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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) 16 July 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 22 May 2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Comment
Claim 12 recites “the composition comprises |RO – Al2O3| being selected from the range of 1.0 to 8.0 mol.%.” This is read that: the composition comprises the absolute value of (RO – Al2O3) is from 1.0 to 8.0 mol.%.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato, Japanese Patent Publication JP 2001-151534 A.
A machine-generated translation of JP 2001-151534 A accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Kato discloses a glass in terms of mass percentages comprising 50-70% of SiO2, 10-25% of Al2O3, 3-20% of B2O3, 0-8% of MgO, 0.1-12% of CaO, 0-7% of SrO, 0-7% of BaO, 0-10% of ZnO, 0-0.5% of As2O3, 0.05-1% of SnO2, 0.05-5% of Sb2O3, and 0-10% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0012] and [0014]-[0030]. Kato discloses that the glass is a flat sheet and has a thickness about 0.7 mm. See paragraphs [0001] and [0007]. Kato discloses that the sheet glass is made by a down draw process, such as, overflow down draw or slot down draw. See paragraphs [0033]-[0035] and [0044]. The compositional ranges of Kato are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass composition as recited in claims 1-20. See MPEP 2131.03.
Mol.%
Ex. 4
Ex. 6
Ex. 7
Ex. 10
Ex. 11
Ex. 13
Ex. 18
SiO2
67.37
65.61
67.90
67.76
59.27
67.87
61.02
Al2O3
6.51
10.12
10.76
8.37
7.09
9.78
10.27
B2O3
18.11
15.10
11.82
12.17
17.16
10.87
14.20
MgO
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.74
0.00
0.85
0.00
CaO
5.92
8.90
6.68
6.82
6.57
5.64
14.24
SrO
0.00
0.00
2.58
0.00
0.00
1.53
0.00
BaO
1.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.62
3.18
0.00
SnO2
0.04
0.22
0.22
0.08
0.24
0.23
0.22
Sb2O3
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
As2O3
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
RO
7.82
8.90
9.26
11.56
16.19
11.21
14.24
SnO2+ZnO+
F+Cl+C
0.04
0.22
0.22
0.08
0.24
0.23
0.22
Al2O3+B2O3
24.62
25.22
22.57
20.55
24.24
20.65
24.47
RO/Al2O3
1.20
0.88
0.86
1.38
2.28
1.15
1.39
RO/(Al2O3+B2O3)
0.32
0.35
0.41
0.56
0.67
0.54
0.58
SiO2/B2O3
3.72
4.34
5.75
5.57
3.45
6.25
4.30
|RO-Al2O3|
1.31
1.21
1.50
3.19
9.10
1.42
3.97
B2O3/2
9.06
7.55
5.91
6.09
8.58
5.43
7.10
SiO2+MgO
67.37
65.61
67.90
72.51
59.27
68.73
61.02
Specifically, as to claim 1, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of silica (SiO2), 1-20% of alumina (Al2O3), and 10-20% of boric oxide (B2O3), wherein the composition comprises an RO/Al2O3 ratio, on an oxide basis, selected from the range of 0.80 to 3.5, the term RO being the mol.% sum of MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO, as recited in instant claim 1.
Kato discloses that the material is a glass and is silent about the composition having any crystals, which reads on the glass material comprises a total content by weight of amorphous phase being greater than a total content by weight of crystalline phase, as recited in claim 1. Kato discloses that the glass is a flat sheet and has a thickness about 0.7 mm. See paragraphs [0001] and [0007].
As to claim 1, since the composition of Kato is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Kato would inherently possess a light transmission of at least 50% at a wavelength selected from the range of 254 nm to 270 nm when the glass material is in the form of a sheet having a thickness selected from the range of 0.3 mm to 1 mm, as recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2112.
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).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 2, Kato discloses that the material is a glass and is silent about the composition having any crystals, which reads on the glass material comprises a total crystallinity of less than 5 wt%, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, since the composition of Kato is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Kato would inherently possess a light transmission of at least 50% having a wavelength of 248 nm, 254 nm, and/or 266 nm when the glass material is in the form of a sheet having a 1 mm thickness, as recited in claim 3. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 4, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads the composition is substantially free of F or comprises less than 0.7 mol.% of, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition is substantially free of alkali metals or wherein the composition comprises a sum of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O and Cs2O being less than 0.1 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition comprises less than 0.01 wt.% of Fe(III), as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition comprises a sum of SnO2, ZnO, F, Cl, and C being less than 0.5 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Kato discloses that the material is a glass and is silent about the composition having any crystals, which reads on the composition is substantially free of a cordierite crystal phase, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition comprises an RO/(Al2O3 + B2O3) ratio, on an oxide basis, selected from the range of 0.3 to 0.6, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 11, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition comprises a mol.% ratio of SiO2/B2O3 selected from the range of 3.2 to 5.0, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Kato discloses Examples 6, 7, and 13 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition comprises RO selected from the range of 8.5 to 11.5 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition comprises |RO – Al2O3| being selected from the range of 1.0 to 8.0 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 13, Kato discloses Examples 6 and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition comprises (B2O3)/2 being selected from the range of 6.9 to 8.5, as recited in instant claim 13.
As to claim 14, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, 10, and 13 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads the composition comprises a sum of SiO2 and MgO being selected from the range of 63 to 75 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 14.
As to claim 15, Kato discloses Examples 6, 7, 10, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition comprises, on an oxide basis: SiO2 selected from the range of 60 mol.% to 72 mol.%; Al2O3 selected from the range of 6 mol.% to 11 mol.%; and B2O3 selected from the range of 11 mol.% to 18 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 15.
As to claim 16, Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, and 13 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on the composition comprises the RO/Al2O3 ratio, on an oxide basis, being selected from the range of 0.80 to 1.35, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, since the composition of Kato is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Kato would inherently possess a Young’s modulus selected from the range of 60 to 70 GPa, as recited in claim 17. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 18, since the composition of Kato is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Kato would inherently possess a liquidus viscosity greater than or equal to 120 kilopoise (kP), as recited in claim 18. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 19, Kato discloses Examples 6 and 11 (see Tables 1-4), which reads on the glass having a liquidus internal temperature selected from the range of 900 to 1100 oC, as recited in instant claim 19.
As to claim 20, Kato discloses that the sheet glass is made by a down draw process, such as, overflow down draw or slot down draw (see paragraphs [0033]-[0035] and [0044]), which reads a method of making a glass material, the method comprising: providing a precursor composition comprising silica, alumina, boric acid, and at least one of magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, strontium oxide, and barium oxide; and forming the glass material from a precursor composition using a down-draw process, as recited in instant claim 20.
Kato discloses Examples 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 18 (see Tables 1-4 and the table above which shows the examples converted into mole percentages), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of silica (SiO2), 1-20% of alumina (Al2O3), and 10-20% of boric oxide (B2O3), wherein the composition comprises an RO/Al2O3 ratio, on an oxide basis, selected from the range of 0.80 to 3.5, the term RO being the mol.% sum of MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO, as recited in instant claim 20.
Kato discloses that the material is a glass and is silent about the composition having any crystals, which reads on the glass material comprises a total content by weight of amorphous phase being greater than a total content by weight of crystalline phase, as recited in claim 20. Kato discloses that the glass is a flat sheet and has a thickness about 0.7 mm. See paragraphs [0001] and [0007].
As to claim 20, since the composition of Kato is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Kato would inherently possess a light transmission of at least 50% at a wavelength selected from the range of 254 nm to 270 nm when the glass material is in the form of a sheet having a thickness selected from the range of 0.3 mm to 1 mm, as recited in claim 20. See MPEP 2112.
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).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amin et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2012/0135853 A1.
Amin et al. disclose a glass in terms of mole percentages comprising 64-71% of SiO2, 9-12% of Al2O3, 7-12% of B2O3, 1-3% of MgO, 6-11.5% of CaO, 0-2% of SrO, 0-0.1% of BaO, 1-1.25 of RO/Al2O3, 0-0.5% of Sb2O3, 0-0.05% of As2O3, and at least 0.01% of SnO2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0024]-[0035]. Amin et al. disclose the glass has a liquidus viscosity of at least 100,000 poise. See paragraph [0058]. Amin et al. disclose a Young’s modulus of at most 75 GPa. See paragraph [0061]. Amin et al. disclose that the glass is a flat sheet and has a thickness of 0.1-1 mm. See paragraphs [0010], [0019], and [0054]. Amin et al. disclose that the sheet glass is made by a down draw process. See paragraphs [0019] and [0054]. The compositional ranges of Amin et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass composition as recited in claims 1-20. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, and 11-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of silica (SiO2), 1-20% of alumina (Al2O3), and 10-20% of boric oxide (B2O3), wherein the composition comprises an RO/Al2O3 ratio, on an oxide basis, selected from the range of 0.80 to 3.5, the term RO being the mol.% sum of MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO, as recited in instant claim 1.
Amin et al. disclose that the material is a glass and is silent about the composition having any crystals, which reads on the glass material comprises a total content by weight of amorphous phase being greater than a total content by weight of crystalline phase, as recited in claim 1. Amin et al. disclose that the glass is a flat sheet and has a thickness from 0.1 to 1 mm. See paragraph [0019].
As to claim 1, since the composition of Amin et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Amin et al. would inherently possess a light transmission of at least 50% at a wavelength selected from the range of 254 nm to 270 nm when the glass material is in the form of a sheet having a thickness selected from the range of 0.3 mm to 1 mm, as recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2112.
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).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 2, Amin et al. disclose that the material is a glass and is silent about the composition having any crystals, which reads on the glass material comprises a total crystallinity of less than 5 wt%, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, since the composition of Amin et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Amin et al. would inherently possess a light transmission of at least 50% having a wavelength of 248 nm, 254 nm, and/or 266 nm when the glass material is in the form of a sheet having a 1 mm thickness, as recited in claim 3. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 4, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, and 11-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads the composition is substantially free of F or comprises less than 0.7 mol.% of, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, and 11-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition is substantially free of alkali metals or wherein the composition comprises a sum of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O and Cs2O being less than 0.1 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, and 11-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition comprises less than 0.01 wt.% of Fe(III), as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, and 11-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition comprises a sum of SnO2, ZnO, F, Cl, and C being less than 0.5 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Amin et al. disclose that the material is a glass and is silent about the composition having any crystals, which reads on the composition is substantially free of a cordierite crystal phase, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, and 11-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition comprises an RO/(Al2O3 + B2O3) ratio, on an oxide basis, selected from the range of 0.3 to 0.6, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Amin et al. disclose Examples 12-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition comprises a mol.% ratio of SiO2/B2O3 selected from the range of 3.2 to 5.0, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, 11-15, and 17-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition comprises RO selected from the range of 8.5 to 11.5 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Amin et al. disclose Examples 11 and 14-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition comprises |RO – Al2O3| being selected from the range of 1.0 to 8.0 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 13, Amin et al. disclose Examples 13, 14, and 17-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition comprises (B2O3)/2 being selected from the range of 6.9 to 8.5, as recited in instant claim 13.
As to claim 14, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, 11-15, and 17-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads the composition comprises a sum of SiO2 and MgO being selected from the range of 63 to 75 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 14.
As to claim 15, Amin et al. disclose Examples 13-15 and 17-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition comprises, on an oxide basis: SiO2 selected from the range of 60 mol.% to 72 mol.%; Al2O3 selected from the range of 6 mol.% to 11 mol.%; and B2O3 selected from the range of 11 mol.% to 18 mol.%, as recited in instant claim 15.
As to claim 16, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, 11-14, and 16-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the composition comprises the RO/Al2O3 ratio, on an oxide basis, being selected from the range of 0.80 to 1.35, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, Amin et al. disclose Examples 13-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the glass having a Young’s modulus selected from the range of 60 to 70 GPa, as recited in claim 17.
As to claim 18, Amin et al. disclose Examples 3 and 9 (see Tables I and II), which reads on the glass having a liquidus viscosity greater than or equal to 120 kilopoise (kP), as recited in claim 18.
As to claim 19, since the composition of Amin et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Amin et al. would inherently possess a liquidus internal temperature selected from the range of 900 to 1100 oC, as recited in instant claim 19.
As to claim 20, Amin et al. disclose that the sheet glass is made by a down draw process (see paragraphs [0019] and [0054]), which reads a method of making a glass material, the method comprising: providing a precursor composition comprising silica, alumina, boric acid, and at least one of magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, strontium oxide, and barium oxide; and forming the glass material from a precursor composition using a down-draw process, as recited in instant claim 20.
Amin et al. disclose Examples 3, 9, and 11-23 (see Tables I and II), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of mole percentages, 55-75% of silica (SiO2), 1-20% of alumina (Al2O3), and 10-20% of boric oxide (B2O3), wherein the composition comprises an RO/Al2O3 ratio, on an oxide basis, selected from the range of 0.80 to 3.5, the term RO being the mol.% sum of MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO, as recited in instant claim 20.
Amin et al. disclose that the material is a glass and is silent about the composition having any crystals, which reads on the glass material comprises a total content by weight of amorphous phase being greater than a total content by weight of crystalline phase, as recited in claim 20. Amin et al. disclose that the glass is a flat sheet and has a thickness of 0.1-1 mm. See paragraph [0019].
As to claim 20, since the composition of Amin et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Amin et al. would inherently possess a light transmission of at least 50% at a wavelength selected from the range of 254 nm to 270 nm when the glass material is in the form of a sheet having a thickness selected from the range of 0.3 mm to 1 mm, as recited in claim 20. See MPEP 2112.
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).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above. Specifically, Ellison et al., US 2015/0051060 A1 disclose Examples 1-19 in Table I, which reads on one or more of claims 1-20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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 R. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
25 July 2026
Prosecution Insights