DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-16 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/04/2024, 03/15/2024, 05/30/2025, 07/21/2025, and 08/29/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danielson et al (US 6207603 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Danielson et al teaches a glass for solar cells comprising SiO2 59-69 wt%, ZnO 6.5-8.5 wt%, B2O3 8.5-14 wt%, CeO2 0.25-3 wt%, Al2O3 2-2.5 wt%, TiO-2 0-1 wt%, Na2O 5.5-12.5 wt%, CeO2+TiO2 0.5-4 wt%, K2O 0-8 wt%, and Sb2O3 0-0.5 wt% (see Abstract). Danielson et al teaches exemplary embodiments with thicknesses of 150 µm (see column 2, lines 30-35), and teaches embodiments wherein the TiO2 amount falls within the range 0.001-10 wt% (see Table 1). As such, these exemplary glass substrates taught by Danielson et al meet each limitation of instant claim 1, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Danielson et al teaches a sheet thickness of 150 µm (0.150 mm). Danielson et al further teaches embodiments wherein the TiO2 content is 0.75 wt% (see Table 1, examples 3-4), and thus the B/t ratio of these glasses is 5 mass%/mm.
Regarding claim 6, Danielson et al does not teach the difference in transmittance of 300 nm light through a 0.05 mm thickness before and after irradiation with 254 nm UV light for 23 hours. However, as discussed above, Danielson et al teaches a glass that meets each claimed compositional limitation and is equivalent compositionally as shown by the exemplary embodiments. These equivalent glasses would also inherently have equivalent transmittance properties before and after exposure to UV light, and as such the T300-t300 property would also be the same and be 3% or less. 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).
Regarding claim 7, Danielson et al teaches that the inventive glasses have a cutoff value for light transmittance of between 310 nm and 370 nm (see column 1, lines 65-67), and shows in Fig. 2 that the transmittance at 250 nm is 0%.
Regarding claim 8, Danielson et al shows in Fig. 2 that the transmittance of the inventive glasses from 400-1000 nm is at least 90%, and as these transmittances are measured through the aforementioned 0.150 mm, the transmittance through a 0.05 mm thickness would be 90% or greater.
Regarding claim 9, Danielson et al does not teach the density of the inventive glasses. However, as discussed above, Danielson et al teaches a glass that meets each claimed compositional limitation and is equivalent compositionally as shown by the exemplary embodiments. These equivalent glasses would also inherently have equivalent densities to those of the instant claims. As such, the densities of the glasses would inherently be 2.80 g/cm3 or less.
Regarding claim 10, Danielson et al teaches that the liquidus viscosity of the example 8 glass shown in Table 1 is 440 kP (see Table III). This value is greater than 104.0 dPa·s.
Regarding claim 11, Danielson et al teaches an embodiment wherein the CTE is 74.3x10-7/°C in a range of 25-300 °C (see example 30, column 5, lines 45-50). This temperature range closely encapsulates the 30-380 °C range of the instant claim, and as the Danielson et al glasses are compositionally equivalent to those of the instant claims, they would also have an equivalent CTE in the precise range of the instant claim. The further property limitation of claim 11 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 12, the Danielson et al glasses are free of Fe2O3.
Regarding claim 13, the use of a down-draw or overflow method in producing the instantly claimed glass is not shown to impart any particular structural or compositional features on the glass. This product-by-process limitation therefore does not hold patentable weight in distinguishing the claimed glass over an equivalent glass produced by a differing method. Such is the case with the Danielson et al glass substrates, which are equivalent to those of the instant claims though produced by another method. Each patentably weighted limitation of claim 13 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue et al (US 2020/0199013 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xue et al teaches a thin glass sheet comprising TiO2. The preamble limitation that the substrate (sheet) is for space solar power generation is an intended use limitation that does not hold patentable weight over an equivalent prior art substrate that would be capable of such use, even if the use is not specified in the prior art document. Such is the case with the Xue et al glass sheet, which would be capable of use in space solar power generation in some capacity. As such, the Xue et al glass meets the instant preamble claim limitation. Xue et al teaches glasses having TiO2 contents falling within the instant claim range (see Tables 1-2). Each limitation of the instant claim 1 is therefore met by Xue et al, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Xue et al teaches embodiments comprising 0.8 wt% TiO2 and having a thickness of 0.150 mm (see Tables 1 and 4, sample S4). The ratio of the instant claim is therefore 5.3.
Regarding claim 3, Xue et al teaches an embodiment comprising 55.0 wt% SiO2, 16.9 wt% Al2O3, 17.0 wt% Na2O, 5.0 wt% K2O, 3.3 wt% MgO, 0.3 wt% ZrO2, 0.25 wt% SnO2, 0.9 wt% ZnO, 0.8 wt% TiO2, and 0.1 wt% CeO2 (see Table 1, sample S4). Each limitation of the claim is therefore met by the Xue et al teachings.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned Xue et al S4 glass does not contain As2O3, and the ratio of the instant claim is therefore 1.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Xue et al teaches a thickness of 0.150 mm, and thus an A/t value of 6.67/mm.
Regarding claim 6, Xue et al does not teach the difference in transmittance of 300 nm light through a 0.05 mm thickness before and after irradiation with 254 nm UV light for 23 hours. However, as discussed above, Xue et al teaches a glass that meets each claimed compositional limitation and is equivalent compositionally as shown by the exemplary embodiments. These equivalent glasses would also inherently have equivalent transmittance properties before and after exposure to UV light, and as such the T300-t300 property would also be the same and be 3% or less. 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).
Regarding claim 7, Xue et al does not specify transmittance at 250 nm through a 0.05 mm thickness. However, Xue et al does teach 0% thickness for 300 nm light, and a higher transmittance at wavelengths greater then 300 nm (see Table 4), indicating that the cutoff is greater than 300 nm. The 250 nm transmittance is thus also taken to be 0%. Further, as discussed above, the compositionally equivalent glasses taught by Xue et al would have equivalent transmittance properties, and thus this 250 nm transmittance property of the instant claim would also be present in the Xue et al glasses.
Regarding claim 8, Xue et al does not teach transmittance throughout a 400-1000 nm range, but does teach embodiments wherein the 400 nm transmittance is greater than 90% through a thicker, 0.150 mm sample. This teaching, in combination with the aforementioned equivalency in the Xue et al glass compositions, would indicate that the average transmittance in the 400-1000 nm wavelength range would be at least 90% through a 0.05 mm thickness, and the further limitations of instant claim 8 are met by the Xue et al teachings.
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned Xue et al S4 glass has a density of 2.55 g/cm3 (see Table 4).
Regarding claim 11, Xue et al does not teach the liquidus viscosity of the inventive glasses. However, as discussed above, Xue et al teaches a glass that meets each claimed compositional limitation and is equivalent compositionally as shown by the exemplary embodiments. These equivalent glasses would also inherently have equivalent liquidus temperature viscosities to those of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 12, the Xue et al glasses are free of Fe2O3.
Regarding claim 13, Xue et al teaches producing the inventive glasses by a down draw method.
Regarding claim 14, Xue et al teaches a glass meeting each compositional limitation of the instant claim (see Table 1, sample S5).
Regarding claim 15, the aforementioned Xue et al sample S4 and sample S5 glasses each meet all of the compositional limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Xue et al teaches a glass meeting each compositional limitation of the instant claim (see Table 2, sample S14).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danielson et al (US 6207603 B1) in view of Murata (US 8497220 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Danielson et al teaches an embodiment wherein the glass comprises SiO2 63.9 wt%, ZnO 7.0 wt%, B2O3 9.3 wt%, CeO2 3.0 wt%, Al2O3 2.25 wt%, TiO-2 0.5 wt%, Na2O 10.1 wt%, K2O 3.7 wt%, and Sb2O3 0.25 wt% (see Table 1, example 8). Each amount falls within the corresponding range of the instant claim. Claim 3 thus differs from Danielson et al in that Danielson et al does not teach a SnO2 content. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Danielson et al in view of Murata in order include the SnO2 component taught therein. Murata teaches a glass substrate for a solar cell, the substrate composed of a glass having similar composition to that taught by Danielson et al. Murata teaches that the glass substrate comprises 0.001-2 wt% SnO2 as a fining agent (see column 5, lines 9-10). This teaching would provide motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the SnO2 content as fining agent in the Danielson et al glass substrate, as doing so would provide the advantageous improvements in glass structure after melting that is the intent of the fining agent. Because Danielson et al and Murata are drawn to similar glasses used for the same solar cell application, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification. As such, the prior art of record teaches a glass substrate meeting each limitation of instant claim 3, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 4, the Danielson et al glasses are free of As2O3, and as such the ratio of the instant claim in Danielson et al is 1.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Danielson et al teaches a thickness of 0.150 mm, and thus an A/t value of 6.67/mm.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW27 May 2026
Prosecution Insights