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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the International Application PCT/JP2022/0042388. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 22 October 2024.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 7 December 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 21 June 2024, 2 January 2026, 27 February 2026, 28 May 2026, and 3 June 2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph
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.
Claim 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “the glass fiber according to claim 1, wherein when a glass corresponding to a specific gravity crushed and classified to a particle size of from 300 µm to 500 µm” this renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear what is meant by “a glass corresponding to a specific gravity”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xing et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 104261686 A.
A machine-generated translation of CN 104261686 A accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Xing et al. disclose glass fiber comprising in terms of weight percentages, 59-63% of SiO2, 14.5-16.5% of ZrO2, 4-5.5% of CaO, 14.9-17.0% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-1% of Fe2O3, 0-0.5% of TiO2, 0.1-1.4% of K2O, 0.1-1% of Li2O, 0.1-1.5% of HfO2, 0-1% of MgO, 0.02-0.2% of CeO2, and 0-2% of Al2O3. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0016]-[0025]. Xing et al. disclose that the glass is a fiber. See paragraphs [0004] and [0027]. Xing et al. disclose that the difference between the forming temperature and the liquidus temperature is at least 50 °C. See paragraph [0014]. Xing et al. disclose that the glass is made into fibers by mixing materials, melting the raw materials, and drawing the molten glass into fibers. See paragraphs [0007] and [0053]-[0055]. The compositional ranges of Xing et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass fiber and the glass composition as recited in claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-16. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-11 (see Tables 1-3), which reads on a glass fiber comprising in mass% in terms of oxide, from 50% to 70% of SiO2, from 10% to 20% of Na2O, from 0% to 5.5% of TiO2, and from 10% to 30% of ZrO2, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 3, Xing et al. disclose Examples 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 (see Tables 1-3), which reads on a glass fiber comprising, as a glass composition, in mass% in terms of oxide, from 0.001% to 1% of HfO2, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Xing et al. disclose Examples 2, 3, and 9 (see Tables 1-3), which reads on a glass composition, in mass% in terms of oxide, from 57.1% to 64.8% of SiO2, from 0% to 0.3% of Al2O3, from 1.71% to 10% of CaO, from 12% to 20% of Na2O, from 0% to 6% of K20, from 0% to 5% of TiO2, and from 15.1% to 18.5% of ZrO2, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 6, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-11 (see Tables 1-3), which reads on a glass composition, Na20/ZrO2 is from 0.4 to 1.3 in mass ratio in terms of oxide, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-11 (see Tables 1-3), which reads on a glass composition, K20/CaO is 15 or less in mass ratio in terms of oxide, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-11 (see Tables 1-3)), which reads on a glass composition, K20/ZrO2 is 0.5 or less in mass ratio in terms of oxide, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-11 (see Tables 1-3)), which reads on a glass composition, (Na20+K20)/(CaO+MgO) is 1.5 or more in mass ratio in terms of oxide, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-3 and 9 (see Tables 1-3)), which reads on a glass composition, (Na20+K20+CaO)/Al203 is 80 or more in mass ratio in terms of oxide, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-11 (see Tables 1-3)), which reads on a glass composition having a spinning temperature Tx is 1350 °C or lower, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-4 and 6-11 (see Tables 1-3)), which reads on a glass composition having a difference between the spinning temperature and a liquidus temperature of at least 15 °C, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 13, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-4 and 6-11 (see Tables 1-3)), which reads on a glass composition having a liquidus temperature of 1250°C or lower, as recited in instant claim 13.
As to claim 14, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Xing et al. would inherently possess a glass corresponding to a specific gravity crushed and classified to a particle size of from 300 pm to 500 pm is immersed in 100 ml of a 10 mass% NaOH aqueous solution at 80°C for 168 hours, a mass loss rate of the glass is less than 4.5%, as recited in claim 14. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 15, Xing et al. disclose that the glass is made into fibers by mixing materials, melting the raw materials, and drawing the molten glass into fibers (see paragraphs [0007] and [0053]-[0055]), which reads on a glass fiber manufacturing method comprising: melting a mixed raw material batch in a glass melting furnace, continuously drawing the obtained molten glass out of a bushing, and forming the drawn-out glass into a fiber shape, to obtain the glass fiber, as recited in claim 15.
As to claim 16, Xing et al. disclose Examples 1-11 (see Tables 1-3), which reads on a glass comprising in mass% in terms of oxide, from 50% to 70% of SiO2, from 10% to 20% of Na2O, from 0% to 5.5% of TiO2, and from 10% to 30% of ZrO2, as recited in claim 16.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 104261686 A in view of Nishida et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2015/0266769 A1.
A machine-generated translation of CN 104261686 A accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Xing et al. teach glass fiber comprising in terms of weight percentages, 59-63% of SiO2, 14.5-16.5% of ZrO2, 4-5.5% of CaO, 14.9-17.0% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-1% of Fe2O3, 0-0.5% of TiO2, 0.1-1.4% of K2O, 0.1-1% of Li2O, 0.1-1.5% of HfO2, 0-1% of MgO, 0.02-0.2% of CeO2, and 0-2% of Al2O3. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0016]-[0025]. Xing et al. teach that the glass is a fiber. See paragraphs [0004] and [0027]. Xing et al. teach that the difference between the forming temperature and the liquidus temperature is at least 50 °C. See paragraph [0014]. Xing et al. teach that the glass is made into fibers by mixing materials, melting the raw materials, and drawing the molten glass into fibers. See paragraphs [0007] and [0053]-[0055].
Xing et al. fail to teach that the glass fiber composition comprises Y2O3..
Nishida et al. teach a similar glass fiber composition comprising 50-65% of SiO2, 0-5% of Al2O3, 0-10% of CaO, 0-5% of Li2O, 10-20% of Na2O, 0-5% of K2O, 5-10% of TiO2, 10-20% of ZrO2, and 0-2% of B2O3, MgO, SrO, BaO, ZnO, Fe2O3, P2O5, Cr2O3, Sb2O3, SO3, MnO, SnO2, CeO2, Cl2, La2O3, WO3, Nb2O5, and Y2O3. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically paragraphs [0028]-[0039]. Nishida et al. teach that the glass fibers has a drawing temperature of at most 1280 °C and a difference between the drawing temperature and the liquidus temperature of at least 80 °C. See paragraphs [0043]-[0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an glass fiber composition of Xing et al. as suggested by Nishida et al. because the resultant glass fiber would have the superior alkali resistance, acid resistance, hydrolytic resistance properties as suggested by Nishida et al. See paragraph [0039] of Nishida et al.
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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 R. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
25 July 2026
Prosecution Insights