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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakane et al. (US20130130887, hereinafter referred to as Nakane).
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).
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. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakane 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, hereinafter referred to as Drennan).
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).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 3, 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights