CTNF 18/515,423 CTNF 79386 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted 4 December 2023 has been considered by the Examiner. Drawings The original drawings received on 21 November 2023 are accepted by the Examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claims 1-14 all comprise numerical ranges. The ranges are read in light of the specification. As such the claims are read in terms of paragraph [0022] which reads: “[0022] Where a range of numerical values is recited herein, comprising upper and lower values, unless otherwise stated in specific circumstances, the range is intended to include the endpoints thereof, and all integers and fractions within the range. It is not intended that the scope of the claims be limited to the specific values recited when defining a range. Further, when an amount, concentration, or other value or parameter is given as a range, one or more preferred ranges or a list of upper preferable values and lower preferable values, this is to be understood as specifically disclosing all ranges formed from any pair of any upper range limit or preferred value and any lower range limit or preferred value, regardless of whether such pairs are separately disclosed. Finally, when the term "about" is used in describing a value or an end-point of a range, the disclosure should be understood to include the specific value or end- point referred to. When a numerical value or end-point of a range does not recite "about," the numerical value or end-point of a range is intended to include two embodiments: one modified by "about," and one not modified by "about." The paragraph is read that each range is read two ways 1) as written AND 2) as modified by the term “about”. Hence, a range, such as “5-10” would be interpreted as 1) “5-10” AND “about 5 to about 10”. The claims will be treated in the broadest meaning which would be the interpretation using “about” to modify the claims. Therefore, the numerical ranges of the claims will be read in view of the ranges as modified by the term “about”. Since the specification does don’t define the value of “about”, the term about is being considered up to ±20% of the value. The ranges of the instant claims will be considered anticipated or obvious if the examples or ranges of the prior art falls within ±20% of the endpoints. There is no consistent value for which the term “about” used in the prior art related to glass compositions and glasses as shown by the specifications of: U.S. Patent Application Publications such as: US 2021/0025984 A1, US 2018/0099487 A1, US 2015/0344352 A1, US 2015/0344352 A1, US 2010/395134 A1, US 2019/0177212 A1, US 2010/221727 A1, US 2010/206687 A1, US 2020/002216 A1, US 2018/0319700 A1, and US 2003/0216242 A1. In the listed specification the term “about” is defined as anywhere from ±0.2% of the value, up to ±30% or even 50% of the endpoint values. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 8, lines 11-12 recite the limitation”>0 to 4 mol% Fe 2 O 3 , V 2 O 5 , Cr 2 O 3 , MnO 2 , CeO 2 , NiO, ZnO, CuO, Co 3 O 4 , rare earth oxides, and combinations thereof”. This renders the claim indefinite since the component “CeO 2 ” is considered to be recited twice, since it is also considered listed in the components “rare earth oxides” in line 12. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Nakashima et al., U.S. Patent, US 6,387,510 B1 . Nakashima et al. disclose a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 60-72% of SiO 2 , 2-9% of Al 2 O 3 , 3-9% of MgO, 2-10% of CaO, 0-15% of SrO, 0-4% of ZnO, 0-8% of TiO 2 , 0-4% of ZrO 2 , 1-12% of Li 2 O, 0-8% of Na 2 O, 0-5% of K 2 O, 0-5% of Y 2 O 3 , 0-5% of La 2 O 3 , 0-3% of CeO 2 , and 0-3% of B 2 O 3 . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, column 3, lines 25-48, column 4, line 15 to column 5, line 58, column 6, lines 3-7, and column 6, lines 8-10. The compositional ranges of Nakashima et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass composition as recited in claims 8-13. See MPEP 2131.03. Specifically, as to claim 8, Nakashima et al. disclose Examples 1-8, 10, 11, 13-20, and 34 (see Tables 1, 2, and 4), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of SiO 2 , 5-10% of Al 2 O 3 , >5-10% of MgO, 5-15% of CaO, 0-15% of Na 2 O, 0-5% of K 2 O, >1-4% of TiO 2 , 8-15% of alkali metal oxides which comprise at least one of Li 2 O, Na 2 O, and K 2 O, and >0-4% of Fe 2 O 3 , V 2 O 5 , Cr 2 O 3 , MnO 2 , CeO 2 , NiO, ZnO, CuO, Co 3 O 4 , rare earth oxides, and combinations thereof, as recited in instant claim 8. As to claim 9, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakashima et al. would inherently possess a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of 350 x 10 -7 /°C, as recited in claim 9. See MPEP 2112. 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). Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990). As to claim 10, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakashima et al. would inherently possess a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of 400 x 10 -7 /°C, as recited in claim 10. See MPEP 2112. As to claim 11, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakashima et al. would inherently possess a temperability of at least 0.80, as recited in claim 11. See MPEP 2112. As to claim 12, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Nakashima et al. would inherently possess a temperability of at least 0.90, as recited in claim 12. See MPEP 2112. As to claim 13, Nakashima et al. disclose the glass comprises 0-3 mol% of B 2 O 3 (see column 6, lines 8-10), which reads on a glass comprising greater than 1.5 to 6 mol% of B 2 O 3 , as recited in instant claim 13 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al., U.S. Patent, US 6,387,510 B1 . Nakashima et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 60-72% of SiO 2 , 2-9% of Al 2 O 3 , 3-9% of MgO, 2-10% of CaO, 0-15% of SrO, 0-4% of ZnO, 0-8% of TiO 2 , 0-4% of ZrO 2 , 1-12% of Li 2 O, 0-8% of Na 2 O, 0-5% of K 2 O, 0-5% of Y 2 O 3 , 0-5% of La 2 O 3 , 0-3% of CeO 2 , and 0-3% of B 2 O 3 . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, column 3, lines 25-48, column 4, line 15 to column 5, line 58, column 6, lines 3-7, and column 6, lines 8-10. Nakashima et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 1-6. However, the mole percent ranges taught by Nakashima et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 1-6. See column 3, lines 25-48, column 4, line 15 to column 5, line 58, column 6, lines 3-7, and column 6, lines 8-10. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Nakashima et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Nakashima et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff , 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari , 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. Specifically, as to claim 1, Nakashima et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mol%, 60-72% of SiO 2 , 2-9% of Al 2 O 3 , 3-9% of MgO, 2-10% of CaO, 0-8% of TiO 2 , 1-12% of Li 2 O, 0-8% of Na 2 O, 0-5% of K 2 O, 4-15% of Li 2 O+Na 2 O+K 2 O, and 0-3% of CeO 2 , (see column 3, lines 25-48, column 4, line 15 to column 5, line 58, and column 6, lines 3-7), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of SiO 2 , 5-10% of Al 2 O 3 , >5-10% of MgO, 5-15% of CaO, 0-15% of Na 2 O, 0-5% of K 2 O, >1-4% of TiO 2 , 8-15% of alkali metal oxides which comprise at least one of Li 2 O, Na 2 O, and K 2 O, and >0-4% of CeO 2 , Ho 2 O 3 , CuO, NiO, and combinations thereof, as recited in instant claim 1. As to claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of 350 x 10 -7 /°C, as recited in claim 2. See MPEP 2112. 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). Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990). As to claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of 400 x 10 -7 /°C, as recited in claim 3. See MPEP 2112. As to claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a temperability of at least 0.80, as recited in claim 4. See MPEP 2112. As to claim 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a temperability of at least 0.90, as recited in claim 5. See MPEP 2112. As to claim 6, Nakashima et al. teach the glass comprises 0-3 mol% of B 2 O 3 (see column 6, lines 8-10), which reads on a glass comprising greater than 1.5 to 6 mol% of B 2 O 3 , as recited in instant claim 6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aitken et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication, US 2014/0323286 A1 . Aitken et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 65-80% of SiO 2 , 3-13% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-5.5% of B 2 O 3 , >0-10% of MgO, 0-10% of CaO, 0-10% of SrO, 1-12% of Na 2 O, 0-10% of BaO, 1-13.1% of Na 2 O+K 2 O, 1-18% of Li 2 O+Na 2 O+K 2 O+Cs 2 O+Rb 2 O, 0-10% of K 2 O, 0-3% of TiO 2 , and 0-3% of TiO 2 , MnO 2 , ZnO, Nb 2 O 5 , MoO 3 , ta2o3, WO 3 , ZrO 2 , Y 2 O 3 , La 2 O 3 , HfO 2 , CdO, Fe 2 O 3 , and CeO 2 . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0013]-[0019], [0065], and [0084]-[0103]. Aitken et al. teaches the glass is a flat glass used for substrates in electronics applications such as for LCD televisions and photovoltaics modules. See paragraph [0005]. Aitken et al. teaches that the photovoltaic module comprises at protective cover layer which is a glass substrate. See paragraphs [0006] and [0121]. Aitken et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 1-14. However, the mole percent ranges taught by Aitken et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 1-14. See paragraphs [0013]-[0019], [0065], and [0084]-[0103]. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Aitken et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Aitken et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff , 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari , 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. Specifically, as to claim 1, Aitken et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mol%, 65-80% of SiO 2 , 3-13% of Al 2 O 3 , >0-10% of MgO, 0-10% of CaO, 0-3% of TiO 2 , 1-12% of Na 2 O, 0-10% of K 2 O, 1-13.1% of Na 2 O+K 2 O, 1-18% of Li 2 O+Na 2 O+K 2 O+Cs 2 O+Rb 2 O, and 0-3% of TiO 2 , MnO 2 , ZnO, Nb 2 O 5 , MoO 3 , Ta 2 O 5 , WO 3 , ZrO 2 , Y 2 O 3 , La 2 O 3 , HfO 2 , CdO, Fe 2 O 3 , and CeO 2 , (see paragraphs [0013]-[0019], [0065], and [0084]-[0103]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of SiO 2 , 5-10% of Al 2 O 3 , >5-10% of MgO, 5-15% of CaO, 0-15% of Na 2 O, 0-5% of K 2 O, >1-4% of TiO 2 , 8-15% of alkali metal oxides which comprise at least one of Li 2 O, Na 2 O, and K 2 O, and >0-4% of CeO 2 , Ho 2 O 3 , CuO, NiO, and combinations thereof, as recited in instant claim 1. As to claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of 350 x 10 -7 /°C, as recited in claim 2. 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). Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990). As to claim 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of 400 x 10 -7 /°C, as recited in claim 3. As to claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a temperability of at least 0.80, as recited in claim 4. As to claim 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a temperability of at least 0.90, as recited in claim 5. As to claim 6, Aitken et al. teach the glass comprises 0-5.5 mol% of B 2 O 3 (see paragraphs [0015] and [0087]), which reads on a glass comprising greater than 1.5 to 6 mol% of B 2 O 3 , as recited in instant claim 6. As to claim 7, Aitken et al. teach the glass is used for electronic applications including cover glasses for LCD televisions and photovoltaic modules (see paragraphs [0005], [0006], and [0121]), which reads on a housing for a consumer electronic product, as recited in instant claim 7. As to claim 8, Aitken et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mol%, 65-80% of SiO 2 , 3-13% of Al 2 O 3 , >0-10% of MgO, 0-10% of CaO, 0-3% of TiO 2 , 1-12% of Na 2 O, 0-10% of K 2 O, 1-13.1% of Na 2 O+K 2 O, 1-18% of Li 2 O+Na 2 O+K 2 O+Cs 2 O+Rb 2 O, and 0-3% of TiO 2 , MnO 2 , ZnO, Nb 2 O 5 , MoO 3 , Ta 2 O 5 , WO 3 , ZrO 2 , Y 2 O 3 , La 2 O 3 , HfO 2 , CdO, Fe 2 O 3 , and CeO 2 , (see paragraphs [0013]-[0019], [0065], and [0084]-[0103]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of SiO 2 , 5-10% of Al 2 O 3 , >5-10% of MgO, 5-15% of CaO, 0-15% of Na 2 O, 0-5% of K 2 O, >1-4% of TiO 2 , 8-15% of alkali metal oxides which comprise at least one of Li 2 O, Na 2 O, and K 2 O, and >0-4% of Fe 2 O 3 , v2o5, Cr 2 O 3 , MnO 2 , CeO 2 , NiO, ZnO, CuO, Co 3 O 4 , rare earth oxides, and combinations thereof, as recited in instant claim 8. As to claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of 350 x 10 -7 /°C, as recited in claim 9. As to claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of 400 x 10 -7 /°C, as recited in claim 10. As to claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a temperability of at least 0.80, as recited in claim 11. As to claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a glass with overlapping compositional ranges would have a temperability of at least 0.90, as recited in claim 12. As to claim 13, Aitken et al. teach the glass comprises 0-5.5 mol% of B 2 O 3 (see paragraphs [0015] and [0087]), which reads on a glass comprising greater than 1.5 to 6 mol% of B 2 O 3 , as recited in instant claim 13. As to claim 14, Aitken et al. teach the glass is used for electronic applications including cover glasses for LCD televisions and photovoltaic modules (see paragraphs [0005], [0006], and [0121]), which reads on a housing for a consumer electronic product, as recited in instant claim 14 . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,845,692 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 . Specifically, US 11,845,692 B2 claims a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of SiO 2 , 5-10% of Al 2 O 3 , >5-10% of MgO, 5-15% of CaO, 8-15% of alkali metal oxides comprising at least one of Li 2 O, Na 2 O, and K 2 O, 0-15% of Na 2 O, 0-15% of K 2 O, >1-4% of TiO 2 , >0-2% of CeO 2 , Ho 2 O 3 , CuO, NiO, and combinations thereof. US 11,845,692 B2 claims a glass having a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of at least 350 x 10 -7 /°C. US 11,845,692 B2 claims a glass having a temperability of at least 0.80. US 11,845,692 B2 claims a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, greater than 1.5-6% of B 2 O 3 . US 11,845,692 B2 claims a housing for a consumer electronic product. US 11,845,692 B2 claims a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of SiO 2 , 5-10% of Al 2 O 3 , >5-10% of MgO, 5-15% of CaO, 8-15% of alkali metal oxides comprising at least one of Li 2 O, Na 2 O, and K 2 O, 0-15% of Na 2 O, 0-15% of K 2 O, >1-4% of TiO 2 , >0-4% of Fe 2 O 3 , V 2 O 5 , Cr 2 O 3 , MnO 2 , CeO 2 , NiO, ZnO, CuO, Co 3 O 4 , rare earth oxides, and combinations thereof . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-3, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,286 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 . Specifically, US 11,492,286 B2 claims a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of SiO 2 , 5-10% of Al 2 O 3 , 3-10% of MgO, 5-15% of CaO, 8-15% of Na 2 O+K 2 O, 0-15% of Na 2 O, 0-15% of K 2 O, >1-4% of TiO 2 , >0-2% of CeO 2 , Ho 2 O 3 , CuO, NiO, and combinations thereof. US 11,492,286 B2 claims a glass having a sum of the LTCTE and the HTCTE of at least 350 x 10 -7 /°C. US 11,492,286 B2 claims a glass having a temperability of at least 0.80. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F. 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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at 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 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. /Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 EAB 26 May 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 2 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 3 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 4 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 5 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 6 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 7 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 8 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 9 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 10 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 11 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 12 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/515,423 Page 13 Art Unit: 1731
Prosecution Insights