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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 05/09/2024. Currently claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102 as being anticipated over Bowden et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0152170 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Bowden”.
Regarding claim 1, Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet comprising, as a glass composition, in mo!%, from 69% to 76% of SiO2 , from 12% to 15% of Al2O3, from 0% to 2% of B2O3 , from 0% to 0.5% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, from 2% to 10% of MgO, from 2% to 12% of CaO, more than 0% to 5% of SrO, more than 0% to 5% of BaO, and from 12% to 18% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, wherein a mo] % ratio Al2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) is from 0.5 to 1.5, and a mo! % ratio SrO/BaO is from 0.3 to 1.6; by teaching in Sample 71 (Table 1), an alkali-free glass sheet having a composition of SiO2 70.41%, Al2O3 13.29%, B2O3 1.3%, MgO 3.45%, CaO 6.31%, SrO 2.02%, BaO 3.12%, thereby MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO = 14.9%, and Al2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) = 0.89, and SrO/BaO = 0.65, and the limitation of Li2O+Na2O+K2O includes 0.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 applies here. Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1), wherein the composition comprising SnO2 from 0.001 to 1 mol%; by teaching aSnO2 at 0.07%. Additionally, the glass composition does not substantially contain As2O3 and Sb2O3.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 applies here. Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1), wherein a Young's modulus is 83.8 GPa.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 applies here. Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1), wherein a liquidus viscosity is 10 4.2 dPa·s or more; by teaching a Liquidus viscosity of 75,283 poises.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 2-5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Bowden et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0152170 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet comprising, comprising, as a glass composition, in mo! %, from 70% to 7 5% of SiO2, from 13% to 14% of Al2O3, from 0% to 0.1% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, from 2% to 9% of MgO, from 2% to 11% of CaO, more than 0% to 4% of SrO, more than 0% to 4% of Ba 0, and from 13% to 17% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, wherein the mo! % ratio Al2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) is from 0.8 to 1.2, and the mo!% ratio SrO/BaO is from 0.6 to 1.5; by teaching in Sample 71 (Table 1), an alkali-free glass sheet having a composition of SiO2 70.41%, Al2O3 13.29%, MgO 3.45%, CaO 6.31%, SrO 2.02%, BaO 3.12%, thereby MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO = 14.9%, and Al2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) = 0.89, and SrO/BaO = 0.65, and the limitation of Li2O+Na2O+K2O includes 0. But Sample 71 fails to explicitly teach composition comprising from 0% to 1% of B2O3. However, sample 316 teaches a composition comprising of B2O3 0.95%. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the property of the alkali-free glass will depend on the composition of the ingredients. Therefore, the composition of the ingredients would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining that the mixture would comprises of from 0% to 1% of B2O3; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 3, Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet comprising, as a glass composition, in mol %, from 69% to 76% of SiO2 , from 12.6% to 15% of Al2O3, from 0% to 0.5% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, from 2% to 10% of MgO, from 2% to 12% of CaO, more than 0% to 5% of SrO, more than 0% to 5% of BaO, from 0% to 0.2% of ZnO, and from 12% to 18% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, wherein the mol % ratio Al2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) is from 0.5 to 1.5, the mol% ratio SrO/BaO is from 0.6 to 1.6, and MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO-Al2O3 is from -1.5% to 4%; by teaching in Sample 71 (Table 1), an alkali-free glass sheet having a composition of SiO2 70.41%, Al2O3 13.29%, MgO 3.45%, CaO 6.31%, SrO 2.02%, BaO 3.12%, thereby MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO = 14.9%, and Al2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) = 0.89, and SrO/BaO = 0.65, MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO-Al2O3 = 1.61, and the limitation of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, and ZnO includes 0. But Sample 71 fails to explicitly teach composition comprising from 0% to 1% of B2O3. However, sample 316 teaches a composition comprising of B2O3 0.95%. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the property of the alkali-free glass will depend on the composition of the ingredients. Therefore, the composition of the ingredients would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining that the mixture would comprises of from 0% to 1% of B2O3; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 4, Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet comprising, as a glass composition, in mol %, from 70% to 76% of SiO2, from 13% to 15% of Al2O3, from 0% to 0.5% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, from 2% to 10% of MgO, from 2% to 12% of CaO, more than 0% to 5% of SrO, more than 0% to 5% of BaO, from 0% to 0.2% of ZnO, and from 12% to 18% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, wherein the mol % ratio Al2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) is from 0.5 to 1.5, the mol% ratio SrO/BaO is from 0.6 to 1.6, and MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO- Al2O3 is from -1.5% to 4%; by teaching in Sample 1 (Table 1), an alkali-free glass sheet having a composition of SiO2 70.41%, Al2O3 13.29%, MgO 3.45%, CaO 6.31%, SrO 2.02%, BaO 3.12%, thereby MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO = 14.9%, and Al2O3/(MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO) = 0.89, and SrO/BaO = 0.65, MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO-Al2O3 = 1.61, and the limitation of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, and ZnO includes 0. But Sample 71 fails to explicitly teach composition comprising from 0% to 1% of B2O3. However, sample 316 teaches a composition comprising of B2O3 0.95%. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the property of the alkali-free glass will depend on the composition of the ingredients. Therefore, the composition of the ingredients would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining that the mixture would comprises of from 0% to 1% of B2O3; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 applies here. Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1). But Sample 71 fails to explicitly teach composition comprising from 0% to 1% of B2O3. However, sample 316 teaches a composition comprising of BaO 2.43%. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the property of the alkali-free glass will depend on the composition of the ingredients. Therefore, the composition of the ingredients would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining that the mixture would comprises of from 1.5% to 2.5% of BaO; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 applies here. Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1). But Bowden does not explicitly mention the average thermal expansion coefficient of the alkali-free glass sheets in the temperature range of 30-380°C. However, the thermal expansion coefficient of glass is a physical property associated with the composition of the glass, and the alkali-free glass sheets according to Bowden conform to the compositions specified in claim 1, of the instant application; thus, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the average thermal expansion coefficients of the alkali-free glass sheets according to the Bowden in the temperature range of 30-380°C would be similar to that in the instant application claims. Accordingly, it would be obvious to any ordinary artisan that the claimed average thermal expansion coefficient of the alkali-free glass sheets property would be same as that of Bowden, or could easily have been arrived at by a person skilled in the art in the light of the teaching of Bowden.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 applies here. Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1). But Sample 71 fails to explicitly teach that the composition having an annealing point is 810° C. or higher. However, sample 316 teaches a composition having an annealing point 813.7 °C. It would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the property of the alkali-free glass will depend on the composition of the ingredients used and would be optimized to get desired property of the alkali-free glass. Therefore, obtaining that the composition having an annealing point is 810° or higher; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 7-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Bowden et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0152170 A1), in view of Ellison et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0296157 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Ellison”.
Regarding claims 7-8, Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1). Bowden also teaches that the Young’s modulus is 82 GPa or more, by teaching the alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1), wherein a Young's modulus is 83.8 GPa. Bowden further teaches that liquidus temperature is 1370 °C or lower; by teaching that the liquidus temperature is 1260 °C. But Bowden fails to explicitly teach that the strain point is 740 °C or higher (as claimed in claim 7), and 750 °C or higher (as claimed in claim 8). However, Ellison teaches an alkali-free glass that conforms to the composition and also has a specific modulus of 32.7 GPa.cm3/g and a density of 2.586 g/cm3 (example 65), and indicates that said glass is used as a substrate in a flat panel display device such as an active-matrix liquid crystal display or an active-matrix organic light-emitting diode display (claim 1, para. [0002]-[0003], [0009], [0030], and [0051]-[0053], tables 2-6 and 2-11, and examples 33 and 65). Given that [the specific modulus] = [the Young's modulus]/ [the density] and Ellison teaches a specific modulus of 32.7 GPa.cm3/g and a density of 2.586 g/cm3, the Young's modulus can be calculated to be 84.56 GPa. Such being the case, the Young's modulus of Ellison conforms to the "Young's modulus of 82 GPa or greater”. Consequently, there is no difference between the invention-defining features of the instant claims and those of Ellison. Furthermore, Ellison teaches a strain point of 767 °C. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ellison, and easily have conceived of adopting similar properties by optimizing the process, such as a strain point of 740 °C or higher (as claimed in claim 7), and a strain point of 750 °C or higher (as claimed in claim 8), as taught by Ellison. Accordingly, a person skilled in the art could easily have arrived at the claimed invention, in light of Ellison teaching.
Regarding claim 13, Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1). But Bowden fails to explicitly teach that the alkali-free glass sheets are used in an organic electroluminescent device. However, Ellison teaches a glass composition having high thermal and chemical stability, relating to alkali-free glass or low alkali glass having high heat resistance and high thermal stability, such glass is known to be suitable for use as a substrate in active matrix liquid crystal displays, organic electroluminescent displays, and the like ((para [0002]-[0003] and [0008]-[0009]). Ellison teaches compounds, compositions, articles, devices, and methods, as embodied and broadly describes alkali-free, boro-alumino silicate glasses exhibiting desirable physical and chemical properties for use as substrates in flat panel display devices, such as, active-matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs) and active-matrix organic light emitting diode displays (AMOLEDs) (para. [0006]). Additionally, Bowden teaches to provide alkali-free glass that has a high annealing point and superior dimensional stability, and is suitable for use in an active matrix liquid crystal display or the like (see paragraphs [0002], [0012], and [0038]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ellison, and easily have conceived of adopting the above mentioned known technical matter as the use for the alkali-free glass sheets according to Bowden, and use said alkali-free glass sheets as a substrate in an organic electroluminescent display as an alternative to an active-matrix liquid crystal display as taught by Ellison. Accordingly, a person skilled in the art could easily have arrived at the claimed invention, in the light of the Bowden, in view of Ellison teaching.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Bowden et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0152170 A1), in view of Nakashima (US Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0141668 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Nakashima”.
Regarding claim 14, Bowden teaches an alkali-free glass sheet in sample 71 (Table 1). But Bowden fails to explicitly teach that the alkali-free glass sheets are used in a magnetic recording medium. However, Nakashima teaches an alkali-free glass or low-alkali glass having high heat resistance and high thermal stability, glass substrates having a high thermal resistance, which is to say a high annealing point, are known to be suitable for use as a substrate in a magnetic recording medium for heat-assisted magnetic recording, perpendicular magnetic recording, or the like (for example, claims 1, 11-12, and 18, and paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0022]-[0023]). Additionally, Bowden teaches to provide alkali-free glass that has a high annealing point and superior dimensional stability (para. [0012] and [0038]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ellison, and easily have conceived of adopting the above mentioned known technical matter as the use for the alkali-free glass sheets according to Bowden, and use said alkali-free glass sheets as a substrate in a magnetic recording medium. Accordingly, a person skilled in the art could easily have arrived at the instant claim 14 in the light of the Bowden, in view of Nakashima teaching.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights