DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12 and 13 in the reply filed on 7/21/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because of the rejection provided below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15, 33-36, 38, 43, 44, 46 and 47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/21/26.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Amosov et al (US Publication 20170073266).
As to claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13, Amosov discloses a glass article formed from a glass composition. The glass composition can have about 45 to 60 mol% SiO2, 8 to 19 mol% of Al2O3, 0 to 25 mol% B2O3 (paragraphs 66-68). The composition can further have about 0 to 21 mol% Na2O (paragraph 69). As seen in example 2-12 the composition comprises 57 mol% SiO2, 15 mol% of Al2O3, 13 mol% B2O3 and 15 mol% Na2O. The Na2O will read on applicant’s claimed alkali oxide. Therefore, since the glass composition has the same materials within the claimed range it will inherently have a temperature at which a viscosity of the borosilicate glass composition is 1011 P from about 630 to 650 Celsius as well as a liquidus viscosity in a range from 20000 kP to 10000000 kP and a fusion flow rate of 1000 lb/h to 4500 lb/h, a density of at least 2.3 g/cm3 to 2.4 g/cm3 and a coefficient of thermal expansion in a range from 7 to 9 ppm/Celsius and zircon breakdown temperature of 1100 to 1300 Celsius.
As to claim 5, the glass composition comprises of example 2-12 has 0 Li2O and 0 K2O.
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amosov et al (US Publication 20170073266).
Amosov anticipates claim 1 for the reasons noted above however is silent to the specifics of B2O3 within the glass composition.
Amosov discloses that 0 to 25 mol% B2O3 (paragraph 68) can present within the glass composition. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Amosov and formed B2O3 in an amount of 11 to 12 mol% as Amosov discloses overlapping ranges and its known B2O3 is a glass network former and having too much can reduce the durability and viscosity and liquid temperature of the glass composition and if this is too low it can have an undesirably high durability.
As to claim 9, Amosov anticipates claim 1 for the reasons noted above however is silent to the specifics of MgO and P2O5 within the glass composition.
The glass composition can comprise 0 to 2 mol % of MgO (paragraph 70) and can comprise about 0 to 10 mol% of P2O5 (paragraph 72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Amosov and formed MgO in amount of 0 and P2O5 in an amount of 0 mol% as Amosov discloses overlapping ranges and it would have been obvious absent unexpectantly better results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights