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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 16, 18-19, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bookbinder (US 20160023944).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Bookbinder discloses an article comprising a glass, the glass comprising:
a first surface and a second surface;
a compression region extending from the first surface and/or the second surface to a depth of compression [0020]-[0021], wherein
the compression region is under a compressive stress and includes a surface compression region and an internal compression region between the surface compression region and the internal compression region and having a compressive stress profile different than the surface compression region (claim 27)
the compression region is under a compressive stress of at least 400MPa (having a compressive stress profile different than the surface compression region (Fig 2-3)
an internal compression region between the surface compression region and the internal compression region and having a compressive stress profile different than the surface compression region [0021]; and
a central region under a central tension, CT, wherein the central region extends inward from the DOC [0025]-[0027]
the compressive stress measured at the first surface, the second surface, or both is greater than or equal to 400 megapascals (claim 29-which depends from claim 23 and includes all limitations of claim 23),
the DOC, or Depth of Layer is 40 microns (claim 30-which depends from claim 23 and includes all limitations of claim 23) which overlaps the claimed limitation of is at least 30 micrometers (30 pm); (Claim 30) of Bookbinder is considered to anticipate the claimed invention given the broadest reasonable interpretation,
the central tension of CT1 according to equation (1) [0058] and thickness of 1.33 mm (claims 23, 29-30), Compressive stress of 400MPa and Depth of Layer of .04 mm yields a
A CT1 of 12.8 MPa which is sufficiently anticipating the claim language of is less than 13 MPa MPEP 2131.03: Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”.
the central tension is less than a threshold central tension above which a stored elastic energy in the central region is sufficient to cause flaws extending into the central region to self-propagate through a thickness of the glass from the first surface to the second surface and laterally through the glass [0021].
Regarding claim 19, the central tension is less than the threshold central tension below which the flaws extending into the central region do not experience self-propagation of the flaw through the thickness of the glass and laterally through the glass.
[0021] states the glass article has compressive stress and central tension where flaws will not propagate through the glass
“[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” 1.¢., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” /n re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Regarding claims 25-26, Bookbinder indicates a glass container [0024] thus capable to hold a pharmaceutical product, a vaccine, a biologic, a foodstuff, or a solution, or be considered a pharmaceutical container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 20-24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bookbinder (US 20160023944).
Regarding claim 20, the compressive stress is at least 400 MPa (claim 29) thus overlapping the claimed range of from 400 MPa to 750 MPa.
MPEP 2144.04 states: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 21, Bookbinder discloses the DOC is at least about 40 microns thus overlapping from 30 pm to 50 pm.
MPEP 2144.04 states: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claims 22-24, Bookbinder discloses the thickness may be .05-4mm [0021] and depth of layers may be 50-100 microns or .05-.1mm [0027] thus overlapping the claimed range of DOC is from 15% to 25% of the thickness and the thickness is less than or equal to 6 mm or the thickness is from 0.3 mm to 2.0 mm.
Regarding claim 27, Bookbinder an average slope of the compressive stress as a function of depth in the glass in the surface region is greater than an average slope of the compressive stress as a function of depth in the glass in the interior compression region (Fig 9) claim 32.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bookbinder recites a disclosure of 1.3mm in [0050] and the thickness 1.33 is in the independent claim 23. Dependent claims 29-30 are cited and include all the limitations of the claims from which they depend from, including claim 23 thus cited to a skilled artisan. As explained more in MPEP 2123 Patents are relevant for all they contain. Applicant’s reference to US 9359251 is not relevant because it is not the prior art relied upon in the office action of 10/17/2025.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant has not argued unexpected results or pointed out novelty.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm.
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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights