DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1 November 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 22 November 2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 all comprise numerical ranges. The ranges are read in light of the specification. As such the claims are read using the broadest reasonable meaning as described in paragraphs [0015], [0028], and [0029], which read:
“[0015] As used herein, the term "about" means that amounts, sizes, formulations, parameters, and other quantities and characteristics are not and need not be exact, but may be approximate and/or larger or smaller, as desired, reflecting tolerances, conversion factors, rounding off, measurement error and the like, and other factors known to those skilled in the art. 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. Whether or not a numerical value or end-point of a range in the specification recites "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." It will be further understood that the end-points of each of the ranges are significant both in relation to the other end-point, and independently of the other end-point.”
“[0028] When characterizing the ranges of quantities, unless otherwise specified, the figures are assumed to contain the uncertainty that is equal to a half of a unit of the last significant digit specified in the claim. Herein, the term "last significant digit" means the last non-zero digit in the case when a decimal point is not presented, or the last digit, zero or non-zero, if a decimal point is presented. In particular: in the number "1650" (without decimal point) contains three significant digits ("1", "6" and "5"), the last significant digit is the digit "5", which presents tens, which means that the uncertainty is a half of ten, or ±5; accordingly, this number ("1650") should be interpreted as "1650+5", or as "greater than or equal to 1645" (if it presents the lower limit of a range), or "less than or equal to 1655" (if it presents a higher limit of a range); in the number "1.50" (with decimal point) the last significant digit is the last digit of the number, which is "0", which presents hundredths, which means that the uncertainty is a half of one hundredth (0.005), and within the said uncertainty, the number "1.50" should be interpreted as "1.50±0.005", or as "greater than or equal to 1.495" (if it presents a higher limit of a range) or "less than or equal to 1.505" (if it presents a lower limit of a range).”
“[0029] Specifically for the concentration ranges specified throughout the document, considering unavoidable uncertainty of such data that comes from the nature of the data (such as volatilization of species when melting in the case if the composition of glass is specified by batch, or uncertainty of chemical analysis if a composition is specified by analysis), it is assumed, unless otherwise specified, that the uncertainty of the such figures is ±0.05 mol.% if the value is greater than or equal to 0.5 mol.%, and ±10% of the value if the value is less than 0.5 mol.%. For example, for a value of 15.3 mol.% (which is greater than 0.5 mol.%) it is assumed that the uncertainty is ±0.05 mol.%; for a value of 0.40 mol.% (less than 0.5 mol.%) it is assumed that the uncertainty is ±10% of this value, which means ±0.04 mol.%.”
The numerical values in the instant claims are read in view of the specification. Instant claims 1-20 recite numerical values and ranges. These values will be interpreted in view of paragraphs [0015], [0028], and [0029]. The values will be read taking in account the significant digits of the recited value as described in paragraph [0028], then if the value or range is related to a compositional concentration, the values take in account the unavoidable uncertainty related to things such as volatilization while melting as recited in paragraph [0029], and finally, the numerical values will be interpreted in view of paragraph [0015], where the values are modified the term “about”.
Paragraph [0015] 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 “4-25” would be interpreted as 1) “4-25” AND “about 4 to about 25”. 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 ±30% 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 ±30% 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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 18. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph
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.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites several limitations, which render the claim indefinite. Claim 1 recites “greater than or equal to 5.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 20.0 mol.% Al2O3”, “greater than or equal to 0.5 mol.% and less than or equal to 10.0 mol.% Li2O”, “greater than or equal to 0.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 15.0 mol.% Na2O”, “greater than or equal to 0.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 0.5 mol.% K2O”, and “less than or equal to 16.0 mol.% Alk2O”, and “0.85≤ Alk2O / Al2O3 [mol.%] ≤ 1.2”. These limitation render the claim indefinite since it is not clear how the combination of the limitations are read since the ranges are confusing and do not collectively support the claimed ranges. For example, the limitation where the alkali metal oxide content is recited as “less than or equal to 16.0 mol.% Alk2O”, this would be read that the Alk2O content is from 0-16 mol.%, however, this cannot be since the claim recites that the Li2O content is 0.5-10.0 mol.%. Additionally, based on the limitations that the Al2O3 content is 5-20 mol.% and the Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio is 0.85-1.2, the Alk2O content would be calculated at 4.25-24 mol.% as follows:
The lowest value for Alk2O is found by taking the lowest Al2O3 content and the lowest Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio value,
A
l
k
2
O
5
=
0.85
, which equals 4.25 mol.% of Alk2O and the highest value for Alk2O is found by taking the highest amount of Al2O3 and the highest Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio value,
A
l
k
2
O
20
=
1.2
, which equals 24.0 mol.% of Alk2O.
However, the claim limits the Alk2O content to a maximum of 16 mol. %. So, it appears that the supported range for Alk2-O is 4.25-16.0 mol.%.
Furthermore, since the Alk2O content is at most 16.0 mol.% and using the Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio of 0.85-1.2, it also follows that the Al2O3 content can not be as high as 20 mol.%, since the highest the Al2O3 content determined by the maximum Alk2O content of 16.0 mol.% and the lower limit of the Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio of 0.85, would result in the highest the Al2O3 content being 18.82 mol.% as follows:
16
A
l
2
O
3
=
0.85
, which equals 18.82 mol.% of Al2O3.
These inconsistencies render claim 1 confusing, since it is not clear which limitations control. The ranges of the total Alk2O and the Al2O3 render this claim indefinite.
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites several limitations, which render the claim indefinite. Claim 4 recites “greater than or equal to 12.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 18.0 mol.% Al2O3”, “greater than or equal to 2.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 8.0 mol.% Li2O”, “greater than or equal to 0.3 mol.% and less than or equal to 15.0 mol.% Na2O”, and “less than or equal to 15.5 mol.% Alk2O”, and “0.85≤ Alk2O / Al2O3 [mol.%] ≤ 1.09”. These limitation render the claim indefinite since it is not clear how the combination of the limitations are read since the ranges are confusing and do not collectively support the claimed ranges. For example, the limitation where the alkali metal oxide content is recited as “less than or equal to 15.5 mol.% Alk2O”, this would be read that the Alk2O content is from 0-15.5 mol.%, however, this cannot be since the claim recites that the Li2O content is 2.0-8.0 mol.% and the Na2O content is 0.3-15.0. Since the total Alk2O content is limited to 15.5 mol.% it is unclear how the Na2O content can be greater than 13.5 mol.%, since the composition requires at least 2.0 mol.% of Li2O. Additionally, based on the limitations that the Al2O3 content is 12-18 mol.% and the Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio is 0.85-1.09, the Alk2O content would be calculated at 10.2-19.62 mol.% as follows:
The lowest value for Alk2O is found by taking the lowest Al2O3 content and the lowest Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio value,
A
l
k
2
O
12
=
0.85
, which equals 10.2 mol.% of Alk2O and the highest value for Alk2O is found by taking the highest amount of Al2O3 and the highest Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio value,
A
l
k
2
O
18
=
1
.
09
, which equals 19.62 mol.% of Alk2O.
However, the claim limits the Alk2O content to a maximum of 15.5 mol. %. So, it appears that the supported range for Alk2-O is 10.2-15.5 mol.%.
These inconsistencies render claim 4 confusing, since it is not clear which limitations control. The ranges of the total Alk2O and the Al2O3 render this claim indefinite.
Claim 16 recites several limitations, which render the claim indefinite. Claim 16 recites “greater than or equal to 3.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 10.0 mol.% Na2O”, “greater than or equal to 3 mol.% and less than or equal to 7.95 mol.% Li2O”, “greater than or equal to 1.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 20.0 mol.% Al2O3”, “greater than or equal to 0.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 0.5 mol.% K2O”, and “greater than or equal to 9.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 17.5 mol.% Alk2O”, “a sum of Li2O + Na2O is greater than or equal to 12.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 17.5 mol.%”, “0.50≤ Li2O / Alk2O [mol.%] ≤ 0.55”, and “0.85≤ Alk2O / Al2O3 [mol.%] ≤ 1”. These limitation render the claim indefinite since it is not clear how the combination of the limitations are read since the ranges are confusing and do not collectively support the claimed ranges. For example, the limitations where the alkali metal oxide content is recited as “greater than or equal to 9.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 17.5 mol.% Alk2O”, wherein Alk2O is the total sum of Li2O+Na2O+K2O+Rb2O+Cs2O, yet, “the sum of Li2O+Na2O is greater than or equal to 12.0 mol.% and less than or equal to 17.5 mol.%”. This is confusing, since if the Li2O+Na2O content is 12-17.5 mol.%, how can the Alk2O content be lower than the Li2O+Na2O content? Furthermore, since the content of Li2O is recited as 3-7.95 mol.% and the ratio of Li2O/Alk2O is 0.50-0.55. How can the Alk2O content be greater than 15.9 mol.% based on the calculation as follows:
7.95
A
l
k
2
O
=
0
.
50
, where the Li2O content is maximized at 7.95 mol.% and the ratio is minimized at 0.5? Additionally, it is unclear how the Li2O content can be as low as 3.0 mol.%, if the Alk2O is limited to 12.0-15.9 mol.% and the ratio of Li2O/Alk2O is 0.50-0.55? Based on those limitations, the lowest the Li2O content could be is 6 mol.% as calculated by
L
i
2
o
12.0
=
0
.
50
. Similarly, how can the Na2O content be in the range of 3.0-10.0 mol.%, when the Li2O content is limited to 6-7.95 mol.%, the total Alk2O content is limited to 12.0-15.9 mol%, the Li2O+Na2O content is limited to 12.0-15.9 mol.%, and the ratio of Li2O/Alk2O is 0.50-0.55? Based on the combination of limitations it is unclear how the Na2O content can be anything other than 6.0-7.95 mol.%.
Furthermore, since the Alk2O content is calculated as being limited to 12.0-15.9 mol.% and using the Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio of 0.85-1, it also follows that the Al2O3 content cannot be 1.0-20 mol.%, since the range for the Al2O3 content determined by the minimum and maximum Alk2O content of 12-15.9 mol.% and the range of the Alk2O/Al2O3 ratio is 0.85-1, would result in a range of the Al2O3 content being 12.0-18.71 mol.% as calculated as follows:
12
A
l
2
O
3
=
1
and
15.9
A
l
2
O
3
=
0.85
.
These inconsistencies render claim 16 confusing since it is not clear which limitations control. The ranges of the Li2O, Na2O, Al2O3, Alk2O sum, and sum of Li2O+Na2O render this claim indefinite.
Claims 2, 3, 5-15, and 17-20 are rejected as indefinite since the claims depend either directly or indirectly from a claim rejected as indefinite above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) or fourth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation “a sum of MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO + ZnO is greater than or equal to 0.0 mol.% and less than to 10.0 mol.%”. This fails to further limit the claim from which it depends since claim 1 recites that the MgO content is 1.2 mol.% to 4.0 mol.%. The range for the sum of MgO + CaO + SrO + BaO + ZnO should read greater than or equal to 1.2 mol.% and less than to 10.0 mol.%.
Claim 18 which depends from claim 16, recites the limitation “less than or equal to 15.5 mol.% Alk2O”, which reads as 0-15.5. This fails to further limit the claim from which it depends since claim 15 recites that the Alk2O content is 9.0-17.5 mol.%.
Claim 20 which depends from claim 16, recites the limitation “less than or equal to 15.5 mol.% Alk2O”, which reads as 0-15.5. This fails to further limit the claim from which it depends since claim 15 recites that the Alk2O content is 9.0-17.5 mol.%.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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 –
(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.
(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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross, U.S. Patent Application Publication, US 2016/0376187 A1.
Gross discloses a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 58-65% of SiO2, 11-20% of Al2O3, 0.5-5% of P2O5, 0-0.1% of B2O3, 4.5-20% of Na2O, 0-13% of Li2O, 0-0.2% of K2O, 0-6% of ZnO, 0-6% of MgO, and may include CaO, SrO, BaO, and SnO2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0036], [0039], and [0043]-[0051]. Gross discloses the glass has a molar ratio of Li2O+Na2O/Al2O3 of less than 2. See paragraph [0039]. The compositional ranges of Gross are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass composition as recited in claims 1-5 and 8-20. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 42-44, and 58-60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 60-70% of SiO2, 5-20% of Al2O3, 1.2-4% of MgO, 0.5-10% of Li2O, 0.45-6% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-5% of B2O3, 0-1% of ZnO, 0-0.5% of K2O, less than or equal to 16% of Alk2O, 0-1.5% of REmOn, and 0.85-1.2 of Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 42-44, and 58-60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass having a ratio of 0.9-1.1 of Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 42-44, and 58-60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass having a ratio of 0.85-0.96 of Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4 Gross discloses Examples 25, 42-44, 59, and 60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 12-18% of Al2O3, 2.0-8.0% of Li2O, 0.45-4% of P2O5, 0.-15% of Na2O, 0-0.75% of ZnO, less than or equal to 15.5% of Alk2O, 0-0.3% of REmOn, and 0.85-1.09 of Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 42-44, and 58-60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 10-17.5% of Al2O3, 0.5-7.5% of Li2O, 0.45-4% of P2O5, and 0.3-15% of Na2Oas recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 8, Gross discloses Examples 58-60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 7.05-7.75% of Li2O, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 42-44, and 58-60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 0-0.5% of GeO2, 0-0.2% of Cl, and 0-0.2% of La2O3+Y2O3, wherein the glass is substantially free of arsenic, fluorine, and PbO, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 42-44, and 60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO+ZnO and a ratio of (MgO+CaO+ZnO)/RO of at least 0.8 5-20%, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 42-44, and 58-60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, at least 98% of SiO2+Al2O3+B2O3+P2O5+Li2O+Na2O+MgO, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 58, and 60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass having a Young’s modulus of at least 70 GPa, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 13, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 58, and 60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass having a decimal logarithm of the liquidus viscosity that is at least 5.0 P, as recited in instant claim 13.
As to claim 14, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 58, and 60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass having a decimal logarithm of the liquidus viscosity that is at least 5.1 P, as recited in instant claim 14.
As to claim 15, Gross discloses Examples 24, 25, 58, and 60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass having a decimal logarithm of the liquidus viscosity that is at least 5.3 P, as recited in instant claim 15.
As to claim 16, Gross discloses Examples 48-52 and 58-63 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 58-69.9% of SiO2, 3-10% of Na2O, 3-7.95% of Li2O, 1-20% of Al2O3, 0-4.8% of MgO, 0-4% of ZnO, 0-2.5% of CaO, 0-1% of TiO2, 0-1% of ZrO2, 0-0.5% of SnO2, 0-0.5% of BaO, 0-0.5% of K2O, 9-17.5% of Alk2O, 0-1.5% of REmOn, 12-17.5% of Li2O+Na2O, 0.50-0.55 of Li2O/Alk2O, 0.85-1 of Alk2O/Al2O3, POX-(1.5+PRO) is less than 0, and -2 to 2 of PRO, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, Gross discloses Example 52 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass in terms of mole percentages having a POX-(0.5+PRO) is less than 0, as recited in instant claim 17.
As to claim 18, Gross discloses Examples 59 and 60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 60-69.9% of SiO2, 12-18% of Al2O3, 1.2-4% of MgO, 0.3-4% of P2O5, 0-5% of B2O3, 0-0.75% of ZnO, at most 15.5% of Alk2O, and 0-0.3% of REmOn, as recited in instant claim 18.
As to claim 19, Gross discloses Examples 48-52 and 58-63 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass having a ratio of 0.85-0.96 for the ratio Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 19.
As to claim 20, Gross discloses Examples 59 and 60 (see Tables 1 and 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 60-69.9% of SiO2, 12-18% of Al2O3, 1.2-4% of MgO, 0.3-4% of P2O5, 0-5% of B2O3, 0-0.75% of ZnO, at most 15.5% of Alk2O, and 0-0.3% of REmOn, as recited in instant claim 20.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gross, U.S. Patent Application Publication, US 2016/0376187 A1.
Gross teaches a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 58-65% of SiO2, 11-20% of Al2O3, 0.5-5% of P2O5, 0-0.1% of B2O3, 4.5-20% of Na2O, 0-13% of Li2O, 0-0.2% of K2O, 0-6% of ZnO, 0-6% of MgO, and may include CaO, SrO, BaO, and SnO2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0036], [0039], and [0043]-[0051]. Gross teaches the glass has a molar ratio of Li2O+Na2O/Al2O3 of less than 2. See paragraph [0039].
Gross fails to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 6 and 7. However, the mole percent ranges taught by Gross have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 6 and 7. See paragraphs [0036], [0039], and [0043]-[0051]. 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 disclosed by the reference 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 Gross 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 6, Gross teaches the glass comprises in terms of mole percentages, 58-65% of SiO2, 11-20% of Al2O3, 0.5-5% of P2O5, 0-0.1% of B2O3, 4.5-20% of Na2O, 0-13% of Li2O, 0-0.2% of K2O, 0-6% of ZnO, 0-6% of MgO, and may include CaO, SrO, BaO, and SnO2, (see paragraphs [0036], [0039], and [0043]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol.% 62-69.5% of SiO2, 11.5-16.5% of Al2O3, 2.5-7.5% of Li2O, 2-11.5% of Na2O, 1.2-3.1% of MgO, 0.45-3.7% of P2O5, 0.4-4.6% of B2O3, 0.1-0.9% of ZnO, 0-0.95% of CaO, and 0-0.475% of TiO2, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Gross teaches the glass comprises in terms of mole percentages, 58-65% of SiO2, 11-20% of Al2O3, 0.5-5% of P2O5, 0-0.1% of B2O3, 4.5-20% of Na2O, 0-13% of Li2O, 0-0.2% of K2O, 0-6% of ZnO, 0-6% of MgO, and may include CaO, SrO, BaO, and SnO2, (see paragraphs [0036], [0039], and [0043]-[0051]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol.% 62.8-68.5% of SiO2, 12.2-15.8% of Al2O3, 3.2-7.2% of Li2O, 3-10.5% of Na2O, 1.45-2.85% of MgO, 0.8-4% of B2O3, 0.8-3.3% of P2O5, 0.2-0.825% of ZnO, 0-0.85% of CaO, and 0-0.42% of TiO2, as recited in instant claim 7.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dejneka et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication, US 2019/0127265 A1.
Dejneka et al. disclose a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 50-80% of SiO2, 7-25% of Al2O3, 2-15% of Li2O, 0-6% of Na2O, 0-2.5% of K2O, 7-14% of R2O, 0-20% of P2O5, 0.1-20% of B2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-5% of ZnO, 0-5% of RO, 0-0.35% of SnO2, 0-5% of TiO2, 0-5% of ZrO2, 0-4% of rare earth metal oxides. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0037]-[0058]. Dejneka et al disclose that the glass has a liquidus viscosity of at least 20,000 P. See paragraph [0067]. The compositional ranges of Gross are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass composition as recited in claims 1-6 and 8-15. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 60-70% of SiO2, 5-20% of Al2O3, 1.2-4% of MgO, 0.5-10% of Li2O, 0.45-6% of P2O5, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-5% of B2O3, 0-1% of ZnO, 0-0.5% of K2O, less than or equal to 16% of Alk2O, 0-1.5% of REmOn, and 0.85-1.2 of Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass having a ratio of 0.9-1.1 of Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass having a ratio of 0.85-0.96 of Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4 Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 12-18% of Al2O3, 2.0-8.0% of Li2O, 0.45-4% of P2O5, 0.-15% of Na2O, 0-0.75% of ZnO, less than or equal to 15.5% of Alk2O, 0-0.3% of REmOn, and 0.85-1.09 of Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 10-17.5% of Al2O3, 0.5-7.5% of Li2O, 0.45-4% of P2O5, and 0.3-15% of Na2Oas recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Dejneka et al. disclose Example 44 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol.% 62-69.5% of SiO2, 11.5-16.5% of Al2O3, 2.5-7.5% of Li2O, 2-11.5% of Na2O, 1.2-3.1% of MgO, 0.45-3.7% of P2O5, 0.4-4.6% of B2O3, 0.1-0.9% of ZnO, 0-0.95% of CaO, and 0-0.475% of TiO2, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 8, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 7.05-7.75% of Li2O, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 0-0.5% of GeO2, 0-0.2% of Cl, and 0-0.2% of La2O3+Y2O3, wherein the glass is substantially free of arsenic, fluorine, and PbO, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO+ZnO and a ratio of (MgO+CaO+ZnO)/RO of at least 0.8 5-20%, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, at least 98% of SiO2+Al2O3+B2O3+P2O5+Li2O+Na2O+MgO, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass having a Young’s modulus of at least 70 GPa, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 13, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass having a decimal logarithm of the liquidus viscosity that is at least 5.0 P, as recited in instant claim 13.
As to claim 14, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass having a decimal logarithm of the liquidus viscosity that is at least 5.1 P, as recited in instant claim 14.
As to claim 15, Dejneka et al. disclose Examples 23, 25, 43, 44, 46-48, 67-76, 84, 85, and 103 (see Table 1), which reads on a glass having a decimal logarithm of the liquidus viscosity that is at least 5.3 P, as recited in instant claim 15.
Claims 7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication, US 2019/0127265 A1.
Dejneka et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 50-80% of SiO2, 7-25% of Al2O3, 2-15% of Li2O, 0-6% of Na2O, 0-2.5% of K2O, 7-14% of R2O, 0-20% of P2O5, 0.1-20% of B2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-5% of ZnO, 0-5% of RO, 0-0.35% of SnO2, 0-5% of TiO2, 0-5% of ZrO2, 0-4% of rare earth metal oxides. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0037]-[0058]. Dejneka et al teach that the glass has a liquidus viscosity of at least 20,000 P. See paragraph [0067].
Dejneka et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the compositional limitations of claims 7 and 16-20. However, the mole percent ranges taught by Dejneka et al. have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claims 7 and 16-20. See paragraphs [0037]-[0058]. 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 disclosed by the reference 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 Dejneka 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 7, Dejneka et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 50-80% of SiO2, 7-25% of Al2O3, 2-15% of Li2O, 0-6% of Na2O, 0-2.5% of K2O, 7-14% of R2O, 0-20% of P2O5, 0.1-20% of B2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-5% of ZnO, 0-5% of RO, 0-0.35% of SnO2, 0-5% of TiO2, 0-5% of ZrO2, 0-4% of rare earth metal oxides, (See paragraphs [0037]-[0058]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mol.% 62.8-68.5% of SiO2, 12.2-15.8% of Al2O3, 3.2-7.2% of Li2O, 3-10.5% of Na2O, 1.45-2.85% of MgO, 0.8-4% of B2O3, 0.8-3.3% of P2O5, 0.2-0.825% of ZnO, 0-0.85% of CaO, and 0-0.42% of TiO2, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 16, Dejneka et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 50-80% of SiO2, 7-25% of Al2O3, 2-15% of Li2O, 0-6% of Na2O, 0-2.5% of K2O, 7-14% of R2O, 0-20% of P2O5, 0.1-20% of B2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-5% of ZnO, 0-5% of RO, 0-0.35% of SnO2, 0-5% of TiO2, 0-5% of ZrO2, 0-4% of rare earth metal oxides, (See paragraphs [0037]-[0058]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 58-69.9% of SiO2, 3-10% of Na2O, 3-7.95% of Li2O, 1-20% of Al2O3, 0-4.8% of MgO, 0-4% of ZnO, 0-2.5% of CaO, 0-1% of TiO2, 0-1% of ZrO2, 0-0.5% of SnO2, 0-0.5% of BaO, 0-0.5% of K2O, 9-17.5% of Alk2O, 0-1.5% of REmOn, 12-17.5% of Li2O+Na2O, 0.50-0.55 of Li2O/Alk2O, 0.85-1 of Alk2O/Al2O3, POX-(1.5+PRO) is less than 0, and -2 to 2 of PRO, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, Dejneka et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 50-80% of SiO2, 7-25% of Al2O3, 2-15% of Li2O, 0-6% of Na2O, 0-2.5% of K2O, 7-14% of R2O, 0-20% of P2O5, 0.1-20% of B2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-5% of ZnO, 0-5% of RO, 0-0.35% of SnO2, 0-5% of TiO2, 0-5% of ZrO2, 0-4% of rare earth metal oxides, (See paragraphs [0037]-[0058]), which reads on a glass in terms of mole percentages having a POX-(0.5+PRO) is less than 0, as recited in instant claim 17.
As to claim 18, Dejneka et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 50-80% of SiO2, 7-25% of Al2O3, 2-15% of Li2O, 0-6% of Na2O, 0-2.5% of K2O, 7-14% of R2O, 0-20% of P2O5, 0.1-20% of B2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-5% of ZnO, 0-5% of RO, 0-0.35% of SnO2, 0-5% of TiO2, 0-5% of ZrO2, 0-4% of rare earth metal oxides, (See paragraphs [0037]-[0058]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 60-69.9% of SiO2, 12-18% of Al2O3, 1.2-4% of MgO, 0.3-4% of P2O5, 0-5% of B2O3, 0-0.75% of ZnO, at most 15.5% of Alk2O, and 0-0.3% of REmOn, as recited in instant claim 18.
As to claim 19, Dejneka et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 50-80% of SiO2, 7-25% of Al2O3, 2-15% of Li2O, 0-6% of Na2O, 0-2.5% of K2O, 7-14% of R2O, 0-20% of P2O5, 0.1-20% of B2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-5% of ZnO, 0-5% of RO, 0-0.35% of SnO2, 0-5% of TiO2, 0-5% of ZrO2, 0-4% of rare earth metal oxides, (See paragraphs [0037]-[0058]), which reads on a glass having a ratio of 0.85-0.96 for the ratio Alk2O/Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 19.
As to claim 20, Dejneka et al. teach a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 50-80% of SiO2, 7-25% of Al2O3, 2-15% of Li2O, 0-6% of Na2O, 0-2.5% of K2O, 7-14% of R2O, 0-20% of P2O5, 0.1-20% of B2O3, 0-5% of MgO, 0-4% of CaO, 0-4% of SrO, 0-5% of ZnO, 0-5% of RO, 0-0.35% of SnO2, 0-5% of TiO2, 0-5% of ZrO2, 0-4% of rare earth metal oxides, (See paragraphs [0037]-[0058]), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 60-69.9% of SiO2, 12-18% of Al2O3, 1.2-4% of MgO, 0.3-4% of P2O5, 0-5% of B2O3, 0-0.75% of ZnO, at most 15.5% of Alk2O, and 0-0.3% of REmOn, as recited in instant claim 20.
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
19 June 2026
Prosecution Insights