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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1 and 4-15 in the reply filed on 10/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant argues Examiner has not adequately demonstrated the inventive groups have an intermediate/final product relationship. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons stated in the restriction requirement filed 08/03/2026. Applicant argues there is no evidence of the record showing the products can be used as a refractive brick. Examiner notes this is not the appropriate standard, and the analysis is not limited to “evidence of the record”. Any crystallized glass may be used as a refractory brick. Applicant argues “the Office has not even attempted to assert that … the products do not overlap in scope and are not capable of use together or have materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes per the restriction requirement filed 08/03/2026, the appropriate assertion has been made by stating that the inventions are patentably distinct per MPEP 806.05(j). This statement and citation meets the burden, and the intermediate/final product analysis is appropriate. Applicant argues a search of all inventions would not be a serious burden on the Office. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons outlined in the restriction requirement filed 08/03/2026. Applicant argues there is no “evidence of the record” to show the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, such as a process of holding the amorphous glass at 790°C for 0.4 hours. Examiner notes this is not the appropriate standard, and the analysis is not limited to “evidence of the record”. The crystallized glass can be made with any holding time sufficient to form a melt, and at any temperature sufficient to melt the glass, such as those noted in the restriction requirement filed 08/03/2026. As such, none of Applicant’s arguments are convincing.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-3 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/03/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the equation of claim 1 is blurry and illegible. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites “R2O”, however, claim 1 does not define R2O. The instant specification at [0056] provides examples of R2O, stating “examples of R2O include Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O, and Cs2O.” Examiner notes this is not a clear definition, and merely provides examples. Examiner notes R2O of claim 1 is unclear without a definition.
Examiner notes the equation of claim 1 appears to recite “ΔDk = (relative dielectric constant at 10 GHz and 60 °C) - (relative dielectric constant at 10 GHz and -20 °C) / (relative dielectric constant at 10 GHz and 20 °C) x (60 °C - (-20°C))”. Examiner notes this equation is unclear. Is “(60 °C - (-20°C))” meant to mean 60+20 or put another way 80? This is unclear.
Claim 4 recites “RO”, yet does not define RO. [0050] of the instant PGPub states “RO refers to any one or more selected from MgO, CaO, SrO, and BaO”, however, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. RO of claim 4 is indefinite without a clear definition.
Claim 8 recites “and comprises at least one crystal of an indialite crystal and a cordierite crystal.” It is unclear if this limitation means the crystallized glass must require both of indalite and cordierite, or either one of indalite and cordierite.
Claim 10 recites “and comprises at least one crystal of a celsian crystal and a hexa-celsian crystal.” It is unclear if this requirement means the crystallized glass must require both of celsian and hexa-celsian, or either one of celsian and hexa-celsian.
All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
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, 4-7, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (US20200123046, hereinafter referred to as Dejneka).
Regarding claim 1, Dejneka makes obvious a crystallized glass (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing glass-ceramics and glasses that are crystallizable to glass-ceramics.), and having a total content of an alkali metal oxide R2O of 3.0% or less in terms of molar percentage based on oxides (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing R2O in the range from about 0 to about 33 in mole %, 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).
While Dejneka does not explicitly disclose a value calculated according to the following equation (A) of -50 ppm (/°C) to 50 ppm (/°C) when a rate of change ΔDk (/°C) in a relative dielectric constant at 10 GHz due to a temperature is expressed by the following equation (A), the ΔDk is a function of the TiO2 content and rutile content as detailed by the instant specification at [0212], which states an appropriate content of TiO2 and were subjected to an appropriate heat treatment, and thus have a good ΔDk. The instant specification at [0213] also details the ΔDk can be controlled by precipitating the rutile crystal in the glass. The instant specification details the rutile content of 0.5 mass% or more and 10 mass % or less (see the instant specification at [0039]-[0040]). The instant specification further details [0013] 3.5 to 10 molar % of TiO2. Dejneka at [0056] discloses the TiO2 content of some embodiments is in the range from about 1 mol % to about 12 mol %, which overlaps with the range of the instant specification. Dejneka at [0071] discloses less than about 10 wt.% rutile, which overlaps with the range of the instant specification. Therefore, the crystallized glass of Dejneka would inherently possess the claimed ΔDk property.
Regarding claim 4, Dejneka makes obvious comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on oxides:50% to 80% of SiO2 (see Dejneka at [0044], disclosing SiO2 in the range from about 50 to about 75.); 0.5% to 14% of Al2O3 (see Dejneka at [0046], disclosing Al2O3 from 4 to about 25, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 7% to 35% of B2O3 (see Dejneka at [0062], disclosing B2O3 in the range from about 0 to about 12, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 3.5% to 10% of TiO2 (see Dejneka at [0056], disclosing TiO2 from about 1 mol % to about 12 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0% to 10% of MgO (see Dejneka at [0059], disclosing MgO in the range from about 0 to about 8 mole %); 0% to 8% of CaO (Dejneka does not disclose CaO, which corresponds to 0% CaO); and 0% to 5% of BaO (Dejneka does not disclose BaO, which corresponds to 0% BaO), having a total content of an alkaline earth metal oxide RO of 1% to 20% (Dejneka discloses no CaO, BaO, or SrO, and discloses at [0059], disclosing MgO in the range from about 0 to about 8 mole % which provides an RO range from 0-8 mol%, which overlaps with the claimed range), and comprising 0.5 mass% or more of a rutile TiO2 crystal with respect to the entire crystallized glass (see Dejneka at [0071], disclosing less than about 10 wt.% rutile, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, Dejneka makes obvious 2.0 mass% or more of the rutile TiO2 crystal with respect to the entire crystallized glass (see Dejneka at [0071], disclosing less than about 10 wt.% rutile, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 6, while Dejneka does not explicitly disclose a molar ratio of content represented by Al2O3/B2O3 of 0.1 to 1.4, Dejneka discloses a range of Al2O3 at [0046], disclosing Al2O3 from 4 to about 25, as well as a range of B2O3 at [0062], disclosing B2O3 in the range from about 0 to about 12. Examiner notes this provides a range of Al2O3/B2O3 values which overlap with the claimed range. This overlap can be mathematically demonstrated by selecting a point within the Al2O3 and B2O3 range disclosed by Dejneka and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. For example, the point 4 mol% Al2O3 and 4 mol% B2O3 provides for a ratio of 1, which is within the claimed range. As such, the Al2O3 and B2O3 ranges of Dejneka provide for Al2O3/B2O3 ratios which overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Dejneka makes obvious having the total content of the alkali metal oxide R2O of 0.001% to 3.0% in terms of molar percentage based on oxides (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing R2O in the range from about 0 to about 33 in mole %, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 11, while Dejneka does not explicitly disclose a relative dielectric constant Dk at 10 GHz and 20°C of 8.5 or less, the dielectric constant is a function of the composition and rutile content as discussed in [0039] of the PGPub of the instant specification. Because Dejneka has a composition and a rutile content substantially identical to those of the instant invention as detailed by the rejections herein, the crystallized glass of Dejneka would inherently possess the claimed dielectric constant. 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 12, while Dejneka does not explicitly disclose a dielectric loss tangent Df at 10 GHz and 20°C of 0.01 or less, the dielectric loss is a function of the composition as detailed by the instant specification at [0212] of the PGPub. Because the composition of Dejneka is substantially identical to the composition of the instant crystallized glass, the crystallized glass of Dejneka would inherently possess the claimed dielectric loss.
Regarding claim 13, while Dejneka does not explicitly disclose the crystallized glass comprises two main surfaces facing each other, and at least one of the main surfaces has an arithmetic average roughness Ra of 2 µm or less, Dejneka discloses glass plates (see Dejneka at [0091]), and Examiner notes a glass plate necessarily has two main surfaces facing each other. Dejneka further discloses low surface roughness (see Dejneka at [0090]). Dejneka further discloses samples were polished and had a flat surface (see Dejneka at [0132]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to polish the crystallized glass to within the claimed range as desired with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a low surface roughness crystallized glass as taught by Dejneka.
Regarding claim 14, Dejneka makes obvious a thickness of 0.01 mm to 2 mm (see Dejneka at [0027], disclosing a thickness of about 1.0 mm).
Regarding claim 15, while Dejneka does not explicitly disclose an area of a largest surface of 100 cm2 to 100,000 cm2, it is per se obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the arts to change the size of a glass article as desired. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20200369559.
Examiner notes claims 8-10 are not rejected over the prior art.
Claim 8 is directed towards the crystallized glass according to claim 1, comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on oxides: 51% to 70% of SiO2; 12% to 30% of Al2O3; 0.5% to 10% of P2O5; 15% to 23% of MgO; 0% to 1.5% of CaO; and 6% to 15% of TiO2, wherein the crystallized glass comprises 4.5 mass% or more of a rutile TiO2 crystal with respect to the entire crystallized glass, and comprises at least one crystal of an indialite crystal and a cordierite crystal.
Claim 9 is directed towards the crystallized glass according to claim 8, wherein contents of CaO, SrO, and BaO in terms of molar percentage based on oxides satisfy a relationship CaO > SrO > BaO.
Claim 10 is directed towards the crystallized glass according to claim 1, comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on oxides: 45% to 65% of SiO2; 7.5% to 30% of Al2O3; 0.5% to 15% of P2O5; 13% to 30% of a total content of one or more selected from SrO and BaO; 2.5% to 10% of TiO2; and 0% to 10% of ZrO2, wherein the crystallized glass comprises 2.0 mass% or more of a rutile TiO2 crystal with respect to the entire crystallized glass, and comprises at least one crystal of a celsian crystal and a hexa-celsian crystal.
The closest prior art is Dejneka as detailed above.
Per claim 8, Dejneka does not disclose or make obvious comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on oxides: 51% to 70% of SiO2; 12% to 30% of Al2O3; 0.5% to 10% of P2O5; 15% to 23% of MgO; 0% to 1.5% of CaO; and 6% to 15% of TiO2, wherein the crystallized glass comprises 4.5 mass% or more of a rutile TiO2 crystal with respect to the entire crystallized glass, and comprises at least one crystal of an indialite crystal and a cordierite crystal.
Claim 9 depends upon claim 8.
Per claim 10, Dejneka does not disclose or make obvious comprising, in terms of molar percentage based on oxides: 45% to 65% of SiO2; 7.5% to 30% of Al2O3; 0.5% to 15% of P2O5; 13% to 30% of a total content of one or more selected from SrO and BaO; 2.5% to 10% of TiO2; and 0% to 10% of ZrO2, wherein the crystallized glass comprises 2.0 mass% or more of a rutile TiO2 crystal with respect to the entire crystallized glass, and comprises at least one crystal of a celsian crystal and a hexa-celsian crystal.
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
