant claims is met by said Siebers et al glass ceramic embodiment. Siebers et al further teaches an embodiment wherein the CTE is -0.1 x 10-6/K (see Table 2, example 14 with glass 4), and comprising SiO2 66.73%, B2O3 0.96%, P2O5 1.89%, Al2O3 15.25%, Li2O 9.65%, Na2O 0.97%, SrO 0.65%, ZnO 0.16%, ZrO2 0.60%, TiO2 2.69%, and As2O3 0.44%, thus differing from the instant compositional ranges only in that the Li2O content is 0.25 wt% higher. This CTE is over a range of 20-300 °C, indicating that there would be a temperature in the range of 0-50 °C having a CTE of at most ±0.1 x 10-6/K. Because Siebers et al teaches embodiments wherein each compositional and structural limitation of the instant claims and disclosure is met, and wherein the CTE property limitation is met, glass ceramics meeting the further property limitations pertaining to thermal hysteresis and F index properties would necessarily also be taught and be resultant from the Siebers et al teachings. The instant Specification discloses that these properties are resultant from the glass ceramic composition and phase structure, and these factors being equivalent in the Siebers et al glass ceramic material, the further thermal expansion properties would necessarily also be present and meet the corresponding range limitations of the instant claim. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patetanbly distinct.
Regarding claim 2, similarly to above, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent CTE-T curve slope properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 2 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 3, similarly to above, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent differential CTE properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 3 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 4, similarly to above, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent CTE homogeneity properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 4 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, as above, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic that, due to its compositional and structural equivalence, would necessarily have an equivalent thermal hysteresis to the component of the instant claims. The further limitations of instant claim 5 are thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6, the relative change of length properties of the material taught by Siebers et al are necessarily equivalent to those of the instant claim, as these properties are closely related to CTE, which as discussed above, is equivalent in the Siebers et al glass ceramics as compared to the instantly claimed component.
Regarding claim 7, the relative change of length properties of the material taught by Siebers et al are necessarily equivalent to those of the instant claim, as these properties are closely related to CTE, which as discussed above, is equivalent in the Siebers et al glass ceramics as compared to the instantly claimed component.
Regarding claim 8, Siebers et al teaches a lithium aluminum silicate glass ceramic.
Regarding claim 9, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic comprising in terms of mol%: Li2O 9.18%, F 0.39%, MgO 0.17%, SiO2 66.0%, Na2O 0.22%, TiO2 3.25%, ZnO 0.084%, K2O 0.58%, Al2O3 16.43%; SrO 0.20%; ZrO 0.56%; P2O5 1.93%; BaO 0.67%; Sb2O3 0.35% (see table 1, glass no 6).
Regarding claim 10, Siebers et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic is used in mirrors for astronomical use.
Regarding claim 11, Siebers et al teaches a lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic with beta-quartz mixed crystalline phase and comprising in terms of mol%: Li2O 9.18%, F 0.39%, MgO 0.17%, SiO2 66.0%, Na2O 0.22%, TiO2 3.25%, ZnO 0.084%, K2O 0.58%, Al2O3 16.43%; SrO 0.20%; ZrO 0.56%; P2O5 1.93%; BaO 0.67%; Sb2O3 0.35% (see table 1, glass no 6). Each compositional limitation of the instant claims is met by said Siebers et al glass ceramic embodiment. Siebers et al further teaches an embodiment wherein the CTE is -0.1 x 10-6/K (see Table 2, example 14 with glass 4). Siebers et al further teaches an embodiment wherein the CTE is -0.1 x 10-6/K (see Table 2, example 14 with glass 4), and comprising SiO2 66.73%, B2O3 0.96%, P2O5 1.89%, Al2O3 15.25%, Li2O 9.65%, Na2O 0.97%, SrO 0.65%, ZnO 0.16%, ZrO2 0.60%, TiO2 2.69%, and As2O3 0.44%, thus differing from the instant compositional ranges only in that the Li2O content is 0.25 wt% higher. This CTE is over a range of 20-300 °C, indicating that there would be a temperature in the range of 0-50 °C having a CTE of at most ±0.1 x 10-6/K. Because Siebers et al teaches embodiments wherein each compositional and structural limitation of the instant claims and disclosure is met, and wherein the CTE property limitation is met, glass ceramics meeting the further property limitations pertaining to thermal hysteresis and alternative index variables f(20;40), f(20;70), or f(-10;30) would necessarily also be taught and be resultant from the Siebers et al teachings. The instant Specification discloses that these properties are resultant from the glass ceramic composition and phase structure, and these factors being equivalent in the Siebers et al glass ceramic material, the further thermal expansion properties would necessarily also be present and meet the corresponding range limitations of the instant claim. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Each limitation of claim 11 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patetanbly distinct.
Regarding claim 12, similarly to above, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent CTE-T curve slope properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 12 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, similarly to above, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent differential CTE properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 13 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 14, similarly to above, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent glass ceramic would therefore necessarily also have equivalent CTE homogeneity properties to the component of the instant claims, and the further limitation of instant claim 14 is met by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15, as above, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic that, due to its compositional and structural equivalence, would necessarily have an equivalent thermal hysteresis to the component of the instant claims. The further limitations of instant claim 5 are thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, the relative change of length properties of the material taught by Siebers et al are necessarily equivalent to those of the instant claim, as these properties are closely related to CTE, which as discussed above, is equivalent in the Siebers et al glass ceramics as compared to the instantly claimed component.
Regarding claim 17, the relative change of length properties of the material taught by Siebers et al are necessarily equivalent to those of the instant claim, as these properties are closely related to CTE, which as discussed above, is equivalent in the Siebers et al glass ceramics as compared to the instantly claimed component.
Regarding claim 18, Siebers et al teaches a lithium aluminum silicate glass ceramic.
Regarding claim 19, Siebers et al teaches a glass ceramic comprising in terms of mol%: Li2O 9.18%, F 0.39%, MgO 0.17%, SiO2 66.0%, Na2O 0.22%, TiO2 3.25%, ZnO 0.084%, K2O 0.58%, Al2O3 16.43%; SrO 0.20%; ZrO 0.56%; P2O5 1.93%; BaO 0.67%; Sb2O3 0.35% (see table 1, glass no 6).
Regarding claim 20, Siebers et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic is used in mirrors for astronomical use.
Conclusion
9. No claim is allowed.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW20 February 2026