DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 14, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 60-73 and 75-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (US 2015/0064474).
Regarding claim 60, Dejneka discloses a glass composition including in mole %: SiO2 in the range from about 45 to about 75; Al2O3 in the range from about 4 to about 25; MgO in the range from about 0 to about 8, Li2O in the range from about 0 to about 12, Na2O in the range from about 4 to about 20 and/or K2O in the range from about 0 to about 2, see abstract and [0010]. Additionally, the composition can contain gold in an amount ranging from 0.005 mol % to about 0.1 mol % [0056]. The reference further discloses the glass composition exhibits a liquidus viscosity of about 10 kilopoise (kP) or greater (e.g., 20 kP or greater, 50 kP or greater or 100 kP or greater) and a liquidus temperature of less than about 1400°C [0083 and 0086]. Note that the ranges disclosed for the composition, liquidus viscosity and liquidus temperature overlap the claimed ranges; see MPEP 2144.05 I: in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 61, the reference discloses MgO in the range from about 0 to about 8 mol % and Li2O in the range from about 0 to about 12 mol %, which renders obvious the claimed sum, see abstract and [0010].
Regarding claim 62, the reference discloses the composition can contain gold in an amount ranging from 0.005 mol % to about 0.1 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range [0056]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 63, the reference discloses the composition contains SiO2 in the range from about 45 to about 75 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract; see also MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 64, the reference discloses the composition contains Al2O3 in the range from about 4 to about 25 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract; see also MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 65, the reference discloses the composition contains B2O3 in the range from about 0 to about 12 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract; see also MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 66, the reference discloses the composition contains Li2O in the range from about 0 to about 12 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range [0010]; see also MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 67, the reference discloses the composition contains Na2O in the range from about 4 to about 20 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range [0010]; see also MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 68, the reference discloses the composition contains K2O in the range from about 0 to about 2 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range [0010]; see also MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 69, the reference discloses the composition contains MgO in the range from about 0 to about 8 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract; see also MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 70, the reference discloses examples of compositions with zero CaO or with the amount of CaO within the claimed range, see Table I.
Regarding claim 71, the reference discloses the composition contains ZnO in the range from about 0 to about 8 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract; see also MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 72, 73 and 75, the reference discloses the glass the does not contain Fe2O3, MnO2 and Bi2O3- as well as examples of compositions with zero Fe2O3, MnO2 and Bi2O3, see entire document and Table I.
Regarding claims 76 and 77, the reference discloses the composition can contain silver and platinum in an amount ranging from 0.005 mol % to about 0.1 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range [0056]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 78, the reference discloses the composition contains from about 0 to 40 mol % alkali oxides R2O, which overlaps the claimed range [0047]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 79, the reference discloses the composition contains less than 8 mol % MgO and ZnO, which overlaps the claimed range, and examples with less than 8% R’O, see Table 1 and [0057]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 80, the reference discloses the composition exhibits the following compositional criteria: the difference (R2O - Al2O3) may be, in mol %, in the range from about -4 to about 4 [0053].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 60-73 and 75-80 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights