CTNF 18/695,953 CTNF 88648 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration in the current application. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on February 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a predefined ratio” on line 5 and also recites “a predefined ratio” on line 13. For the purposes of clarity and uniformity, claim 1 should be amended to recite “a first predefined ratio” and “a second predefined ratio,” respectively. Claim 5 recites “the predefined ratio” on line 1 and also recites “the predefined ratio” on line 3. For the purposes of clarity and uniformity, claim 5 should be amended to recite “the first predefined ratio” and “the second predefined ratio,” respectively . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 is indefinite as the recitation of possible elements is not properly claimed in the alternative. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See MPEP 2173.05(h). For the purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “at least one selected from the group consisting of ZrO 2 and K 2 O-Al 2 O 3 -2SiO 2 ….” Alternatively , claim 3 could be amended to recite “at least one of ZrO 2 and or K 2 O-Al 2 O 3 -2SiO 2 …” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency. For the purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as reciting “at least one selected from the group consisting of SiO 2 , Zr 2 (WO 4 )(PO 4 ) 2 , and Zr 2 O(PO 4 ) 2 .” Alternatively , claim 3 could be amended to recite “at least one of SiO 2 , Zr 2 (WO 4 )(PO 4 ) 2 , and or Zr 2 O(PO 4 ) 2 ” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency. Correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US 2015/0375475 A1) in view of Sawada (JP 2006008476 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) . Regarding Claim 1 , Cook teaches a glass laminate 10 (a layered glass structure) comprising a glass core 11 (an inner layer) having a first Tg (first overall glass transition temperature, first overall Tg) and a first CTE (first overall coefficient of thermal expansion, first overall CTE); and glass clad layers 12 (outer layers) disposed on at least two opposing major surfaces of the inner layer, where the outer layers have a second Tg (second overall Tg) and a second CTE (second overall CTE) (Cook, Abstract, [0004], [0030]-[0034], [0045]-[0050], [0072]-[0079], Fig 1). Cook teaches the second overall CTE is lower than the first overall CTE (Cook, [0004], [0046]-[0050]). Cook teaches the first overall Tg of the glass core is higher than the second overall Tg of the clad layers, where the first overall Tg can be about 550 o C or greater (or about 550 o C to about 650 o C), and the second overall Tg can be about 550 o C or greater (or about 550 o C to about 600 o C) (Cook, [0030]-[0034]). Cook’s Tg ranges yield a difference between the first and second overall Tgs of greater than about 0 o C to about 50 o C, where this range overlaps the claimed range of less than 15 o C, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Cook teaches the glass layers are formed by a fusion process, where the glass layer components can include additional components that include inorganic oxides (such as ZrO 2 ) and coloring agents or additives for absorbing specific portions of the electromagnetic spectrum (Cook, [0032], [0052]-[0053], [0072]-[0080]). PNG media_image1.png 232 609 media_image1.png Greyscale Cook – Figure 1 Cook remains silent regarding the glass core (inner layer) having been formed by a first glass powder and a first inorganic filler; and remains silent regarding the glass clad layers (outer layers) having been formed by a second glass powder and a second inorganic filler. Sawada, however, teaches a glass article having an interior intermediate material layer (inner layer) and two external layers (outer layers) formed by fusing granular glass (glass powder) and inorganic oxide and ceramic pigment grains (such as silica sand and ZrO 2 ), where the two outer layers having a CTE lower than the inner layer (Sawada, Abstract, Pgs 3-5). Since Cook and Sawada both disclose three layer glass structures formed by fusion processes having substantially similar CTE characterizations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized granular glass (glass powder) precursor to form Cook’s glass layers via a fusion process and to have added inorganic oxide and ceramic pigment grains according to Sawada’s guidance to yield a layered glass structure that exhibits excellent mechanical strength, decorativeness, no warpage, and desired workability as taught by Sawada (Sawada, Pgs 2-5). Modified Cook teaches the first overall CTE of the glass core inner layer can be increased by adding SrO and/or alkali cations, thereby raising the first overall CTE above the CTE of the first glass powder precursor (Cook, [0067], [0069]-[0070]). Modified Cook teaches the first overall Tg/melting temperature of the glass core inner layer can be increased by adding alkali cations thereby raising the first overall Tg/melting temperature above the Tg of the first glass powder precursor (Cook, [0069]-[0070]). Modified Cook teaches the second overall CTE of the glass clad outer layers can be lowered by adding Al 2 O 3 , thereby lowering the second overall CTE below the CTE of the second glass powder precursor (Cook, [0054]-[0055], [0060]). Modified Cook teaches the second overall Tg/melting temperature of the glass clad outer layers can be increased by adding alkali cations, thereby raising the second overall Tg/melting temperature above the Tg of the second glass powder precursor (Cook, [0067], [0069]-[0070]). It would have been obvious to have adjusted, tested, and optimized the CTE and Tg properties of each of modified Cook’s glass laminate layers according to the aforementioned guidance to yield embodiments that render obvious the claimed CTE and Tg properties with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143, MPEP 2144.05, II). Regarding Claim 2 , modified Cook teaches the difference between the first overall CTE and the second overall CTE is from about 10x10 -7 / o C to 50x10 -7 / o C (Cook, [0050]). Modified Cook’s CTE difference range encompasses the claimed range of 10x10 -7 / o C to 30x10 -7 / o C, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding Claim 3 , modified Cook teaches the first inorganic filler can include ZrO- 2 (zirconia) and the second inorganic filler can include silica (SiO 2 ) (Cook, [0072]-[0078]; Sawada, Pg 4). Regarding Claim 4 , modified Cook teaches the glass clad outer layers may extend beyond the edges of the glass core inner layer, and may be bent to contact each other to fully encapsulate the glass core inner layer (Cook, [0047]). Regarding Claim 6 , modified Cook teaches the second overall CTE of the glass clad outer layers can be lowered by adding Al 2 O 3 , thereby lowering the second overall CTE below the CTE of the second glass powder precursor (Cook, [0054]-[0055], [0060]). Although modified Cook does not disclose a quantitative range of a CTE gap, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted, tested, and optimized the CTE properties of modified Cook’s glass clad outer layers according to the aforementioned guidance to yield embodiments that render obvious the claimed CTE gap range of less than 15x10 -7 / o C with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143, MPEP 2144.05, II). Regarding Claim 7 , modified Cook teaches the first overall CTE of the glass core inner layer can be increased by adding SrO and/or alkali cations, thereby raising the first overall CTE above the CTE of the first glass powder precursor (Cook, [0067], [0069]-[0070]). Although modified Cook does not disclose a quantitative range of a CTE gap, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted, tested, and optimized the CTE properties of modified Cook’s glass core inner layer according to the aforementioned guidance to yield embodiments that render obvious the claimed CTE gap range of less than 10x10 -7 / o C with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143, MPEP 2144.05, II) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US 2015/0375475 A1) in view of Sawada (JP 2006008476 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moriya et al. (US 2002/0189742 A1) . Regarding Claim 5 , modified Cook teaches the glass laminate as discussed above for claim 1. Modified Cook remains silent regarding the glass core (inner layer) having a content ratio of 90-95 wt% of first glass powder and 5-10 wt% of first inorganic filler; and remains silent regarding the glass clad layers (outer layers) having a content ratio of 85-95 wt% of second glass powder and 5-15 wt% of second inorganic filler. Moriya, however, teaches a multilayer glass article comprising glass layers, where the glass layers may have different mixing content ratios and are formed with a glass powder and an inorganic ceramic powder in a ratio of 40:60 to 100:0 by weight (Moriya, Abstract, [0026]-[0028]). Moriya’s glass layers yield content ranges of 40-100 wt% of the glass powder and 0-60 wt% of the inorganic ceramic powder. Since modified Cook and Moriya both disclose multilayer glass structures formed with glass powders and inorganic fillers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Moriya’s guidance to form modified Cook’s glass layers to yield a layered glass structure that inhibits undesired shrinkage as taught by Moriya (Moriya, [0002], [0017], [0026]-[0028]). Modified Cook’s first glass powder range of 40-100 wt% encompasses the claimed range of 90-95 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Modified Cook’s first inorganic ceramic powder range of 0-60 wt% encompasses the claimed range of 5-10 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Modified Cook’s second glass powder range of 40-100 wt% encompasses the claimed range of 85-95 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Modified Cook’s second inorganic ceramic powder range of 0-60 wt% encompasses the claimed range of 5-15 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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. /Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 2 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 3 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 4 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 5 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 6 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 7 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 8 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 9 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 10 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 11 Art Unit: 1782 Application/Control Number: 18/695,953 Page 12 Art Unit: 1782
Prosecution Insights