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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beall et al (20160102010).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-15, 17-20 Beall et al teach a glass ceramic including petalite, lithium disilicate and quartz (examples 19, 22, 24) that fall within the ranges of claim 1. Example 19 includes in mass% 78.3 SiO2, 2 P2O5, 9.3 Al2O3, 10.7 Li2O, 1.7 Na2O, .8 MgO, 6 ZrO2. Beall et al show strength values higher than 600 MPa (Figure 8). Beall discloses a glass-ceramic article having a petalite crystalline phase and a lithium silicate crystalline phase, wherein the petalite crystalline phase and the lithium silicate crystalline phase have higher weight percentages than other crystalline phases present in the glass-ceramic article. In some embodiments, the petalite crystalline phase comprises 20 to 70 wt % of the glass-ceramic article and the lithium silicate crystalline phase comprises 20 to 60 wt % of the glass ceramic article. In some embodiments, the petalite crystalline phase comprises 45 to 70 wt % of the glass-ceramic article and the lithium silicate crystalline phase comprises 20 to 50 wt % of the glass ceramic article. The grains of transparent glass-ceramics may have a longest dimension of less than about 100 nm (para 0170). Beall disvlosers glass ceramics useful for a broad number of applications, such as countertops and other surfaces, hand-held, desk-top, and wall-mounted consumer electronic device coverings, appliance doors and exteriors, floor tiles, wall panels, ceiling tiles, white boards, materials storage containers (holloware) such as beverage bottles, food sales and storage vessels, machine parts requiring light weight, good wear resistance and precise dimensions (para 0149).
With respect to the limitation (SiO2+Li2O)/P2O5 is 46-80, Example 19 of Beall includes in mass% 78.3 SiO₂, 2 P₂O₅, 9.3 Al₂O₃, 10.7 Li₂O, 1.7 Na₂O, .8 MgO, 6 ZrO₂. In Beall, (SiO₂+Li₂O)/P₂O₅ is (78.3+10.7)/2=44.5.
The only deficiency of Beall is that Beall disclose the use of (SiO₂+Li₂O)/P₂O₅ in amount of 44.5., while the present claims require (SiO₂+Li₂O)/P₂O₅ in an amount of 46.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of (SiO₂+Li₂O)/P₂O₅ and that taught by Beall are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of (SiO₂+Li₂O)/P₂O₅ disclosed by Beall and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the amount of (SiO₂+Li₂O)/P₂O₅, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of (SiO₂+Li₂O)/P₂O₅ disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Beall, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 3 recites, “quartz” as an optional component, the claim limitation is met when the quartz crystal phase is absent from the main crystal phase.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 10 recites, “quartz” as an optional component, the claim limitation is met when the quartz crystal phase is absent from the main crystal phase.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beall et al (20160102010) as applied to claim 1 and 13, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0290641).
Regarding claims 7, 16 Beall fails to disclose that the glass ceramic further comprises colorant in an amount of 0-4 wt% and where the colorant comprises Pr2O5.
Whereas, Kim discloses nano lithium disilicate glass-ceramics containing a SiO.sub.2 crystalline phase includes: a glass composition including 70 to 85 wt % SiO.sub.2, 10 to 13 wt % Li.sub.2O, 3 to 7 wt % P.sub.2O.sub.5 working as a nuclei formation agent, 0 to 5 wt % Al.sub.2O.sub.3 for increasing a glass transition temperature and a softening point and enhancing chemical durability of glass, 1-2 wt% of colorants (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include colorant as taught by Kim in the glass ceramic of Beall motivated by the desire to have desired color and appearance.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beall et al (20160102010) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Beall et al. (US 2009/0318277).
Regarding claim 12, Beall’010 fails to disclose that the colorant comprises NiO and the colorant accounts for 0-4 wt%.
Whereas, Beall’277 discloses machinable glass-ceramic having a high degree of crystallinity (greater than 50 Vol. %), high mechanical strength (MOR>150 MPa) In accordance with the invention, the machinable glass-ceramics described herein consists essentially of, in weight percent, 35-55% SiO.sub.2, 6-18% Al.sub.2O.sub.3, 12-27% MgO, 3-12% F, 5-25% SrO, 0-20% BaO and 1-7% K.sub.2O (abstract). Beall’277 discloses machinable glass-ceramics of the invention may also be colored to an appropriate colored using colorants known in the art, Examples, without limitation, of such colorants include Co.sub.3O.sub.4, CoO (blue-violet); NiO (grey-brown). The colorants are added in an amount of 1-3 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include colorant such as NiO in an amount of 1-3 wt% as taught by Beall’277 in the glass ceramic of Beall motivated by the desire to have desired color and appearance.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 05/18/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections as stated above.
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 RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights