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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 22-36 in the reply filed on 09/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 37-42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 22-36 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “a total amount of up from 10.0 to 40.0% by weight” because the language “up from” is unclear. It is not clear if the value must be up to 10% from up to 40%, or if instead this means from 10%-40% and the “up from” language is a typographical error. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as meaning 10%-40% and the “up from” language is a typographical error unless otherwise clarified by Applicant during the course of prosecution.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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) 22 and 25-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikenishi et al. (US20050244656, hereinafter referred to as Ikenishi).
Regarding claim 22, Ikenishi discloses a glass (see Ikenishi at the Abstract, disclosing a glass), comprising: SiO2 (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass comprising SiO2); Al2O3 and/or B2O3 in a total amount of 5.0 to 25.0% by weight (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass comprising 7.7 wt.% Al2O3 and 0% B2O3); ZrO2 and/or Y2O3 in a total amount of at least 3.0% by weight (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass comprising 7.5 wt.% ZrO2 and 0% Y2O3); and a total amount of up from 10.0 to 40.0% by weight of one or more oxides selected from ZnO, Li2O, Na2O, K2O, MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass comprising 11.9 wt.% CaO).
Regarding claim 25, Ikenishi discloses SiO2 in an amount of at least 50.0% by weight and/or K2O in an amount of less than 3.0% by weight (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass comprising 58.5 wt.% SiO2).
Regarding claim 26, while Ikenishi does not explicitly disclose the glass has a compressive stress susceptibility defined as a CSS30µm score of at least 800 MPa, because Ikenishi does not disclose the CSS30µm, the CSS30µm score of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0125] of the PGPub, which states glasses of this disclosure exhibit remarkable compressive stress susceptibility in MPa relative to the total content of alkali metal oxides R2O and alkali earth metal oxides R′O in weight percent. Prior art glasses need very high amounts of alkali metal oxides or alkali earth metal oxides in order to achieve compressive stress during ion exchange. To the contrary, the compositions described herein build high compressive stress even with moderate proportions of alkali metals and alkali earth metals. Because the glass of Ikenishi has a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Ikenishi would inherently possess the claimed property. 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).
Regarding claim 27, Ikenishi discloses the amount of ZrO2 is at least 6.8% by weight (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass comprising 7.5 wt.% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 28, Ikenishi discloses a ratio of the amount of ZrO2 to the amount of Al2O3 in percent by weight is at least 0.30 (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass comprising 7.5 wt.% ZrO2 and 7.7 wt.% Al2O3 which provides a ratio of ZrO2:Al2O3 of 0.97).
Regarding claim 29, while Ikenishi does not explicitly disclose the glass has a 1000 MPa IOX-time of less than 60 minutes because Ikenishi does not disclose the 1000 MPa IOX time, the 1000 MPa IOX-time is a function of the CSS30µm property as detailed by the instant PGPub at [0117]-[0118] which states the glass of this disclosure has a CSS30μm ... another way of expressing the remarkable property of this glass to accept compressive stress is the 1000 MPa IOX-time. Because the CSS30μm is a function of the composition as detailed in the rejection of claim 26 above, the 1000 MPa IOX-time is also a function of the composition. Because the glass of Ikenishi has a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Ikenishi would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 30, Ikenishi discloses the glass has a glass transition temperature Tg of at least 590°C (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a transition temperature Tg of 608 °C.).
Regarding claim 31, while Ikenishi does not explicitly disclose the glass has a steepness of its temperature- viscosity curve characterized by a difference between a temperature T4 and a temperature T76 of from 250 to 400 K, wherein the temperature T4 is a temperature at which the glass has a viscosity of 104 dPas and the temperature T76 is a temperature at which the glass has a viscosity of 1076 dPas because the temperature dependent viscosity of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass. Because the glass of Ikenishi has a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Ikenishi would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 32, while Ikenishi does not explicitly disclose the glass has a diffusivity of at least 10 µm2/h, the diffusivity of a glass is a measurement that describes the speed at which a glass can receive a compressive stress layer as detailed by Ikenishi at [0119] of the instant PGPub. This is similar to the 100 MPa IOX-time, which is a function of the CSS30µm, both of which depended upon the composition as detailed by the rejections above. As such, the instantly claimed property is a function of the composition. Because the glass of Ikenishi has a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed by the rejections herein, the glass of Ikenishi would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 33, Ikenishi discloses the glass has a sum of the amounts of alkali earth metal oxides and ZnO of not more than 15.0% by weight (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass having a ZnO content of 0%).
Regarding claim 34, Ikenishi discloses the glass comprises alkali metal oxides and wherein Li2O is not the most abundant of the alkali metal oxides (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass having a Na2O content of 5.6 wt.% and a Li2O content of 1.8 wt.%).
Regarding claim 35, Ikenishi discloses the amount of ZrO2 is at least 4.5% by weight (see Ikenishi at Table 3, Example No. 13, disclosing a glass comprising 7.5 wt.% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 36, while Ikenishi does not explicitly disclose a crystal growth rate of the glass is at most 0.5 µm/min at a viscosity of 105 dPas, when the glass is thermally treated for 16 hours in a gradient furnace with increasing temperature regimen, the crystal growth rate of a glass is a function of the composition of a glass is a function of the devitrification resistance as detailed by the instant specification at [0129] of the PGPub. The devitrification resistance is a function of the composition as detailed by the instant PGPub at [0083] which states MgO may be advantageous with respect to devitrification resistance, as well as by Ikenishi at [0064] which states CaO improves the glass in devitrification resistance and [0070] which states when TiO2 is introduced to excess, however, the glass is degraded in devitrification resistance. Because the composition of Ikenishi is substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed by the rejections here, the glass of Ikenishi would inherently possess the claimed property.
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) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenishi.
Regarding claim 23, while Example 13 from Table 3 of Ikenishi does not include P2O5 or TiO2, Ikenishi discloses TiO2 is an optional component that effectively improves the glass in chemical durability, rigidity and Young's modulus. When TiO2 is introduced to excess, however, the glass is degraded in devitrification resistance and water resistance, and the specific gravity of the glass is increased. The content of TiO2 is therefore limited to 0 to 10% (see Ikenishi at [0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Table 3, Example 13 of Ikenishi to include 0-10 wt.% TiO2 by superaddition with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a glass with an increased specific gravity, rigidity, and Young's modulus as taught by Ikenishi.
Regarding claim 24, Ikenishi makes obvious the glass has a coefficient of thermal expansion in a temperature range of from 20 to 300°C of less than 10.0*10-6 K-1 (see Ikenishi at [0084], disclosing average linear expansion coefficient is more preferably in the range of 75×10-7/K to 120×10-7/K, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
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
