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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (USPub20080248316) in view of any one of (USPN8,071,493), (USPub20010056021) or (WO2020179872, rejection using corresponding English document US11,807,568).
Regarding claims 1 and 3: Goto teaches a crystallized glass substrate which can include alpha cristobalite solid solution as a main crystal phase (see Goto claim 2) and comprise the following in mass% (see Got claims 9-10).
SiO2
50-90
Al2O3
2-20
Li2O
4-15
P2O5
0-3
ZrO2
0-10
K2O
0-3
Na2O
0-2
MgO
0-3
CaO
0-7
SrO
0-7
BaO
0-7
ZnO
0-10
Sb2O3
0-2
TiO2
0-5
Goto’s crystallized glass can have a compressive stress layer on the surface (see entire document).
While the above composition fails to include B2O3 as required by the claims, ‘316 does not appear to exclude such an oxide but instead, only generally teaches a crystallized glass wherein the crystallized glass.
As ‘493, ‘021 and ‘568, who each similarly teach crystallized glass, disclose that B2O3 can be desirably added to such glasses in contents of less than 5mass% for realization of low viscosity and enhanced dissolution and moldability (see ‘493 Col. 8, lines 66-67 bridged to Col. 9, lines 1-8), 0.1-5mass% to act as a former and accelerating crystal deposition and growth while having improved melting characteristics (see 0036 in ‘021) or even 0-2% as desired (Col. 6, lines 3-9 in ‘568), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Goto to include 5mass% or less for realization of low viscosity and enhanced dissolution and moldability, 0.1-5mass% to act as a former and accelerating crystal deposition and growth while having improved melting characteristics or even 0-2% as desired with a reasonable expectation of success.
The above modification will provide Goto with the following,
SiO2
50-90
Al2O3
2-20
Li2O
4-15
B2O3
<5, 0.1-5 or 0-2
P2O5
0-3
ZrO2
0-10
K2O
0-3
Na2O
0-2
MgO
0-3
CaO
0-7
SrO
0-7
BaO
0-7
ZnO
0-10
Sb2O3
0-2
TiO2
0-5
The above composition allows for overlap with that claimed providing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Given that Goto’s crystallized glass meets that claimed, the softening properties would be expected to be the same (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the claimed DOLzero to thickness ratio, the Examiner notes the following.
Initially, Goto’s thickness is 0.635nm (0092, 0138) which falls within Applicants’ disclosed thickness range of 0.4mm or more (spec publication par 0094).
Additionally, note that DOLzero is a result of both the glass and method of production. In the instant case, as shown above Goto’s composition overlaps with Applicants.
Further, Applicants crystallized article is formed by initially following the below 2-stage method (published spec par 0100-0101)
Temperature (oC)
Duration (min)
1st stage
450-750, 500-720 or even 550-680
30-2000min or even 180-1440min
2nd stage
550-850 or even 600-800
30-600min or even 60-400min
followed by ion exchanging such as with NaNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 30-500min (0109)
Goto’s crystallized glass is formed by initially following the below 2-stage method (0064, 0126)
Temperature (oC)
Duration (hr)
1st stage
450-620, or even 520-620
1-20hr (i.e. 60-1,200min)
2nd stage
620-800
0.5-10hrs (i.e. 30-600min)
followed by ion exchanging with NaNO3 at 300-600C for 0.5-12hours (30min-720min) (0087, 0136) which is substantially similar to Applicants’.
Given the similarities between Goto and Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same DOLzero/thickness ratio to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 4 and 8: As shown above, Goto’s glass includes 0-5 TiO2 overlapping the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05) and does not disclose the presence of Nb2O5 or Ta2O5 thereby, corresponding to 0% of these oxides.
Regarding claims 5 and 10-11: Given that Goto’s crystallized glass meets that claimed, the transition properties would be expected to be the same (MPEP 2112).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (WO2020179872, rejection using corresponding English document US11,807,568).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, and 8: ‘568 teaches crystallized glass containing an alpha cristobalite or alpha cristobalite solid solution as a main crystal phase (abstract) and comprises the following in mass% (see Ogasawara claims).
SiO2
50-75
Al2O3
5 to <15
Li2O
3-10
P2O5
0-10
ZrO2
1.2-10
K2O
0-10
Na2O
0-10
MgO
0-10
CaO
0-10
SrO
0-10
BaO
0-10
ZnO
0-10
Sb2O3
0-3
Nb2O5
0-10
Ta2O5
0-10
TiO2
0 to <7
Al2O3+ZrO2
>16.2
‘568 also teaches that 0-2 mass% B2O3 can be added as desired (Col. 6, lines 5-9).
The above composition and teaching allow for overlap with that presently claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
‘568 teaches their glass having a compressive stress layer on the surface (abstract, Examples).
Given that ‘568’s crystallized glass meeting that claimed, the softening point properties would be expected to be the same (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the claimed DOLzero to thickness ratio, the Examiner notes the following.
Initially, ‘568 teaches that their thickness can be 10mm with their compressive layer thickness (i.e. which equates to DOLzero as understood in the art) being made to be 200micron or more (Col 6, line 48-55 and Col. 9, lines 9). This allows for ratios overlapping that claimed (MPEP2144.05). For instance 200micron or more DOLzero with 10mm (10,000micron) thickness will allow for ratios of 0.02 or more (200micron/10,000micron).
Alternatively, it is additionally noted that ‘568’s thickness of 10mm falls within Applicants’ disclosed thickness range of 0.4mm or more (spec publication par 0094).
Additionally, note that DOLzero is a result of both the glass and method of production. In the instant case, as shown above ‘568’s composition overlaps with Applicants.
Further, Applicants crystallized article is formed by initially following the below 2-stage method (published spec par 0100-0101)
Temperature (oC)
Duration (min)
1st stage
450-750, 500-720 or even 550-680
30-2000min or even 180-1440min
2nd stage
550-850 or even 600-800
30-600min or even 60-400min
followed by ion exchanging such as with a two stage treatment of first using NaNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 30-500min and then KNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 60-600min (0107-0108).
568’ similarly discloses their article being formed by a 2-stage method shown below (see Col. 7, lines 4-14 and Examples 7-9, 11-15, 17-20, 21-24, 26-28).
Temperature (oC)
Duration (min)
1st stage
450-750, 500-720 or even 550-680
30-2000min or even 180-1440min
2nd stage
600-800
30-600min or even 60-400min
followed by ion exchanging such as with a two-stage treatment of first using NaNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 90-500min and then KNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 60-600min (Col. 7, lines 45-62) which is substantially similar to Applicants’.
Given the similarities between ‘568 and Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same DOLzero/thickness ratios to result (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 5 and 10-11: Given that ‘568’s crystallized glass meets that claimed, the glass transition properties would be expected to be the same (MPEP 2112).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/713168 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations presently claimed would have been obvious in view of the prior art above.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/024490 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations presently claimed would have been obvious in view of the prior art above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/994658 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations presently claimed would have been obvious in view of the prior art above.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/994649 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations presently claimed would have been obvious in view of the prior art above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants continue to argue against Goto rendering obvious the claimed invention because claim 1 recites a mass ratio of SiO2/(B2O3+Li2O) being 3-7.1 and the glasses of Goto have a ratio exceeding 7.1.
This is not persuasive because as discussed in the previous Office Action, nowhere in Goto do they actually teach or require such a ratio to exceed 7.1. In the instance Applicants are relying on Goto’s Examples in supporting their argument, it is noted that it has been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to their Examples but instead, what it teaches as a whole. In the instant case, as discussed in the Office Action, Goto as modified teaches a composition that allows for overlap with that claimed (MPEP 2144.05). As overlapping ranges has been held by the courts to provide for a prima facie case of obviousness absent evidence of unexpected results, the rejection is proper and maintained.
Applicants also argue against the Office’s assertion that Goto would have the same DOLzero/thickness ratio claimed in view of the similarity between Goto and the claimed glass because the amended claims now specify K2O content within a particular range which as shown by Applicants’ Examples 1-2 and 4-16 has the effect of providing such a ratio.
This is not persuasive. Initially, regarding the argued K2O content claimed, note that while the claims now specify K2O to be in a range of 0-1.53%, Goto’s K2O content is 0-3 which still overlaps with the now included range (MPEP 2144.0). Additionally, given the overlapping composition and the similarity in the method of Goto and Applicants’, the same DOLzero/thickness ratio effect will be expected (MPEP 2112).
In the instance Applicants are attempted to argue unexpected results that the now specified K2O content is critical for providing something truly unexpected, Applicants evidence is not persuasive for the following reasons.
Initially, note for the record that as mentioned in the Office Action, DOLzero/thickness ratio will be affected by the thickness of the glass, the glass composition itself as well as the method of ion exchange (i.e. salt used in the exchange in combination with the alkali glass composition, temperature of the exchange, and duration of the exchange all effect the DOL). In the instant case, as discussed in the Office Action, Gross has a thickness within Applicants’ disclosed thickness, has a composition overlapping Applicants and the same method.
While Applicants point to their Examples 1-2 and 4-16 in an attempt to show criticality for the K2O content itself in arriving at the DOLzero/thickness ratio, note that since thickness and method will also influence this ratio, to determine the effect of components of the composition only, one must compare Examples having the same thickness and method in order to determine whether the claimed K2O content itself in the composition has criticality.
In the instant case, in reviewing the evidence the only Example having K2O outside the claimed range is Example 3 and the only true comparison between this one having K2O outside the claimed range with that of an Example having K2O falling within one can make and wherein the thickness and method (same salt, same temperature, same duration, etc) are the same and constant is that of the Example 3 (same thickness, same method but having 1.73% K2O outside the range claimed) with Example 7 (same thickness, same method but having 1% K2O within the range claimed). However, the evidence is not persuasive for the following reasons.
Initially note that the Examples are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as they include additional oxides not required by claim 1, sum of SiO2+Li2O+Al2O3+B2O3 not require by claim 1, specific amounts of oxides, etc.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.
Additionally note that as there are multiple things changing between the two Examples (i.e. Example 7 has Na2O whereas Example 3 does not, Example 3 has a much higher Li2O content than that of Example 7, and these alkalis would be expected to have an effect on ion exchange that ultimately determines DOL given different alkali ions in glass exchange differently even with the same exchange salt, drastically different SiO2 content, Example 7 includes BaO whereas Example 3 does not, etc), it is not yet clear whether it is the K2O itself that is critical or is it something else.
Even further, note that while Example 3 includes 1.73 % K2O which is outside the claimed range and Example 7 includes 1 % K2O which may fall within the claimed range, this is not enough to show criticality for the claimed range. Note that to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, being able to compare only a single Example having 1% to that having 1.73% is not a sufficient number of tests. Specifically, initially note that one singular Example having a singular K2O content falling within the claimed range is not sufficient to cover the content entirety of the claimed range. Additionally note that while 1.73 may be outside the claimed range, this value is actually much higher than the 1.53% end point and there are no additional Examples having closer to the claimed maximum end point of 1.53% nor any Examples having the 1.53% point for direct comparison to say with any degree of certainty that there is anything truly critical about this end point of the claimed range.
Applicants appear to also argue unexpected results of lower softening points of 789o or less for their SiO2/(B2O3+Li2O) ratio and B2O3 content and point to Examples 1-2 and 4-16 as evidence. The evidence is not persuasive.
Initially, note that Applicants cannot rely on Examples 13-16 to make any argument regarding softening point effect as those Examples do not list the values of that property.
Additionally, note that the relied upon Examples themselves are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as they include additional oxides not required by claim 1, sum of SiO2+Li2O+Al2O3+B2O3 not require by claim 1, specific amounts of oxides, etc. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.
Further, while Applicants argue that the combination of ratio with B2O3 exhibits lower softening points of 789oC or less, note that the claim is broader as only requiring a softening point of less than 795oC.
Even further, in reviewing the Examples, there are a variety of oxide contents changing as well as some including oxides that are excluded in other Examples. Given the many changes from Example to Example, it is not yet clear whether it is truly the SiO2/(B2O3+Li2O) ratio and B2O3 content itself providing criticality or is it something else.
Also, note that while Examples 1-2 and 4-16 include a ratio and B2O3 content falling within the claimed ranges and comparative Example 1 has a ratio outside the claimed range and does not include B2O3, this is not enough to show criticality for the claimed ranges. Note that to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
In the instant case, there is only one comparative Example including a ratio of 9.2 which is far outside the maximum end point of the claimed ratio range (7.1) and includes 0% B2O3 which is under the minimum end point of the claimed range (2). There are absolutely no other comparative Examples having a ratio closer to the maximum end point (i.e. 7.5%), no comparative having a ratio below the minimum end point (i.e. 2) or even any comparative Example including B2O3 closer to the minimum endpoint (i.e. 1% B2O3) or any comparative Example include B2O3 outside the maximum end point of 10% to determine whether there is anything truly critical about these claimed end points. Additionally, note that the relied upon Examples only include ratios of 4.64-7.1 and B2O3 contents of 2-7. There are no Examples having a ratio closer to or even at the claimed minimum end point of 3 to determine whether there is anything truly critical about this point nor any Examples having B2O3 greater than 7 to 10 to determine whether there is anything critical about the maximum end point.
Applicants also argue that Goto does not disclose nor suggest the intended effects Applicants’ argue their composition provides but this is not persuasive because Goto does not have to. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Finally, Applicants argue that Goto only teaches DOLzero/T values of 0.0079-0.0315 and there would be no motivation to modify to arrive at the ratio claimed but this is not persuasive.
Initially, note for the record that Applicants argued this in the previous Office Action and Applicants’ noted par 0150 of Goto in which they relied on as support and which are referring to Goto’s Examples (see “the ion exchange of the Examples reached a depth from 5 to 20 .mu.m” in par 0150) but as previously stated, a reference is not limited to their Examples. Specifically, even though the paragraph may describe their Examples reach a depth (DOLzero) of 5 to 20micron in no way means that Goto is limiting their depth to this range and instead, Goto is only limited to what they teach as a whole.
In the instant case, as pointed out by Applicants and in the Office Action above, Goto does teach a thickness is 0.635nm (0092, 0138) and this falls within Applicants’ disclosed thickness range of 0.4mm or more (spec publication par 0094).
Additionally, note that DOLzero is a result of both the glass and method of production. In the instant case, Goto’s composition overlaps with Applicants.
Further, Applicants crystallized article is formed by initially following the below 2-stage method (published spec par 0100-0101)
Temperature (oC)
Duration (min)
1st stage
450-750, 500-720 or even 550-680
30-2000min or even 180-1440min
2nd stage
550-850 or even 600-800
30-600min or even 60-400min
followed by ion exchanging such as with NaNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 30-500min (0109)
Goto’s crystallized glass is formed by initially following the below 2-stage method (0064, 0126)
Temperature (oC)
Duration (hr)
1st stage
450-620, or even 520-620
1-20hr (i.e. 60-1,200min)
2nd stage
620-800
0.5-10hrs (i.e. 30-600min)
followed by ion exchanging with NaNO3 at 300-600C for 0.5-12hours (30min-720min) (0087, 0136) which is substantially similar to Applicants’.
Given the similarities between Goto and Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same DOLzero/thickness ratio to result (MPEP 2112).
Applicants argue against Ogasawara rendering obvious the claimed invention because claim 1 recites a mass ratio of SiO2/(B2O3+Li2O) being 3-7.1 and the glasses of Ogasawara have a ratio exceeding 7.1.
This is not persuasive because nowhere in Ogasawara do they teach or require such a ratio to exceed 7.1. In the instance Applicants are relying on Ogasawara’s Examples in supporting their argument, it is noted that it has been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to their Examples but instead, what it teaches as a whole. In the instant case, as discussed in the Office Action, Ogasawara teaches a composition that allows for overlap with that claimed (MPEP 2144.05). As overlapping ranges has been held by the courts to provide for a prima facie case of obviousness absent evidence of unexpected results and Applicants have yet to provide such results, the rejection is proper and maintained.
Applicants argue again unexpected results for the now claimed K2O content, as well as the Si/(B2O3+Li2O) ratio and B2O3 content but these arguments are not persuasive for all the reasons provided above.
Applicants also argue that Ogasawara does not disclose nor suggest the intended effects Applicants’ argue their composition provides but this is not persuasive because they do not have to. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicants argue that Ogasawara fails to disclose a DOLzero/thickness ratio claimed because Ogasawara’s Examples only (Ogasawara par 0036) and Ogasawara’s Examples have depths of 4-500micron which provides for a ratio of 0.0004 to 0.0500.
This is not persuasive. Initially, note that while Applicants rely on Ogasawara’s Examples to support their argument, a reference is not limited to their Examples. Specifically, even though Ogasawara’s Exampled depths and thickness may not provide for a ratio as claimed in no way means that Ogasawara as a whole would not still render obvious the ratio.
In the instant case, as discussed in the Office Action, Ogasawara ‘568 teaches that their thickness can be 10mm with their compressive layer thickness (i.e. which equates to DOLzero as understood in the art) being made to be 200micron or more (Col 6, line 48-55 and Col. 9, lines 9). This allows for ratios overlapping that claimed (MPEP2144.05). For instance, 200micron or more DOLzero with 10mm (10,000micron) thickness will allow for ratios of 0.02 or more (200micron/10,000micron).
Alternatively, it is additionally noted that ‘568’s thickness of 10mm falls within Applicants’ disclosed thickness range of 0.4mm or more (spec publication par 0094).
Additionally, note that DOLzero is a result of both the glass and method of production. In the instant case, as shown above ‘568’s composition overlaps with Applicants.
Further, Applicants crystallized article is formed by initially following the below 2-stage method (published spec par 0100-0101)
Temperature (oC)
Duration (min)
1st stage
450-750, 500-720 or even 550-680
30-2000min or even 180-1440min
2nd stage
550-850 or even 600-800
30-600min or even 60-400min
followed by ion exchanging such as with a two stage treatment of first using NaNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 30-500min and then KNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 60-600min (0107-0108).
568’ similarly discloses their article being formed by a 2-stage method shown below (see Col. 7, lines 4-14 and Examples 7-9, 11-15, 17-20, 21-24, 26-28).
Temperature (oC)
Duration (min)
1st stage
450-750, 500-720 or even 550-680
30-2000min or even 180-1440min
2nd stage
600-800
30-600min or even 60-400min
followed by ion exchanging such as with a two-stage treatment of first using NaNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 90-500min and then KNO3 at 350-550C for 1-1440min or even 60-600min (Col. 7, lines 45-62) which is substantially similar to Applicants’.
Given the similarities between ‘568 and Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same DOLzero/thickness ratios to result (MPEP 2112).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights