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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 05-22-2026.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citti ‘445 (US 2012/0227445 A1) in view of Saito ‘568 (US 2019/0322568 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Citti ‘445 teaches:
a forming step of causing a first molten glass to flow down along a surface of a forming trough comprising an yttrium-containing oxide of from 2 mass% to 10 mass% by a down-draw method to form a glass ribbon (¶ [0023], [0026], [0043], [0046], [0049], [0063], [0066])
the forming trough comprises, on the surface of the forming trough, a suppression layer that is a Mg-rich layer comprising magnesium (¶ [0051], [0052], [0059], [0069]).
Regarding the percentage of yttrium-containing oxide, Citti ‘445 suggests a range of up to 5 wt% (¶ [0026], [0066]). This range overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Citti ‘445 is silent regarding the first molten glass comprising TiO2. In analogous art of down-draw glass forming, Saito ‘568 suggests an aluminum, magnesium, and silicon-containing composition glass for forming by a down-draw method which contains TiO2 (¶ [0023], [0039]) as a known glass composition for down-draw forming, and for the benefit of forming a glass with properties such as devitrification resistance and meltability, cost effectiveness, high strain point, low thermal shrinkage, and high Young’s modulus (¶ [0003]). Saito ‘568 also notes that TiO2 provides advantages of reducing viscosity at high temperature and thus increasing meltability, and suppressing solarization (¶ [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Citti ‘445 by making the first molten glass comprise a composition comprising TiO2, as suggested by Saito ‘568, as a known glass composition for down-draw forming, and for the benefit of forming a glass with properties such as devitrification resistance and meltability, cost effectiveness, high strain point, low thermal shrinkage, and high Young’s modulus, and for the benefit of reducing viscosity at high temperature and thus increasing meltability, and suppressing solarization.
In the combination of Citti ’445 and Saito ‘568 as described above, the suppression layer would have substantially the same composition as that of Applicant’s method, wherein the forming trough is an alumina based forming trough (¶ [0022] of Citti ‘445; ¶ [0064] of Applicant’s spec), with an overlapping amount of yttrium-containing oxide (¶ [0026], [0066] of Citti ‘445), and the Mg-rich layer comprises spinel as a main component (¶ [0051], [0069] of Citti ‘445; ¶ [0064] of Applicant’s spec). It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, in the combination of Citti ‘445 and Saito ‘568, the suppression layer of Citti ‘445, having substantially the same composition as that of Applicant’s method, would suppress reaction of the yttrium-containing oxide of the forming trough with the TiO2 in the first molten glass by suppressing diffusion of the yttrium-containing oxide of the forming trough, as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Saito ‘568 suggests the first molten glass as described above, and further that the first molten glass comprises MgO (¶ [0023], [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Citti ‘445 further teaches, as a preliminary step to the forming step, a formation step of causing a second molten glass comprising MgO to flow down along the surface of the forming trough to form the Mg-rich layer on the surface of the forming trough (¶ [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Saito ‘568 suggests the first molten glass as described above, and further suggests the first molten glass comprises as a glass composition, in terms of mass% (¶ [0023]):
50-80% SiO2 (¶ [0024])
3-25% Al2O3 (¶ [0025])
0-20% B2O3 (¶ [0027])
0-25% Li2O+Na2O+K2O (¶ [0028])
0-20% MgO (¶ [0029])
0-20% CaO (¶0030])
0-20% SrO (¶ [0032])
0-20% BaO (¶ [0033])
0-1% As2O3 (¶ [0043])
0.001-2% SnO2 (¶ [0041])
0.002-10% TiO2 (¶ [0039])
SnO2/(As2O3+SnO2) is from 0.001-1 (¶ [0041], [0043]),
wherein the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by Saito ‘568. It has been held that 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05-22-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized as follows:
Citti does not teach that the forming block comprises an yttrium-containing oxide of from 2 mass% to 10 mass%.
Response: Citti teaches that Y2O3, which is a yttrium-containing oxide, can be included as a dopant. Citti then also teaches that the amount of any dopant can be up to 5 wt% (mass%). This range overlaps the claimed range and thus renders the limitation obvious.
None of the specific samples of Citti contains an oxide of yttrium.
Response: The disclosure of specific examples does not negate the broader disclosure of the reference.
Saito and Citti are based on conflicting design concepts with respect to alkali components of the glass.
Response: Citti describes that the glass can be Al-Mg-Si glass. Citti does not specifically require Li2O, Na2O, or K2O (see, e.g., ¶ [0051] of Citti). Saito also describes a glass of Al, Mg, and Si. There is also no evidence that the glass of Saito could not be used with the forming trough of Citti.
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 Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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 Hindenlang 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights