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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakane et al. (US20130130887, hereinafter referred to as Nakane) in view of Dondi (Dondi, Michele, et al. "Gray–blue Al2O3–MoOx ceramic pigments: Crystal structure, coloring mechanism and performance." Dyes and pigments 76.1 (2008): 179-186, hereinafter referred to as Dondi)..
Regarding claim 1, Nakane discloses a Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2-based crystallized glass (See Nakane at the Abstract, disclosing a Li2O—Al2O3—SiO2-based crystallized glass) containing, in terms of % by mass, 60 to 80% SiO2 (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 65.8 mass% SiO2), 15 to 30% Al2O3 (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 22.2 mass% Al2O3), 2.45 to 3.64% Li2O (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 3.6 mass% Li2O), 0 to less than 0.7% Na2O+K2O (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.4 mass% Na2O and 0.3 mass% K2O), more than 0% to less than 1% CaO+SrO+BaO (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% CaO, 0% SrO, and 0.7 mass% BaO), and 0 to 2.4% MgO+ZnO (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.7 mass% MgO and 0.5 mass% ZnO).
Further regarding claim 1, while Nakane discloses coloring caused by components such as TiO2 and Fe2O3, Nakane does not explicitly disclose more than 0% MoO3. Dondi (Dondi, Michele, et al. "Gray–blue Al2O3–MoOx ceramic pigments: Crystal structure, coloring mechanism and performance." Dyes and pigments 76.1 (2008): 179-186, hereinafter referred to as Dondi) is directed towards Gray–blue Al2O3–MoOx ceramic pigments (See Dondi at the Abstract). Dondi teaches the actual MoO3 contents of pigments range from 0.7 to 2.5 wt% (see Dondi at the third paragraph of page 181). Examiner notes color is an aesthetic design choice, and further notes that it is obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the arts to select a color as desired per MPEP 2144.04(I). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Nakane to include MoO3 within the range disclosed by Dondi with a reasonable expectation of successfully coloring the glass with a MoO3 pigment as taught by Dondi.
Regarding claim 4, Nakane discloses containing, in terms of % by mass, 30 ppm or less Pt and 30 ppm or less Rh (Nakane discloses no Pt or Rh, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose a β-OH value of 2/mm or less, the β-OH value changes depending on the raw material used, the melting atmosphere, the melting temperature, the melting time as evidenced by the instant specification at [0059] of the PGPub. The composition disclosed by Nakane is substantially identical to the instant glass as detailed in the rejections herein, and therefore the raw materials of Nakane are substantially identical to those of the instant invention. The instant application at [0127] of the PGPub discloses an electric furnace at 1600°C and 20 hours, which will have a substantially identical melting atmosphere, temperature and time as Nakane at [0095] disclosing 1600° C. for 18 hours in an electric furnace. Therefore, because Nakane has raw materials and melting atmosphere, temperature and time as those of the instant invention, Nakane would inherently possess the claimed β-OH value.
Regarding claim 6, Nakane discloses containing, in terms of % by mass, 2 to 4% ZrO2 (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 2.2 mass% ZrO2) and 0 to 1.24% SnO2 (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0.2 mass% SnO2).
Regarding claim 7, Nakane discloses containing, in terms of % by mass, 0.42 to 5% P2O5 (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.4 mass% P2O5).
Regarding claim 8, Nakane discloses having a coefficient of thermal expansion of -15 to 15 x 10-7/°C at 30 to 750°C (See Nakane at Table 3, Example 13, disclosing an example of a glass comprising a thermal expansion coefficient of 12 x 10-7).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakane in view of Dondi as evidenced by Drennan et al. (Drennan, J., and B. C. H. Steele. "Zirconia and hafnia." Concise encyclopedia of advanced ceramic materials. Pergamon, 1991. 525-528.).
Regarding claim 2, while Nakane does not explicitly disclose more than 0% HfO2, Nakane at Example 13 does disclose 2.2 mass% ZrO2. Examiner notes that ZrO2 inherently contains 1.5-3.0 wt.% HfO2 as evidenced by the seventh paragraph of page 526 of Drennan. As such, Nakane would inherently possess the claimed amount of hafnia. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At the first full paragraph of page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Nakane discloses a glass that is transparent and has high transmittance, then at the next paragraph argues that Dondi is directed towards blue shades excellent for porcelain stoneware bodies for wall and floor tiles, and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the arts would not be motivated to combine Nakane with Dondi because Nakane desires transparency while the floor tiles of Dondi are not transparent.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nakane is directed towards a crystallized glass (see Nakane at the Abstract), which is another term for a glass ceramic. Dondi is directed towards pigments in ceramic glazes and glassy coatings (see Dondi at the text below Fig. 8). Examiner notes the two technologies are compatible, and that a person having ordinary skill in the arts would naturally appreciate that the pigment in the ceramic glazes and glassy coatings of Dondi can be readily applied to the glass ceramics of Nakane. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (see MPEP 2141.03(I)).
Examiner further notes that a person having ordinary skill in the arts practicing the invention of Nakane would find it obvious to apply the pigment of Dondi. Dondi is directed towards a MoO3 based grayish-blue coloration (See Dondi at the first paragraph of the conclusion). Nakane is directed towards a material for a front window for a kerosene stove, a wood stove, or the like, a substrate for a high-tech product such as a substrate for a color filter or an image sensor, a setter for baking an electronic part, a tray for a microwave oven, a top plate for induction heating cooking, a window glass for a fire prevention door, or the like (see Nakane at [0002]). Nakane conceives of situations where priority is put on coloring rather than high transparency (see Nakane at [0059]). Nakane teaches a method of suppressing the coloring of a transparent crystallized glass, there is known a method involving adding a colorant having a relationship of a complementary color with the coloring caused by Fe2O3, TiO2, or the like, thereby fading the coloring. It has been conventionally known that Nd2O3 is particularly effective for fading colors of the Li2O—Al2O3—SiO2-based crystallized glass (see Nakane at [0007]). Nakane further teaches Nd2O3 is one of the rare earths, which leads to increased material costs (see Nakane at [0059]). As such, a person having ordinary skill in the arts practicing the invention of Nakane would naturally be motivated to apply other blueish pigments which are not rare earths like Nd2O3 in order to counteract the yellowish tint of Fe2O3 and TiO2 with a lower cost.
Examiner notes MoO3 is not a rare earth, and is blue, and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the arts would naturally be motivated to apply the teachings of Dondi to Nakane. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
