DETAILED ACTION
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 1-4, 7-8, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bressler et al. (US 20210155523).
Bressler discloses hybrid glass laminate for automobiles. Concerning claims 1-3, Bressler discloses the hybrid glass laminate comprises a first glass article and a second glass article that are laminated together with an interlayer disposed therebetween, wherein at least the second glass article has a glass composition comprising 62 to 72 mol% SiO2, 6 to 10 mol% B2O3, 8 to 16 mol% Al2O3, 0 to 2 mol% MgO, 0 to 1.5 mol% CaO, 0 to 1 mol% SrO, 3 to 8 mol% Li2O, 3 to 8 mol% Na2O, and 0 to 1.5 mol% K2O (para. 0044-0056). Given that the second glass article has the claimed composition, the second glass article would exhibit properties as claimed in claim 1. Regarding claim 4, as shown in the Examples in at least Example 2, the sum of SiO2, B2O3, and Al2O3 is 85.1 mol% which meets the limitations as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, iron is found at a content of 0.01 to 0.2 mol%, which when converted is from 100 ppm to 2000 ppm, wherein the endpoint of 100 ppm meets the instant limitations (para. 0056). Concerning claims 8, 16, and 19, the CTE is about 52 x 10-7/C° to 68 x 10-7/°C which when converted to Kelvin, is 52 x 10-7/K to 68 x 10-7/K and is within the claimed range (para. 0042). Regarding claim 12, the hybrid glass laminate is a window glass for a vehicle (para. 0079).
Claims 1-4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiczenski et al. (US 20150051061).
Kiczenski discloses intermediate to high CTE glass compositions and glass articles containing the same. Concerning claims 1 and 2, Kiczenski discloses a glass sheet formed from a composition comprising 60 to 75 mol% SiO2, 0 to 11 mol% B2O3, 2 to 11 mol% Al2O3, 0 to 7 mol% MgO, 0 to 9 mol% CaO, 1 to 8 mol% SrO, 0 to 4 mol% BaO, 0 to 1 mol% Na2O, and 1 to 18 mol% K2O (para. 0051-0156). Regarding claim 3, Kiczenski recites a specific embodiment comprising 6.19 mol% B2O3, which meets the instant limitations (Table 2, Example 18). With respect to claim 4, as shown in Table 2, Example 18 has a total content of compounds claimed of 81.85 mol%, which meets the instant limitations. Concerning claims 8, 16, and 19, the CTE is 59.9x10-7/°C (or 59.9x10-7/K) which would meet the limitations as claimed (Table 2, Example 18). In regards to claim 12, the glass articles are used in window glass for vehicles (para. 0028).
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiczenski et al. (US 20150051061).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Kiczenski discloses the glass sheet is formed from a composition comprising 60 to 75 mol% SiO2, 0 to 11 mol% B2O3, 2 to 11 mol% Al2O3, 0 to 7 mol% MgO, 0 to 9 mol% CaO, 1 to 8 mol% SrO, 0 to 4 mol% BaO, 0 to 1 mol% Na2O, and 1 to 18 mol% K2O (para. 0051-0156) wherein the values for each oxide overlap and include the claimed ranges for the compounds and the sum of the alkali oxides. Examiner notes that the minimum endpoint for alumina meets the limitation of the alumina content in claim 5. Regarding claim 7, the composition can further include iron in the form of iron oxide at a content of 0 to 3 mol% (para. 0138).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia et al. (WO 2020/106486).
Bhatia discloses an automotive window laminate formed from glass ceramic sheets and an interlayer therebetween. Concerning claims 1-3 and 12-14, Bhatia discloses the automotive window laminate (FIG. 1) comprises two sheets each formed from a glass ceramic composition comprising 58.8 to 77.58 mol% SiO2, 4.42 to 27 mol% B2O3, 0.3 to 10 mol% Al2O3, 0 to 13.84 mol% R2O (R2O is the sum total of one or more of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O, and Cs2O) and 0 to 0.98 mol% RO (RO is the sum total of one or more of MgO, CaO, SrO, BaO and ZnO), resulting in the structure for the laminate as claimed (para. 0032-0040, 00108-00123, 00156, and 00216-00217). Given that the composition of the glass ceramic sheets are the same as that claimed, the properties as claimed would be intrinsic to the glass ceramic sheets as claimed. With respect to claims 4-6, the values for each compound overlap and include the claimed ranges, wherein it is noted that that the alkali and alkali earth metal compounds are with in the claimed ranges (para. 00114-00115 and 00117-00120).
Regarding claim 7, the content of iron is from 1 mol% or less which would include and encompass the claimed range (para. 00143). Concerning claims 8, 16, and 19, since the composition is the same as that claimed, the CTE of the glass ceramic sheets would be within the claimed range. With respect to claims 9, 17, and 20, an IR reflecting film can be disposed on or above the glass ceramic sheets as claimed (FIGS. 3-5; para. 0071-0076). In regards to claims 10-11 and 18, one of the glass ceramic sheets has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm, which includes and encompasses the claimed range (para. 0033-0035). Concerning claim 15, the window laminate is used as a windshield (para. 0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783