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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are inextricably intertwined, and prosecution of the proposed groups of claims together would be most effective for the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the claims have a separate classification in the arts and searching each group would constitute a search burden as outlined in the restriction requirement filed 05/21/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the glass is substantially free of at least one of Fe2O3 and ZrO2”. The instant specification at [0104] of the instant PGPub states "substantially free" means that the component is not purposefully added as a component of the batch material even though the component may be present in the final glass composition in very small amounts as a contaminant, such as less than 0.1 mol %. This limitation is unclear, because the phrase “purposefully added” is unclear. Discerning the intention of an inventor or manufacturer is difficult to impossible, and where a limitation depends upon intent, clarity is lost by trying to discern what intent is, and is not “purposefully added”. For example, if a chemical manufacturer knows that a specific silica provider has silica with a 1ppm ZrO2 content at a price which is one tenth the price of absolutely pure silica, and the chemical manufacturer elects to use the cheaper silica containing 1 ppm ZrO2, would this constitute “purposefully adding” ZrO2 as defined by [0104] and claim 6? A person of reasonable skill in the arts may argue the ZrO2 addition is purposeful because the silica is knowingly added with an inclusion of ZrO2. Similarly, a person of reasonable skill in the arts may argue the ZrO2 addition is not purposeful because the silica is not added with the intent of providing a source of ZrO2.
Additionally, [0104] is unclear because the definition of substantially free states the component is not purposefully added as a component of the batch material even though the component may be present in the final glass composition in very small amounts as a contaminant, such as less than 0.1 mol %. This creates clarity issues because it is unclear if the Fe2O3 and ZrO2 content must be below 0.1 mol% in order to be substantially free, or if instead the 0.1 mol% range is merely an example of one possible situation where a chemical content is considered substantially free.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation “substantially free” will be interpreted as meaning “below 0.1 mol%”, and the intent or purpose of the addition will not be given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dejneka et al. (US20190127265, hereinafter referred to as Dejneka).
Regarding claim 1, Dejneka discloses a glass (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing a glass), comprising: SiO2 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 70.846 mol% SiO2); Al2O3 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 12.592 mol% Al2O3); Li2O (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.466 mol% Li2O); Na2O (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.417 mol% Na2O); P2O5 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.003 mol% P2O5); and B2O3 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 4.108 mol% B2O3), wherein: a molar ratio of Li2O/Na2O is greater than or equal to .21 to less than or equal to 2.90 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 6.466 mol% Li2O and 2.417 mol% Na2O which provides a ratio of Li2O/Na2O of 6.466/2.417= 2.68), the glass has a liquidus viscosity in the range from greater than or equal to 50 kP to less than or equal to 75 kP (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a liquidus viscosity of 63.2), and the glass has a KIC fracture toughness greater than or equal to 0.75 MPa*m0.5 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a KIC fracture toughness of 0.766).
Regarding claim 2, Dejneka discloses further comprising TiO2 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.008 mol% TiO2).
Regarding claim 3, Dejneka discloses further comprising K2O (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.003 mol% K2O).
Regarding claim 4, Dejneka discloses further comprising at least one of CaO, MgO, and SrO (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.718 mol% CaO).
Regarding claim 5, Dejneka discloses further comprising SnO2 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.052 mol% SnO2).
Regarding claim 6, Dejneka discloses wherein the glass is substantially free of at least one of Fe2O3 and ZrO2 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.001 mol% ZrO2, which is substantially free per [0104] of the instant PGPub, which states "substantially free" means that the component is not purposefully added as a component of the batch material even though the component may be present in the final glass composition in very small amounts as a contaminant, such as less than 0.1 mol %.).
Regarding claim 7, Dejneka discloses the glass is substantially free of Ta2O5, HfO2, La2O3, and Y2O3 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising no Ta2O5, HfO2, La2O3, and Y2O3.).
Regarding claim 8, Dejneka discloses the glass comprises at least one of: greater than or equal to 60 mol% to less than or equal to 66 mol% SiO2; greater than or equal to 14 mol% to less than or equal to 16 mol% Al2O3; greater than or equal to 7 mol% to less than or equal to 9 mol% Li2O; greater than or equal to 4 mol% to less than or equal to 6 mol% Na2O; greater than or equal to 0.5 mol% to less than or equal to 3 mol% P2O5; greater than or equal to 0.5 mol% to less than or equal to 6 mol% B2O3; and greater than 0 mol% to less than or equal to 1 mol% TiO2 (see Dejneka at Table 1, Example 55, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 4.108 mol% B2O3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights