DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
1. The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2023, 03/07/2024, and 12/04/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 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. The claim states that the thermal hysteresis property is present “at least in” the temperature range of 15-35 °C. It is unclear from this wording if the hysteresis property can be present in any portion of this 15-35 °C range in order to fall within the bounds of the claim, or if it can also be present in other temperature ranges, or if it necessarily be an observed property throughout the entirety of the 15-35 °C range in order for the claim limitation to be met. Because of these ambiguities, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear, and the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as indefinite for being dependent from and therefore incorporating the indefinite limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the processing temperature Va is not unambiguously defined in the claim or in the supporting Specification. The specification indicates that the “processing temperature Va or the T4 value” of the glass has a certain value in °C. However, from this wording it is not clear if the Va is the same as the T4 value. Moreover, it is not made clear if this T4 value is that at which the glass reaches a viscosity of 104. This latter is what is assumed for purposes of examining the claim on merits. However, the claim is indefinite because the actual property being claim is not clear.
Claim 18 is indefinite and rejected under USC 112(b) for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1, “at least in” the temperature range of 15-35 °C being an unclear limitation.
Claims 19-20 are rejected as indefinite for being dependent from and therefore incorporating the indefinite limitations of independent claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et al (WO 2020/196171 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yokota et al teaches a Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2 based crystallized glass having β-quartz solid solution as the main crystalline phase (see Abstract and claim 19). Yokota et al teaches embodiments wherein this LAS glass ceramic exhibits a coefficient of thermal expansion of less than 0.1 x 10-6/K over the range of 30-380 °C (see i.e. Table 2 at paragraph [0109] examples No. 1, 2, 7). Yokota teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises SiO2 in an amount of 40-90 wt%; Li2O in an amount of 1-10 wt%; MgO in an amount of 0-10 wt%; and Na2O and K2O in an amount of 0-10 wt% each (see claims 1 and 2). The ranges taught by Yokota therefore overlap the corresponding ranges for the components of instant claim 1. Yokota further teaches embodiments wherein the Li2O, MgO+ZnO, and R2O fall within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim (see Table 1, examples 1-2 and 5-7), and wherein TiO2, ZrO2, and SnO2 (nucleating agents) are contained in an amount falling within the 1.5-6 mol% range of said claim.
The Yokota glass ceramic compositions therefore differ from instant claim 1 in that no exemplary embodiment is disclosed wherein the SiO2 amount is less than 70 mol% when converted from the weight percentage taught. However, Yokota does teach an embodiment wherein the amount is greater than 70 mol% by 0.1 mol% (see Table 1 example 7, 70.1 mol% upon conversion). Further, as discussed above, Yokota teaches a range for this component of 40-90 wt%; as can be seen, this range substantially overlaps and encompasses the claimed range of 60 - <70 mol% upon conversion. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore been enabled to arrive at glass ceramic compositions having SiO2 amounts falling with the range of the instant claim 1 through routine optimization and experimentation with the range taught by the Yokota prior art. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. One would have had motivation to form glass ceramic compositions have such a SiO2 content because of the large portion of the Yokota range that is not exemplified, but is taught; one would have understood that the extent of the Yokota disclosure is not limited to the exemplary embodiments, but instead includes the full extent of the claimed ranges, and thus one would have had the inventive desire to form new compositions therefrom.
As such, glass ceramics meeting each compositional limitation of instant claim 1 are taught by Yokota et al. As further shown, Yokota teaches glass ceramics wherein the CTE is 0 ppm/K over a range of 30-380 °C. The instant claim limitation that the CTE is 0 ± 0.1 ppm/K in a range of 0-50 °C is necessarily given its broadest reasonable interpretation that it covers any glass ceramic having this CTE property at any temperature in said range. As such, the Yokota glass ceramic having the quantitative property at 30 °C meets this property limitation. Yokota does not specify the thermal hysteresis in terms of ppm in a temperature range of 15-35 °C. However, because Yokota teaches glass ceramics that are compositionally and structurally equivalent to those of the instant claim, it necessarily follows that the thermal hysteresis property would also be equivalent. 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 instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of Yokota et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Yokota et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises Al2O3 in an overlapping amount of 5-30 wt%, and further teaches embodiments wherein the amount falls within the instant range of 10-22 mol% (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Yokota et al teaches embodiments wherein the MgO+ZnO content of the glass ceramic is less than 1.5 mol% (see i.e. example 7 at Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Yokota et al teaches a range of 40-90 wt% for SiO2. This overlapping range renders the ≤69.5% range of the instant claim prima facie obvious. Claim 4 is therefore not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, Yokota et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises 0-10 wt% each of SrO, CaO, and BaO (see claim 1), and the previously discussed example 7 composition comprises SrO+BaO+CaO in an amount falling within the range 0.1-6 mol%.
Regarding claim 6, Yokota et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises Na2O and K2O in an amount of 0-10 wt% each, rendering prima facie obvious the range of the instant claim through overlapping ranges. Yokota further teaches embodiments wherein the R2O content falls within the 0.55-6 mol% range of the instant claim (see i.e. examples 15 and 23).
Regarding claim 7, Yokota et al teaches embodiments wherein the nucleating agent is a combination of TiO2, SnO2-, and ZrO2 in an amount falling within the summation range of 2.5-6 mol% (see example 7, amount is 4.53 mol% upon conversion.
Regarding claim 8, the SiO2 + (5xLi2O) value for the aforementioned example 7 glass ceramic is 110.96.
Regarding claim 9, the Va processing temperature is understood to be that at which the viscosity of the melt is 104. Yokota does not teach an embodiment wherein this value is less than 1330 °C. However, the 104 is not measured for all examples, and the property is dependent on glass composition. Because, as discussed above, routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art would have led to glass ceramic compositions having equivalent compositions to those of the instant claims, these equivalently composed starting glasses would necessarily have had 104 (processing) temperatures that were also equivalent, and that fell below 1330 °C. Further, Yokota teaches that the SiO2 content of the glass effects the high temperature viscosity in that a lower content leads to lowered viscosity. This too shows that the glass ceramic compositions taught and suggested by Yokota, with SiO2 contents below 70 mol%, would necessarily have lower temperatures at which the starting glasses reach viscosities of 104. Each limitation of claim 9 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art, and the claim is not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 10, the Yokota et al glass ceramics have β-quartz solid solution (high quartz solid solution) as main crystalline phase (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Yokota et al teaches an embodiment wherein the average crystallite size is 45 nm (see Table 4 example 10).
Regarding claim 12, the claim differs from Yokota et al because Yokota does not specify an index F property of the inventive glass ceramic, measured per TCL and expansion according to the manner of the claim. However, because as discussed above Yokota et al teaches a glass that is compositionally equivalent to that of the instant claims and that has an equivalent β-quartz solid solution microstructure, the equivalent glass ceramic would necessarily also have equivalent index F properties to the instantly claimed glass ceramic. 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.
Regarding claim 13, the claim differs from Yokota et al because Yokota does not specify the alternative index f(20;40)-, f(20;70)-, or f(-10;30)-, properties of the inventive material. However, as above, the compositionally and structurally equivalent Yokota glass ceramic would necessarily have equivalent thermal expansion properties, and thus each further limitation of the instant claim 13 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 14, the claim differs from Yokota et al because Yokota does not specify the relative change in length in the temperature ranges of 20°C-30°C or 20°C-35°C. However, as above, the compositionally and structurally equivalent Yokota glass ceramic would necessarily have equivalent thermal expansion propertied, and thus each further limitation of the instant claim 14 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15, the claim differs from Yokota et al because Yokota does not specify the relative change in length in the temperature range of 20°C-40°C. However, as above, the compositionally and structurally equivalent Yokota glass ceramic would necessarily have equivalent thermal expansion propertied, and thus each further limitation of the instant claim 15 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, the claim differs from Yokota et al because Yokota does not specify a slope in CTE-T curve across a breadth of 30 K. However, as above, the compositionally and structurally equivalent Yokota glass ceramic would necessarily have equivalent thermal expansion propertied, and thus each further limitation of the instant claim 16 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 17, Yokota does not specify the thermal hysteresis in terms of ppm in a temperature range of 15-40 °C. However, because Yokota teaches glass ceramics that are compositionally and structurally equivalent to those of the instant claim, it necessarily follows that the thermal hysteresis property would also be equivalent. 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).
Regarding claim 18, Yokota et al teaches a Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2 based crystallized glass having β-quartz solid solution as the main crystalline phase (see Abstract and claim 19). This glass ceramic is used to form components. The term “precision component” of the instant claim is necessarily given its broadest reasonable interpretation, and thus is understood to cover any type of deliberately formed component. The Yokota component thus meets this definition of the claimed product. Yokota et al teaches embodiments wherein this LAS glass ceramic exhibits a coefficient of thermal expansion of less than 0.1 x 10-6/K over the range of 30-380 °C (see i.e. Table 2 at paragraph [0109] examples No. 1, 2, 7). Yokota teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises SiO2 in an amount of 40-90 wt%; Li2O in an amount of 1-10 wt%; MgO in an amount of 0-10 wt%; and Na2O and K2O in an amount of 0-10 wt% each (see claims 1 and 2). The ranges taught by Yokota therefore overlap the corresponding ranges for the components of instant claim 18. Yokota further teaches embodiments wherein the Li2O, MgO+ZnO, and R2O fall within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim (see Table 1, examples 1-2 and 5-7), and wherein TiO2, ZrO2, and SnO2 (nucleating agents) are contained in an amount falling within the 1.5-6 mol% range of said claim.
The Yokota glass ceramic compositions therefore differ from instant claim 18 in that no exemplary embodiment is disclosed wherein the SiO2 amount is less than 70 mol% when converted from the weight percentage taught. However, Yokota does teach an embodiment wherein the amount is greater than 70 mol% by 0.1 mol% (see Table 1 example 7, 70.1 mol% upon conversion). Further, as discussed above, Yokota teaches a range for this component of 40-90 wt%; as can be seen, this range substantially overlaps and encompasses the claimed range of 60 - <70 mol% upon conversion. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore been enabled to arrive at glass ceramic compositions having SiO2 amounts falling with the range of the instant claim 1 through routine optimization and experimentation with the range taught by the Yokota prior art. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. One would have had motivation to form glass ceramic compositions have such a SiO2 content because of the large portion of the Yokota range that is not exemplified, but is taught; one would have understood that the extent of the Yokota disclosure is not limited to the exemplary embodiments, but instead includes the full extent of the claimed ranges, and thus one would have had the inventive desire to form new compositions therefrom.
As such, glass ceramics meeting each compositional limitation of instant claim 18 are taught by Yokota et al. As further shown, Yokota teaches glass ceramics wherein the CTE is 0 ppm/K over a range of 30-380 °C. The instant claim limitation that the CTE is 0 ± 0.1 ppm/K in a range of 0-50 °C is necessarily given its broadest reasonable interpretation that it covers any glass ceramic having this CTE property at any temperature in said range. As such, the Yokota glass ceramic having the quantitative property at 30 °C meets this property limitation. Yokota does not specify the thermal hysteresis in terms of ppm in a temperature range of 15-35 °C. However, because Yokota teaches glass ceramics that are compositionally and structurally equivalent to those of the instant claim, it necessarily follows that the thermal hysteresis property would also be equivalent. 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 instant claim 18 is therefore met by the teachings of Yokota et al, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 19, Yokota et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises Al2O3 in an overlapping amount of 5-30 wt%, and further teaches embodiments wherein the amount falls within the instant range of 10-22 mol% (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 20, as discussed above, Yokota et al teaches embodiments wherein the MgO+ZnO content of the glass ceramic is less than 1.5 mol% (see i.e. example 7 at Table 1).
Conclusion
8. No claim is allowed.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, Hartmann et al is indicative of a zero hysteresis state known to be achievable from LAS glass ceramics of the type of the instant claims.
10. 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 November 2025
Prosecution Insights