DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-13, 15-20, and 23 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2024 and 06/17/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4-5, 11-13, 15, and 18 are 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 4 contains multiple alternative ranges for several component ranges. Because of this, it is unclear which range is controlling for determining intended claim coverage. This renders the scope of the claim unclear, and thus it is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 5 also contains multiple alternative ranges for the component, and the intended scope of the claim is therefore unclear.
Claims 11-13 also contain multiple alternative ranges for the components therein, and thus the intended scopes of said claims are unclear.
Claim 15 contains multiple alternative ranges for the L* value, and therefore the intended scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 18 recites that the glass contains at least one of Se, Co, and Er, and then further that preferably the total content of zinc selenite, CoO, and Er2O3 is 50-200 ppm. From these limitations, it is unclear if the Se, Co, and/or Er must be present as part of the compounds zinc selenite, CoO, and Er2O3, or if any form of said elements is covered by the claim. Additionally, as above, the use of multiple alternative ranges with one listed as “preferably” present renders unclear the intended scope of the claim. Because of this, claim 18 is indefinite under USC 112.
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, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cid-Aguilar et al (US 8361915 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches a glass composition comprising 0.005-0.08 wt% Fe2O3, 0-0.6 wt% CeO2, no SO3 content, and no additional additions of Mo, Sn, As, or Sb (see Abstract and claim 1). The Cid-Aguilar et al composition is a soda-lime glass comprising, as a base glass, 70-75 wt% SiO2, 10-15 wt% Na2O, 5-10 wt% CaO, 0-5 wt% MgO, 0-3 wt% K2O, and 0.1-1.0 w% Al2O3 (see column 6, lines 35-40). Each of these ranges falls within the corresponding component range of the instant claim. The redox values of the Cid-Aguilar et al glasses are below 45 (see Table at columns 7-8 and continued at columns 9-10). Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of Cid-Aguilar et al, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches no SO3 content for the inventive glass.
Regarding claim 3, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glasses comprise 0.026 wt% TiO2 (see Table at columns 7-8) and contain no F content.
Regarding claim 4, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glass comprises 10-15 wt% Na2O, 0.1-1.0 w% Al2O3, and 0.00 wt% CeO2, contains no ZnO, BaO, ZrO2, or Er2O3, and has a redox value of less than 40.
Regarding claim 8, the glasses taught by Cid-Aguilar et al do not contain Er2O3.
Regarding claim 11, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glasses do not contain BaO.
Regarding claim 13, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches embodiments wherein the glass contains total iron Fe2O3 in amounts falling within the range of the instant claim s (see Table).
Regarding claim 15, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches embodiments wherein the L* value of the glass is higher than 94 (see embodiments in the Table).
Regarding claim 18, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glasses contain Co in embodiments (see examples 7 and 9).
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.
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.
Claims 5-7, 9, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cid-Aguilar et al (US 8361915 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the K2O content of the inventive glass is 0-3 wt%. This range encompasses and thus renders obvious the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Cid-Aguilar et al further teaches that the inventive glass comprises 0-5 wt% MgO, and this range also overlaps and renders obvious the range of instant claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glass comprises 70-75 wt% SiO2 and 5-10 wt% CaO. Each of these ranges overlaps the corresponding range of the instant claim. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glass comprises 5-10 wt% CaO. This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glass comprises 10-15 wt% Na2O. This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glass comprises 0.005-0.08 wt% Fe2O3 (50-800 ppm). This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 23, Cid-Aguilar et al teaches that the inventive glass comprises 70-75 wt% SiO2, 10-15 wt% Na2O, 5-10 wt% CaO, 0-5 wt% MgO, 0-3 wt% K2O, and 0.1-1.0 w% Al2O3. The amounts for each component of the instant claim and the combined amount of Na2O+K2O each overlap the corresponding ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 16, 17, 19, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a glass meeting each limitation of instant claim 1, and wherein no intentional additions of Ti, Ce, B, Zn, Sr, and Sn species are present. The prior art also does not teach or suggest a glass according to instant 1 and wherein the SO3 content is in the range of instant claim 16. The prior art does not teach or suggest a glass according to instant claim 1 and wherein the redox is 30-40. Finally, the prior art does not teach or suggest a glass meeting each limitation of instant claim 1 and wherein all compositional limitations of claims 19 or 20 are met.
Conclusion
14. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15, 18, and 23 are rejected. Claims 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW21 August 2026
Prosecution Insights