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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on January 8, 2024, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, the Specification, and Abstract have been amended, wherein no new matter has been introduced. Additionally, claims 1-7, and 9-11 have been amended, claim 18 has been canceled, and claims 19-21 have been added.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on January 8, 2024.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are indefinite due to the presence of the phrases “high-temperature resistant” and “high-stability” in claim 1. In these phrases, the word “high” a relative term, and lacks definition/perspective.
The term “high” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-17 and 19-21 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiency therein, and are therefore included in this rejection.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 112645610, Applicants’ submitted art; English translation provided and relied upon by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Qin et al. teach a boron-free, phosphorus-free, and highly stable ion sieve comprising, in molar percentages of oxides, 30 mol% to 50 mol% of a first metal oxide, 26 mol% to 50 mol% SiO2, and 8 mol% to 25 mol% Al2O3, wherein the content of phosphorous oxide (P2O5) and boron oxide (B2O3) is 300 ppm or less (0.03 mol% or less), wherein the first metal oxide is sodium oxide (Na2O) or potassium oxide (K2O). See paragraph [0011] of Qin et al., as well as paragraph [n0010], which teaches that the aforementioned ion sieve “exhibits structural stability at high temperatures ranging from 430°C to 650°C” (“high-temperature-resistant and high-stability”). Although Qin et al. is silent with respect to the presence of Y2O3, it is noted that Applicants’ claim 1 recites the claim limitation “Y2O3: 0-3 mol %”; therefore, Qin et al. is considered to meet this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Table 2 of Qin et al. depict embodiments of the aforementioned ion sieve are added to salt baths having temperatures ranging from 430-650°C, for durations ranging from 4 to 24 hours. Given that Qin et al. teach an ion sieve comparable to that instantly claimed, and based on examples here, which teach treatment of a salt bath having a temperature of 480°C or a treatment time of 24 hours with the aforementioned ion sieve, the skilled artisan would have been led to reasonably expect the ion sieve to exhibit a crystal content of less than 10 wt% after placing the ion sieve in a salt bath having a temperature of 480°C for a treatment time of 24 hours, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Further regarding claim 1, and also regarding claims 3-5, Qin et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of these claims regarding the ion sieve satisfying (a) SQ3/SQ2 is not lower than 1, where SQ3 is an area corresponding to Q3 after Gaussian deconvolution fitting is performed on a spectrum band within a range of 830-1230 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum of the ion sieve, and Q3 is an Si-O- stretching vibration peak in a silicon-oxygen tetrahedron with only one non-bridging oxygen; SQ2 is an area corresponding to Q2 after Gaussian deconvolution fitting is performed on a spectrum band within the range of 830-1230 cm-1 in the Raman spectrum of the ion sieve, and Q2 is an Si-O stretching vibration peak in a silicon-oxygen tetrahedron with only two non-bridging oxygens, as recited in claim 1, (b) 3 ≥ SQ3/SQ2 ≥ 1, as recited in claim 3, (c) 52 ≥ (0.85 x SiO2) + (0.15 x Al2O3) + (1.65 x Y2O3) ≥ 45.3 as recited in claim 4, and (d) 20.0 ≥ (0.50 x R2O) ≥ 16.0, as recited in claim 5.
Because Qin et al. teach an ion sieve comparable to that instantly claimed, said ion sieve comprising SiO2, Al2O3, Y2O3, and Na2O or K2O in amounts respectively reading upon that recited in Applicants' claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants' invention to reasonably expect the ion sieve to satisfy SQ3/SQ2 in a values comparable to that recited in Applicants’ claims 1 and 3, as well as to comparably satisfy the equations recited in claims 4 and 5, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 7, Qin et al. teach the feasibility in the aforementioned ion sieve containing a second metal oxide, examples of which magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, and/or zinc oxide, to ensure the high-temperature stability thereof and to reduce the amount of precipitation; in order to avoid weakening the absorption efficiency of the ion sieve, the total amount of precipitation shall not exceed 5 mol. See paragraph [n0021] of Qin et al.
Regarding claim 8, Qin et al., as stated above, teach that the aforementioned ion sieve is boron-free and phosphorus-free, wherein "boron-free" and "phosphorus-free" means that no phosphorus or/and boron-containing compounds are actively added, but they may exist as very small amounts of impurities.” See paragraph [n0026] of Qin et al.
Regarding claim 10, Qin et al. teach the feasibility in the aforementioned ion sieve being in either granular, sheet-like, or porous form, wherein the granular form may exhibit a size of from 1 mm to 10 mm, and wherein the porous form may exhibit a pore size of 1 mm to 10 mm. See paragraph [n0011] of Qin et al.
Regarding claims 11-14, Qin et al. teach the preparation of the aforementioned ion sieve, wherein components of the aforementioned ion sieve are assembled and melted at 1000°C-1500°C to form a liquid state. Qin et al. additionally teach formation of the ion sieve by water quenching, at temperatures ranging from 10°C-80°C, and forming the ion sieve into a sheet shape via rolling or drawing with external force, or forming the ion sieve into a porous ion sieve by adding a foaming agent (“porous ion sieve is made by feeding a blowing agent”). See paragraphs [n0028]-[n0031] of Qin et al.
Regarding claims 15-17, Qin et al. teach the employment of the aforementioned ion sieve in the purification of a salt bath for glass chemical strengthening, wherein the ion sieve is added to the salt bath at a purification temperature ranging from 430°C to 650°C for a reaction time of from 4 to 24 hours. The amount of ion sieve added to the salt bath can range from about 2.5 wt% to 3.3 wt% of the salt bath mass. See paragraphs [n0027], [n0032], and [n0033] of Qin et al., as well as Table 2, Examples 1, 3, 6-11, 13, 15, and 18-20, which depict impurity ion contents in the salt bath prior to purification reading upon Applicants’ “impurity ion content in the to-be-purified salt bath is 1-1000 ppm” recited in claim 17.
Regarding claims 19-21, it is noted that the limitations of these claims are the same as those of claim 3 (claim 19) and claim 4 (claims 20 and 21). Therefore, because Qin et al. teach an ion sieve comparable to that instantly claimed, said ion sieve comprising SiO2, Al2O3, Y2O3, and Na2O or K2O in amounts respectively reading upon that recited in Applicants' claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants' invention to reasonably expect the ion sieve to satisfy SQ3/SQ2 in a values comparable to that recited in Applicants’ claim 19, as well as to comparably satisfy the equations recited in claims 20 and 21, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
It is noted that the molar percentage ranges for SiO2, Al2O3, and first metal oxide (Na2O, K2O) disclosed in Qin et al. overlap Applicants’ respectively recited molar percentage ranges.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Further, it has been held that a “prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prime facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also MPEP 2144.05(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Qin et al. teach an ion sieve comprising SiO2, Al2O3, and a first metal oxide (Na2O, K2O), this reference does not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claim 6, which requires a molar percentage range of Y2O3 of 1-3 mol%. Qin et al. also do not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claim 9 regarding the addition of the ion sieve in a mass proportion of 1 wt% to a salt bath containing 105 ± 10 ppm impurity lithium ions. While Qin et al. teach addition of the ion sieve to the salt bath “so that the lithium ion concentration in the salt bath does not exceed 90 ppm” (see, for example, paragraph [n0034]), this reference does not teach or suggest addition of the ion sieve in a proportion of 1 wt%. See paragraph [n0033] of Qin et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Exemplary prior art includes:
Ma et al. (CN 115806394), which teaches a salt bath additive containing Y2O3; see, for example, paragraph [n0041]. However, Ma et al. has a publication date of March 17, 2023, which is after the effectively filed and foreign priority dates of the instant application (June 7, 2023, and December 23, 2022, respectively).
Tan et al. (CN 118307199 and CN 119219328) share common inventors with the instant application, and have publication dates subsequent to the filing, effectively filed, and foreign priority dates of the instant application (January 8, 2024, June 7, 2023, and December 23, 2022, respectively).
Li et al. (CN 117756416), which teaches an ion sieve material comprising Y2O3. This reference has a publication date of March 26, 2024, which is subsequent to the filing, effectively filed, and foreign priority dates of the instant application (January 8, 2024, June 7, 2023, and December 23, 2022, respectively).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights