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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comte in WO2014132122
Regarding Claim 1-2: Comte teaches the creation of lithium aluminosilicate-type (See Paragraph 18-19 and Figure 1) glass-ceramic sheets having a thickness from 4-6 mm. The glass-ceramic sheet of Comte is a plate as claimed as it is a planar sheet of glass that may be used as a cooktop (See Paragraph 3-8, 32-34; See Original Disclosure para 002-004). The glass-ceramic contains SnO2 as a fining agent (See Paragraph 22 and 30) and may contain Fe2O3, V2O5, and Cr2O3 as colorants (See Paragraph 29). Comte teaches that the content of SnO2 may range from 0.2 to 0.3 wt% (See Paragraph 30). Comte teaches that the content of V2O5 may range from 0 to 0.3 wt% (See Paragraph 48), the content of Fe2O3 may range from 0.12 to 0.4 wt% (See Paragraph 50), and the content of Cr2O3 may range from 0.01 to 0.04 wt% (See Paragraph 49). Comte thus teaches an overlapping range of these components. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Comte is silent in terms of an inequality 1000*(2Fe2O3-SnO2)*(V2O5/2) being between 14 and 40 (or 20 to 35; See Claim 2); however, as Comte teaches an overlapping range of each of Fe2O3, SnO2, and V2O-5, the composition of Comte would necessarily also overlap the claimed inequality and would only require those of ordinary skill in the art to select from the overlapping portion of the range that provide such an overlap.
It is additionally noted that the discussed components (Fe, V, Sn, and Cr) are components of a glass that are recognized by the prior art as being included to influence the aesthetic qualities of the glass. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide these components within the ranges taught in the prior art to adjust the colour and transparency of the glass such that an aesthetically pleasing material is produced (See MPEP 2144.04(I)).
Regarding Claim 3 and 12: Comte teaches that the content of V2O5 may range from 0 to 0.3 wt% (See Paragraph 48). Comte thus teaches an overlapping range of V2O5 content. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4: Comte teaches that the content of Fe2O3 may range from 0.12 to 0.4 wt% (See Paragraph 50). Comte thus teaches an overlapping range of Fe2O3 content. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5 and 13: Comte teaches that the content of SnO2 may range from 0.2 to 0.3 wt% (See Paragraph 30). Comte thus teaches an overlapping range of SnO2 content. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6 and 14: Comte teaches that the content of Cr2O3 may range from 0.01 to 0.04 wt% (See Paragraph 49). Comte thus teaches an overlapping range of Cr2O3 content. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 7 and 15: Comte is silent in terms of the inequality Fe2O3/(V2O5*SnO2) ranging from 7 to 15 (or 8 to 15; See Claim 15), exclusive. However, Comte teaches an overlapping content of Fe2O3, V2O5, and SnO2. As Comte teaches an overlapping range of each of the values within the formula, the result of the inequality would necessarily overlap over the range of compositions taught by Comte. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8 and 16: Comte teaches that the glass-ceramic composition comprises in weight%: 60-72% SiO2, 18-23%Al2O3, 2.5-4.5% Li2O, 1.5-4% TiO2, 0-3% ZnO, 0-3% MgO, and 0-2.5% ZrO2. All other components may be 0 wt% (other than the coloring components discussed above; See Paragraph 27). Comte thus teaches an overlapping range of glass compositions. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9: Comte teaches that the plate (sheet) of glass-ceramic may be used to form an article such as a cooktop (See Paragraphs 3-8). The glass sheet formed is also considered an article.
Regarding Claim 10: Comte teaches the creation of lithium aluminosilicate-type (See Paragraph 18-19 and Figure 1) glass-ceramic sheets having a thickness from 4-6 mm. Prior to crystallization this glass-ceramic is a glass plate as claimed (See Paragraph 23 and 27). The glass sheet of Comte is a plate as claimed as it is a planar piece of glass that may be used as a cooktop (See Paragraph 3-8, 32-34). The glass contains SnO2 as a fining agent (See Paragraph 22 and 30) and may contain Fe2O3, V2O5, and Cr2O3 as colorants (See Paragraph 29). Comte teaches that the content of SnO2 may range from 0.2 to 0.3 wt% (See Paragraph 30). Comte teaches that the content of V2O5 may range from 0 to 0.3 wt% (See Paragraph 48), the content of Fe2O3 may range from 0.12 to 0.4 wt% (See Paragraph 50), and the content of Cr2O3 may range from 0.01 to 0.04 wt% (See Paragraph 49). Comte thus teaches an overlapping range of these components. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Comte is silent in terms of an inequality 1000*(2Fe2O3-SnO2)*(V2O5/2) being between 14 and 40 (or 20 to 35; See Claim 2); however, as Comte teaches an overlapping range of each of Fe2O3, SnO2, and V2O-5, the composition of Comte would necessarily also overlap the claimed inequality and would only require those of ordinary skill in the art to select from the overlapping portion of the range that provide such an overlap.
It is additionally noted that the discussed components (Fe, V, Sn, and Cr) are components of a glass that are recognized by the prior art as being included to influence the aesthetic qualities of the glass. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide these components within the ranges taught in the prior art to adjust the colour and transparency of the glass such that an aesthetically pleasing glass is produced (See MPEP 2144.04(I)).
Regarding Claim 11: Comte teaches a method for manufacturing the glass ceramic plate discussed above in terms of claim 1. Comte teaches that a glass of the target composition (and containing an overlapping range of SnO2, V2O5, Fe2O3, Cr2O3 as is discussed above in terms of claims 1 and 10) is formed from raw materials (See Paragraph 32). This glass goes through a ceramization (cerammed) in a furnace to create the glass-ceramic plate as claimed (See Paragraph 33).
Regarding Claim 17: Comte teaches that the content of SnO2 may range from 0.2 to 0.3 wt% (See Paragraph 30). Comte teaches that the content of V2O5 may range from 0 to 0.3 wt% (See Paragraph 48), the content of Fe2O3 may range from 0.12 to 0.4 wt% (See Paragraph 50), and the content of Cr2O3 may range from 0.01 to 0.04 wt% (See Paragraph 49). Comte teaches an amount of each of these components that overlaps the range that is instantly claimed.
Comte is silent in terms of the inequality Fe2O3/(V2O5*SnO2) ranging from 8 to 15, exclusive; however, Comte teaches an overlapping content of Fe2O3, V2O5, and SnO2. As Comte teaches an overlapping range of each of the values within the formula, the result of the inequality would necessarily overlap over the range of compositions taught by Comte. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20140141959- Comp Ex D inequality is equal to 45.156. 20140141227- comp Ex C SnO2 content is 0.35. It is noted that both of these examples are comparative. ‘959 and ‘227 are noted as teaching similar glasses and show a variety of Cr, V, Sn, and Fe contents and all teach the function and interaction between these components. ‘227 teaches the claimed second inequality (See Para 34) and teaches examples falling within the first inequality (See Examples). 20140238971 is also noted as providing teachings similar to ‘122 above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights