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 Objection Claim 7 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 7 should refer to other claims in the alternative only and /or cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims . See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 7 has not been further treated on the merits. Double Patenting 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-6 and 12- 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims of U S 2025/0304488 (488). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Regarding claim 1, (488) discloses (claim 1) a glass article, comprising: a glass substrate comprising an average optical transmittance equal to or less than about 91% ( claim 1 ) over a wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm ( claim 1 ). (488) does not disclose a washout index WI when measured by a WI Measurement Method equal to or less than about 0.165. I t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a glass substrate to meet the washout index requirements of the particular design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 . Regarding claim 2 , (488) discloses the glass ( substrate ) is alkali free ( claim 2 ). Regarding claim 3 , Matsushita discloses the average optical transmittance is in a range from about 50% to about 90% ( 60%-80%, claim 3 ). Regarding claim 4, (488) discloses an anneal point of the glass is greater than about 700°C (claim 5) . Regarding claim 5, (488) discloses a liquidus temperature of the glass is greater than about 1000°C (claim 7). Regarding claim 6, (488) discloses the liquidus temperature is in a range from about 1000°C to about 1300° C, claim 8 ). Regarding claim 8, (488) disclose s a density of the glass is equal to or less than about 2.65 g/cc3 (claim 10) . Regarding claim 12, (488) disclose s a composition of a glass in mole percent on an oxide basis: SiO 2 61 -74; Al 2 O 3 9 - 14; B 2 0 3 0 - 12; MgO 0 -9;CaO 3.5 - 12; SrO 0 -5;BaO 0 -5;SnO 2 0 - 0.15; NiO 0.025 - 0.13; Co 3 O 4 0.005 - 0.04, and wherein ( MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO )/Al 2 0 3 is equal to or greater than about 1. (claim 1). Regarding claim 13 , (488) discloses the glass comprises: NiO 0.055 - 0.065; and C0 3 0 4 0.011 - 0.013 (claim 26) . Regarding claim 14 , (488) discloses the glass comprises: NiO 0.077 - 0.128; and Co 3 O 4 0.025 - 0.037 (claim 27) . Regarding claim 17, (488) discloses the glass comprising in mole percent on an oxide basis:Si0 2 61 -74; Al 2 O 3 9 - 14; B 2 0 3 0 - 12; MgO 0 -9;CaO 3.5 - 12; SrO 0-5; BaO 0 -5;Sn0 2 0 - 0.15; NiO 0.025 - 0.13; Co 3 O 4 0.005 - 0.04, and wherein ( MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO )/Al 2 0 3 is equal to or greater than about 1 (claim 1) . (488) does not disclose a display device, comprising: a display panel comprising a plurality of light emitters (transmitting member 4) disposed on a backplane substrate (D), and a glass cover (2) substrate disposed the backplane substrate and attached thereto with an adhesive layer (5), the glass cover substrate comprising an average transmittance equal to or less than about 91% over a wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm (400 to 800 nm). Matsushita discloses (figs. 1A, 1B and description of fig. 1A and B) a display device , comprising: a display panel comprising a plurality of light emitters (transmitting member 4) disposed on a backplane substrate (D), and a glass cover (2) substrate disposed the backplane substrate and attached thereto with an adhesive layer (5), the glass cover substrate comprising an average transmittance equal to or less than about 91% over a wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm (400 to 800 nm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 15 of ( 488 ), as taught by Matsushita , to have the a design a display device with improved transmittance. Matsushita does not disclose a luminance ratio of the display device is equal to or less than about 91%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the luminance ratio requirements of the particular design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 16, (488) as modified by Matsushita disclose s a washout index WI when measured by a WI Measurement Method equal to or less than about 0.165. Matsushita discloses a glass substrate with similar transmittance property as the claimed invention, the glass substrate of Matsushita would yield similar washout index when measured by WI method as claimed. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a glass substrate to meet the washout index requirements of the particular design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 18 , (488) discloses the glass comprises: NiO 0.055 - 0.065; and C0 3 0 4 0.011 - 0.013 (claim 26) . Regarding claim 19, (488) discloses the glass comprises: NiO 0.077 - 0.128; and Co3O4 0.025 - 0.037 (claim 27) . Regarding claim 20 , (488) discloses an anneal point of the glass is greater than about 700°C (claim 5) . Regarding claim 21 , (488) discloses a liquidus temperature of the glass is in a range from about 1000°C to about 1300°C (claim 8) . Regarding claim 22 , (488) discloses a coefficient of thermal e xpansion in a range from about 29x10-7 to about 40x10-7 over a temperature range of 0°C to 300°C (claim 9) . Regarding claim 23 , (488) discloses a density of the glass is equal to or less than about 2.65 g/cc3 (claim 10) . Regarding claim 24 , (488) discloses the average transmittance is equal to or less than about 90% over the wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm (claim 3) . Regarding claim 25 , (488) discloses the average transmittance is equal to or less than about 85% over the wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm (claim 1) . Regarding claim 26 , (488) discloses the average transmittance is equal to or less than about 80% over the wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm (claim 3) . Regarding claim 27 , (488) discloses the average transmittance is in a ranger from about 50% to about 91% over the wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm (claim 1) . 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 -3 , 9 -11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M atsushita et al., JP JP2015226318 (refer to machine translation of the Japanese application ) . Regarding claim 1 , Matsushita discloses (figs. 1A, 1B and related text) a glass article, comprising: a glass substrate (2) comprising an average optical transmittance equal to or less than about 91% (Matsushita discloses transmittance of the substrate 85-90%) over a wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm (400 nm to 800 nm). Matsushita does not disclose a washout index WI when measured by a WI Measurement Method equal to or less than about 0.165. However, since Matsushita discloses a glass substrate with similar transmittance property as the claimed invention, the glass substrate of Matsushita would yield similar washout index when measured by WI method as claimed. Furthermore, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a glass substrate to meet the washout index requirements of the particular design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 Regarding claim 2 , Matsushita discloses the average optical transmittance is in a range from about 50% to about 90% (80%-90%) . Regarding claim 3 , Matsus hita discloses a glass of the glass substrate is alkali free (refer to the description of figs. 1A and 1B) . Regarding claim 9 , Matsushita discloses the glass article comprises a display device (refer to the description of figs. 1A and 1B). Regarding claim 10 , Matsushita discloses the glass substrate (2) comprises a cover substrate of a display panel of the display device (fig. 1) . Regarding claim 11 , Matsushita does not disclose a luminance ratio of the display device is equal to or less than about 91% . I t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the luminance ratio requirements of the particular design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 . Regarding claim 15 , Matsushita discloses (figs. 1A, 1B and description of fig. 1A and B) a display device, comprising: a display panel comprising a plurality of light emitters (transmitting member 4) disposed on a backplane substrate (D) , and a glass cover (2) substrate disposed the backplane substrate and attached thereto with an adhesive layer (5), the glass cover substrate comprising an average transmittance equal to or less than about 91% over a wavelength range from 450 nm to 650 nm (400 to 800 nm). Matsushita does not disclose a luminance ratio of the display device is equal to or less than about 91%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the luminance ratio requirements of the particular design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 16, Matsushita does not disclose a washout index WI when measured by a WI Measurement Method equal to or less than about 0.165. Matsushita discloses a glass substrate with similar transmittance property as the claimed invention, the glass substrate of Matsushita would yield similar washout index when measured by WI method as claimed. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a glass substrate to meet the washout index requirements of the particular design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 . Claim (s) 4 -6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of Yanase et al., US 20090270242 . Regarding 4 , Matsushita does not disclose an anneal point of the glass is greater than about 700 ° C. Yanase discloses a glass substrate with anneal point 704 to 730 degree centigrade [0103] in order to produce glass with excellent meltability so that melting defect does not occur in the glass substrate [0006]. Matsushita and Yanase are analogous art because they both are directed to glass substrate and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Matsushita with the specified features of Yanase because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsushita to include the anneal point as taught by Yanase in order to produce glass with excellent meltability so that melting defect does not occur in the glass substrate [0006]. Regarding claim 5 , Matsushita as modified by Yanase discloses a liquidus temperature of the glass is greater than about 1000°C (Yanase, abstract) . Regarding claim 6 , Matsushita as modified by Yanase discloses the liquidus temperature is in a range from about 1000 ° Cto about 1300 ° C Yanase, abstract) . Regarding claim 8 , Matsushita does not disclose a density of the glass is equal to or less than about 2.65 g/cc3. Yanase discloses a density of the glass is equal to or less than about 2.65 g/cc3 [0036] in order to produce glass with excellent meltability so that melting defect does not occur in the glass substrate [0006]. Matsushita and Yanase are analogous art because they both are directed to glass substrate and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Matsushita with the specified features of Yanase because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsushita to include the density of the glass as taught by Yanase in order to produce glass with excellent meltability so that melting defect does not occur in the glass substrate [0006]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1653 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30-4PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lynne Gurley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1670 . 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. /SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811