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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20180226311A1.
Regarding claims 1-2, US20180226311A1 discloses a supporting glass substrate
No. 5 of Table 3 discloses the claimed composition when wt% is converted into mole%.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The glass composition of No. 5 comprises, in terms of mole %, 66.11% of SiO2, 10.84% of Al2O3, 9.32% B2O3, 1.32% MgO, 9.44%CaO, 2.87% of SrO and 0.9% of SnO2. Thus, Li2O+Na2O+K2O is zero and a molar ratio (MgO+SrO+BaO)/CaO is less than 1.5. The glass composition of No. 5 has the claimed average coefficient of thermal expansion.
In the alterative, US20180226311A1 discloses a supporting glass substrate having an average thermal expansion coefficient within a temperature range of from 30° C. to 380° C. is 38×10−7/° C. or more and less than 50×10−7/° C., the supporting glass substrate preferably comprises as a glass composition, in terms of mass %, 55% to 75% of SiO2, 10% to 30% of Al2O3, 0% to 0.3% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, and 5% to 20% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO.
When the average thermal expansion coefficient within a temperature range of from 30° C. to 380° C. is set to 50×10−7/° C. or more and less than 75×10−7/° C., the supporting glass substrate preferably comprises as a glass composition, in terms of mass %, 55% to 70% of SiO2, 3% to 15% to Al2O3, 5% to 20% of B2O3, 0% to 5% of MgO, 0% to 10% of CaO, 0% to 5% of SrO, 0% to 5% of BaO, 0% to 5% of ZnO, 5% to 15% of Na2O, and 0% to 10% of K2O.
The prior art discloses the overlapping range when wt% is converted into mole%. The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, In the supporting glass substrate of the present invention, the thickness is preferably less than 2.0 mm, 1.5 mm or less, 1.2 mm or less, 1.1 mm or less, or 1.0 mm or less, particularly preferably 0.9 mm or less. In the supporting glass substrate of the present inventi has the claimedon, a UV transmittance at a wavelength of 300 nm in the thickness direction is preferably 40% or more, 50% or more, 60% or more, or 70% or more, particularly preferably 80% or more.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).In the alterative,The Examiner respectfully submits that although the prior art does not disclose the claimed properties, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art combination, since the prior art teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully submits that the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the substantial ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Regarding claim 4, the supporting glass have a Young's modulus of 65 GPa or more. See [0015]
Regarding claim 5, the viscosity at a liquidus temperature is preferably 104.6 dPa·s or more, 105.0 dPa·s or more, 105.2 dPa·s or more, 105.4 dPa·s or more, or 105.6 dPa·s or more, particularly preferably 105.8 dPa·s or more. See [0040].
Regarding claim 6, the temperature at 102.5 dPa·s is preferably 1,580° C. or
particularly preferably from 1,200° C. to 1,300° C. See [0041].
Regarding claim 7, It is preferred that the supporting glass substrate have a substantially disc shape or wafer shape, and the diameter thereof is 100 mm or more and 500 mm or less, particularly preferably 150 mm or more and 450 mm or less and the thickness is preferably less than 2.0 mm, 1.5 mm or less, 1.2 mm or less, 1.1 mm or less, or 1.0 mm or less, particularly preferably 0.9 mm or less. See [0032-0033]]. The supporting glass substrate has a total thickness variation of less than 5.0 μm. See [0009]. The supporting glass substrate has a warpage level of 60 μm or less. See [0012].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights