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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 03/17/2026 are herein entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites,
“exposing the interface area of the glassy element to kinetic interaction members having a kinetic energy,, whereby the kinetic interaction members interact with the gap fillers, to remove the gap fillers from the glass mesh structure, wherein the kinetic interaction members are selected from the group consisting of noble gas ions, including any combinations thereof”
The above limitation is written as a result of the limitation of claim 1: “employing a radio-frequency plasma process” and not written as an active step of the process.
“whereby the kinetic interaction members interact with the gap fillers, whereby gap fillers are removed from the glass mesh structure, wherein the kinetic interaction members are selected from the group consisting of noble gas ions, including any combinations thereof”
will be interpreted as a result of “employing a radio-frequency plasma process” given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the kinetic interaction members are the plasma or are resulting from the plasma and are directed to the interface area of the glassy element as effect of having a velocity with a vector pointing towards the respective interface area of the glassy element.”
The term “as effect” makes the active steps of the method of claim 1 unclear. The active step here appears to be, “exposing the interface area of the glassy element to kinetic interaction members having a kinetic energy” and limitations following are a result of the active step. For the purpose of this examination plasma contacting the surface of the glass is a velocity vector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 2-16 are rejected at least for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
The limitation of, “gap fillers are removed from the glass mesh structure” in claim 1 yields it is unclear because there are no dimensions to the “mesh structure” and/or the “interface area”. Does this indicate the gap fillers are removed completely from all “mesh structure” or moved to a different are of the glass mesh structure or as implied in the remarks filed 03/17/2026 the gap fillers are removed form the “interface area”. There is no precise measurement of depth as to what is considered the “interface area” or whether it is a depth from the surface, parallel to the surface, if the surface is circular how is said interface area to be determined.
For the purpose of this examination any interaction with energetic plasma and glass surface that moves the gap fillers from the mesh structure of any area is considered the gap fillers being “removed” from the interface area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudigier-Voigt et al. (US 20200062453) and Bicker et al. (US 20100075077).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Rudigier-Voigt discloses a method for producing a glassy element comprising:
providing a starting glassy element (100) seen generally in step a ¶[0043], The provided starting glassy element ¶[0112] has a glass mesh structure as defined by “layers” of glass, or the molecule structures that make up the overall glass, in ¶ [0119] of alkali metals ¶[0017]. The alkalis are considered gap fillers at least at an interface area given the broadest reasonable interpretation ¶ [0119]-[0121];
Rudigier-Voigt discloses heating the glassy element to a temperature T of 360-375 deg. Celsius ¶[0064], [0133]-[0134] thus allowing alkali ions, or gap fillers, to move within the glass at it’s softening temperature and thus move relative to the glass mesh structure. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to find the optimum temperature within the disclosed range
Rudigier-Voigt discloses employing X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, plasma process that utilizes a plasma, described generally in step b ¶[0044], specifically including radio-frequency ¶[0054];
This step is considered exposing the interface area of the glassy element to kinetic interaction members of plasma ¶ [0054] having a kinetic energy,
the kinetic interaction members of nitrogen plasma ¶ [0044], [0052]-[0056] interact with the alkali gap fillers,
Rudigier-Voigt discloses an alkali containing glass plasma treated on their surface and example 3 in Fig 6 showing ¶ [0144], and example 3 in particular shows no alkali metals in the outer glass surface (Table 2, ¶ [0149]-[0150]
Rudigier-Voigt does not specifically indicate the plasma using any noble gas.
In an analogous art of plasma heating of glass containers, vials, syringes, Bricker discloses submitting the glass element to a plasma process using a noble gas or inert gas such as nitrogen ¶[0045].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute nitrogen in the method of Rudigier-Voigt with any noble gas as motivated by the simple substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results MPEP 2143 as indicated by Bricker.
whereby gap fillers are removed from the glass mesh structure and replaced by the plasma ions, or kinetic interaction members of Nitrogen are implanted into the walls Rudigier-Voigt ¶[0144], [0149]-[0150] and thus having a velocity with a vector pointing towards the respective interface area of the glassy element.
Regarding claim 2, Rudigier-Voigt discloses exposing glass to a plasma which the plasma ions are implanted to the outer surface of the glass thus yielding a glass mesh structure at the interface area of the glassy element exposed to the ions, or kinetic interaction members, and the volume of the glass element is considered to remain unchanged when compared to the glass mesh structure within the volume of the glass element given the broadest reasonable interpretation ¶[0144], [0149]-[0150] Table .
Regarding claim 4, the glass composition of Rudigier-Voigt as taught in ¶[0112] and ¶[0144] comprise gap fillers of alkaline metals and/or earth alkaline metals.
Regarding claim 5, the glass composition of Rudigier-Voigt suggests SCHOTT Fiolax clear ™ ¶[0144] thus the gap fillers are selected from the group consisting of Na and Ca respective oxides thereof, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 6, the kinetic interaction members are present in the form of and/or are contained in a process gas, which does not a contain a chemically reactive species for the interface area of the glassy element ¶[0054].
Regarding claim 7, Rudigier-Voigt suggests the removal of gap fillers (Table 2) this is considered to result in a gradient area within the glassy element in which the concentration of the gap fillers is reduced when compared to an area outside the gradient area which extends from the interface area of the glassy element into its depth ¶[0020]-[0021], and the gradient area has a thickness from 5 nm to 10 microns ¶[0048] thus overlapping the claimed range of 1 nm to 200 nm.
Regarding claim 8, Rudigier-Voigt discloses heating of the glassy element is achieved by exposing the glassy element to a heating device or by exposing the glassy element to heating gas and/or a heating gas plasma ¶[0082],[0144].
Regarding claim 9, Rudigier-Voigt suggests an embodiment of exposing of the starting glassy element with the heating gas and/or heating gas plasma results in a pretreatment of the interface area of the glass element in a reactor ¶[0144].
Regarding claim 10, ¶[0144] suggests exposing of the starting glassy element to a plasma precursor gas with the kinetic interaction members before heating gas is present.
Regarding claims 11 and 15-16, Rudigier-Voigt suggests an embodiment where the starting glassy element is heated by exposition with a heating gas, then the heating gas is removed from a surrounding atmosphere ¶[0138],
then the surrounding atmosphere is introduced to comprise or consist of the kinetic interaction members of a plasma precursor ¶[0054], [0144], then energy is transferred to the kinetic interaction members to expose the glassy element with kinetic interaction members, providing the kinetic interaction members with energy current ¶[0054], [0144]
Rudigier-Voigt does not indicate the frequency is a pulsed plasma process.
Analogous art Bricker discloses a pulse time in the plasma process is a pulsed in sequences of pulse time and pause time wherein the pause time is greater than the pulse time It is possible in this manner for the deposition to take place with a constantly low power averaged over time ¶[0018], Fig 1.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method of Rudigier-Voigt with pulsed frequencies as motivated to cause the plasma deposition/implantation with a low power average.
Regarding claim 12, Rudigier-Voigt discloses putting the glassy element in a reactor surrounding at least part of the interface area of the glassy element with a precursor of the heating gas; and irradiating a precursor of the heating gas to generate a heating gas plasma ¶[0144] taking the glassy element out of the reactor thus considered after or when a desired temperature of the glassy element is achieved; ¶[0144]
It would be obvious top one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Rudigier-Voigt by repeating the plasma heating operation steps as motivated to further implant ions, or kinetic members, into the glass from the plasma.
Regarding claim 13, the glass composition of Rudigier-Voigt suggests SCHOTT Fiolax clear ™ ¶[0144] thus the gap fillers are selected from the group consisting of Na
Rudigier-Voigt does not use the language “a concentration of Na at the interface area is depleted by a factor of at least 5.0, and a factor of 20.0 or less, when compared to a bulk of the glassy element”
However; there are no dimensions to the interface, the bulk glass, or thickness Rudigier-Voigt shows the plasma treatment yields implantation of the plasma kinetic members and pushes the alkalis out of that region content % in Table 2. Given the fact that there is no clear designation of the interface and bulk and surface and gradient Rudigier-Voigt is considered to meet claim 13 given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites a result of the active steps of claim 1.
According to MPEP 2112.01:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Rudigier-Voigt discloses the steps of claim 1 of providing a glassy element and submitting it to a plasma heating that collides with the surface thus the Office has sound reasoning to believe that:
the plasma collides with the interface area so that a removal of the gap fillers from a surface of the glassy element is achieved by a predominantly physical effect and no chemical reaction of the glass mesh structure takes place.
Applicant has the burden of showing the method made obvious by Bricker does not result in the limitations of claim 14.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bicker et al. (US 20100075077).
Regarding claim 1, Bicker discloses a method for producing a glassy element comprising:
providing a glassy element ¶[0025], The provided glassy element has a glass mesh structure of molecules in borosilicate ¶[0025], [0063] thus including alkali metals which are considered the claimed gap fillers at least at an interface area given the broadest reasonable interpretation;
Bicker discloses heating the glassy element to a temperature T of 40-300 deg. Celsius by prior to a plasma process/ before/ or during ¶[0043], [0058] thus allowing alkali ions, or gap fillers to move and thus move relative to the glass mesh structure.
Bicker discloses employing a plasma process including radio-frequency ¶[0054];
This step is considered exposing the interface area of the glassy element to kinetic interaction members of plasma ¶ [0063] having a kinetic energy,
the kinetic interaction members of the plasma ¶ [0063]-[0064] the plasma gas interacts with the alkalis in the glass and the kinetic members implant themselves at surfaces of the glass the plasma contacts.
the kinetic interaction members of the plasma, or plasma precursor gas, are selected from the group consisting of noble gas ions, including any combinations thereof and the kinetic interaction members are the plasma ¶[0045] and are directed to what is considered the interface area of the glassy element
the kinetic interaction members contact the glassy element are considered to have a velocity with a vector pointing towards the respective interface area of the glassy element given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 2, the glass mesh structure at the interface area of the glassy element considered the surface being exposed to the plasma, thus kinetic interaction members, and is thus considered unchanged when compared to the glass mesh structure within the remainder of the glass thus considered the volume of the glass element ¶ [0012]-[0013].
Regarding claim 3, Bicker discloses plasma an inert gas ¶[0045] thus the kinetic interaction members are Ar ions, He ions, Ne ions, Kr ions, Xe ions.
Regarding claim 4, Bicker discloses borosilicate glass ¶[0025], [0063] thus gap fillers are alkaline metals and/or earth alkaline metals within a borosilicate glass.
Regarding claim 6, Bicker discloses the kinetic interaction members of the plasma are contained in a process gas of carbon or an inert gas ¶[0014], [0043], thus does not a contain a chemically reactive species for the interface area of the glassy element.
Regarding claim 8, Bicker suggests heating of the glassy element which necessarily includes exposing the glassy element to a heating device or by exposing the glassy element to heating gas and/or a heating gas plasma ¶[0043].
Regarding claim 10, Bricker also suggests exposing of the glassy element with the kinetic interaction members in a vacuum thus no heating gas is present in a surrounding atmosphere ¶[0044].
Regarding claim 11, Bricker discloses the starting glassy element is heated by exposition with a heating gas or a heating gas plasma ¶[0043], then the heating gas or heating gas plasma is removed from a surrounding atmosphere by subsequent heating in a vacuum ¶[0044] which provides the kinetic interaction members with energy via heating ¶[0043]-[0044] and ignition or activation the kinetic interaction members and Bricker suggests a pulsed plasma process ¶[0018].
Regarding claim 12, Bricker discloses heating the starting glassy member between 40-300 deg Celsius ¶[0043] which
a starting glassy element with a precursor of the heating gas thus yielding the claimed interface; and irradiating a precursor of the heating gas to generate a heating gas plasma ¶[0043]; Bricker suggests a vacuum for external heating ¶[0044] thus removing the heating gas and/or the heating gas plasma from an atmosphere after or when a desired temperature of the glassy element is achieved, wherein any temperature may be considered a “desired temperature given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The starting glassy element is considered to be surrounded on at least part of the interface area with a precursor of the kinetic reaction members by the plasma heating ¶ [0043]; and Bricker suggests irradiating the precursor of the kinetic interaction members to generate a plasma ¶[0044]-[0045].
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites a result of the active steps of claim 1.
According to MPEP 2112.01:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Bricker discloses the steps of claim 1 of providing a glassy element and submitting it to a plasma heating that collides with the surface thus the Office has sound reasoning to believe that:
the plasma collides with the interface area so that a removal of the gap fillers from a surface of the glassy element is achieved by a predominantly physical effect and no chemical reaction of the glass mesh structure takes place.
Applicant has the burden of showing the method made obvious by Bricker does not result in the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claims 15-16, Bricker discloses a pulse time in the plasma process is a pulsed in sequences of pulse time and pause time wherein the pause time is greater than the pulse time ¶[0018], Fig 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant believes that claim 1 is not indefinite and it is clear what interface the gap fillers are completely removed from. Examiner maintains the indefiniteness rejection. Claim 1 yields it is unclear because there are no dimensions to the “mesh structure” and/or the “interface area” thus it is unclear what area said gap fillers are removed completely from. There is no precise measurement of depth as to what is considered the “interface area” or whether it is a depth from the surface, parallel to the surface, if the surface is circular how is said interface area to be determined either by dimensions or relative to any portion of the glassy element. Therefore the claim currently requires some area deemed the “interface area” to have gap fillers moved out of said area given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant argues the offices interpretation that any interaction with the energetic plasma in the cited prior art moves gap fillers from the mesh structure is incorrect and indicates [0051], [0035] of the present application indicates the interference area is the surface area. As indicated above there is no clear definition of the exact “interference area”.
Applicant argues that claim 1 requires the complete removal of the interference/surface and not just rearrangement. The two cannot be differentiated as the claim is currently written even given the broadest the reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Applicant further argues the rejection in that Rudigier-Voigt teaches a method of introducing nitrogen into a wall region of glass and determining the content thereof. Applicant recites that additional art, Bicker, is silent as to the limitation:
“whereby the kinetic interaction members interact with the gap fillers to remove the gap fillers from the glass mesh structure." (emphasis added)
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. There is no requirement that the prior art must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.c., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” /In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR /Int’/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” /d. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” /Id. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast to that approach, Appellant’s arguments rigidly focus on a narrow reading of prior art, without taking full account of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Plasma radiating the surface of the glass at 2.45 GHz and 900W power [0064] will remove gap fillers. Examiner would also like to point out According to MPEP 2112.01:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The microwave frequency of the present application is taught and power is 100 watts less and can be optimized. Although Applicant cites examples of the present specification in [00232] the claims are not limited to these examples. The claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the art.
Applicant argues that Rudiger-Voigt only discloses nitrogen doping and does not remove other ions. This does not negate the nitrogen doping can push the other ions throughout the glass mesh network.
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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights