DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 2018/0148369).
Regarding claim 1, Gross discloses a glass article that includes a glass composition including SiO2 in an amount from about 66 mol % to about 80 mol %, Al2O3 in an amount in a range from about 2 mol % to about 15 mol %, B2O3 in an amount in a range from about 0.9 mol % to about 15 mol %, Na2O in an amount from about 6 mol % to about 15 mol %, K2O in an amount from about 0 mol % to about 4 mol %, CaO in an amount less than about 1 mol % and MgO in an amount from about 0 mol % to about 1.8 mol %, see abstract and [0043 & 0048-0050]. Note that the disclosed ranges for SiO2, Al2O3 and B2O3 overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Based on the values disclosed for Na2O, K2O, MgO and CaO, the reference is considered to render obvious the claimed total amount, see above discussion. Further, based on the values disclosed for the alkali metal oxides, alkaline metal oxides, Al2O3, SiO2 and B2O3, the reference is considered to render obvious a glass composition that satisfies the claimed relationships. For example, the reference renders obvious Applicant’s Examples DSG and DSW from Table 100, which satisfy the claimed relationships; see Gross [0041-0050]. Additionally, the reference discloses the annealing point as less than about 570°C, which overlaps the claimed ranges [0012]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Note that the reference discloses the glass composition may be substantially free of Li2O, Rb2O and Cs2O [0041 & 0044]. As such, the reference is considered to render obvious the alkali oxides as consisting of Na2O and K2O, see above discussion.
The reference further discloses a laminate that includes a first glass layer, an interlayer disposed on the first glass layer and a second glass layer disposed on the interlayer opposite the first glass layer wherein one or both of the first glass layer and the second glass layer comprises an embodiment of the glass article [0013]. In some embodiments, the first glass layer comprises a thickness of less than about 1.6 mm, and the second glass layer comprises a thickness of 1.6 or greater [0013]. Note that the disclosed ranges for thickness of the glass layers overlap the claimed thickness, and as such a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 2-4, while the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed properties, given the reference renders obvious the claimed composition, it is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed properties; see MPEP 2112.01 I & II: ““Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition…a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
Regarding claim 5, based on the ranges disclosed for SiO2, Al2O3 and B2O-3, the reference is considered to render obvious the sum of the three compounds as at least 90 mol %, see above discussion and Gross abstract.
Regarding claim 6, the reference discloses the first glass layer comprises a thickness of less than about 1.6 mm, and the second glass layer comprises a thickness of 1.6 or greater, both of which overlap the claimed range [0013]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 7, the reference discloses that the glass article exhibits an average transmittance in the range from about 75% to about 85%, at a thickness of 0.7 mm or 1 mm, over a wavelength range from about 380 nm to about 780 nm, which overlaps the claimed range [0087]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 8, the reference discloses that the glass article exhibits a total solar transmittance of about 90% or less, over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 2500 nm, when the glass article has a thickness of 0.7 mm [0086].
Regarding claim 9, the reference discloses the first glass layer comprises a thickness of less than about 1.6 mm, and the second glass layer comprises a thickness of 1.6 or greater, which renders obvious the claimed ratio [0013]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 10, the reference discloses the glass composition includes SiO2 in an amount from about 66 mol % to about 80 mol %, Al2O3 in an amount in a range from about 2 mol % to about 15 mol % and B2O3 in an amount in a range from about 0.9 mol % to about 15 mol %, all of which overlap the claimed ranges, see abstract and MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 11, the reference discloses that the glass composition includes CaO in an amount less than about 1 mol % and MgO in an amount from about 0 mol % to about 1.8 mol %, which renders obvious the claimed total amount [0048-0050].
Regarding claim 12, the reference discloses glass compositions and laminates for use in automotive applications wherein the laminate that includes a first glass layer, an interlayer disposed on the first glass layer and a second glass layer disposed on the interlayer opposite the first glass layer wherein one or both of the first glass layer and the second glass layer comprises an embodiment of the glass article [0002 & 0013]. In some embodiments, the first glass layer comprises a thickness of less than about 1.6 mm, and the second glass layer comprises a thickness of 1.6 or greater [0013]. Additionally, in one or more embodiments, the laminate exhibits a radii of curvature that is less than 1000 mm, which overlaps the claimed range [0106]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
The reference further discloses the glass composition includes SiO2 in an amount from about 66 mol % to about 80 mol %, Al2O3 in an amount in a range from about 2 mol % to about 15 mol %, B2O3 in an amount in a range from about 0.9 mol % to about 15 mol %, Na2O in an amount from about 6 mol % to about 15 mol %, K2O in an amount from about 0 mol % to about 4 mol %, CaO in an amount less than about 1 mol % and MgO in an amount from about 0 mol % to about 1.8 mol %, see abstract and [0043 & 0048-0050]; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Based on the ranges disclosed for CaO and MgO, the reference is considered to render obvious the claimed total amount, see above discussion. Further, based on the values disclosed for the alkali metal oxides, alkaline metal oxides, Al2O3, SiO2 and B2O3, the reference is considered to render obvious a glass composition that satisfies the claimed relationships, see above discussion.
Note that the reference discloses the glass composition may be substantially free of Li2O, Rb2O and Cs2O [0041 & 0044]. As such, the reference is considered to render obvious the alkali oxides as consisting of Na2O and K2O, see above discussion.
Regarding claim 14, the reference discloses the laminate that includes a first glass layer, a polymer interlayer disposed on the first glass layer and a second glass layer disposed on the interlayer opposite the first glass layer wherein the second glass layer may have a thickness in the range from about 1.5 times to about 2.5 times the thickness of the first glass layer [0013, 0107 & 0111].
Regarding claim 15, the reference discloses the annealing point as less than about 570°C, which overlaps the claimed ranges [0012]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 16, the reference discloses the strain point as less than about 520°C, which overlaps the claimed ranges [0012]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 17, the reference discloses examples of the temperature at 200 poise viscosity as within the claimed range, see Table 1 Examples. Additionally, given the reference renders obvious the claimed composition, it is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed properties; see MPEP 2112.01 I & II: ““Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition…a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
Regarding claim 18, the reference discloses that the glass article exhibits an average transmittance in the range from about 75% to about 85%, at a thickness of 0.7 mm or 1 mm, over a wavelength range from about 380 nm to about 780 nm, which overlaps the claimed range [0087]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 19, the reference discloses that the glass article exhibits a total solar transmittance of about 90% or less, over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 2500 nm, when the glass article has a thickness of 0.7 mm [0086].
Regarding claim 20, the reference discloses the glass article exhibits Tuv-380 or Tuv-400 of 50% or less (e.g., 49% or less, 48% or less, 45% or less, 40% or less, 30% or less, 25% or less, 23% or less, 20% or less, or 15% or less), at a thickness of 0.7 mm or 1 mm, over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 400 nm, which overlaps the claimed range [0087]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gross cannot meet the compositional relationships because the various compositions of Gross comprise Li2O in an amount from about 0.5 mol% to about 12 mol% [0044]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, Gross discloses the glass composition as substantially free from Li2O, Rb2O and Cs2O [0041 & 0044]. As such, the reference is considered to render obvious the alkali oxides as consisting of Na2O and K2O, see above discussion. Further note that the values disclosed for Na2O and K2O render obvious the amount of R2O in Applicant’s Table 100 Examples DSG and DSW, see above discussion. Given the reference also renders obvious the values for alkaline metal oxides, Al2O3, SiO2 and B2O3 in those examples, the reference is considered to render obvious a glass composition that satisfies the claimed relationships.
For the above reasons, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783