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 .
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 6-7, 15-17, and 20-25 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.
Claims 6, 15-17, and 20-25 are rejected for modifying ranges with the term “about”, yet not clearly defining the mathematical boundaries of the term “about”. Paragraph [0036] of the instant PGPub recites “the term “about” means that amounts, sizes, formulations, parameters, and other quantities and characteristics are not and need not be exact, but may be approximate and/or larger or smaller, as desired, reflecting tolerances, conversion factors, rounding off, measurement error and the like, and other factors known to those of skill in the art. When the term “about” is used in describing a value or an end-point of a range, the disclosure should be understood to include the specific value or end-point referred to. Whether or not a numerical value or end-point of a range in the specification recites “about,” the numerical value or end-point of a range is intended to include two embodiments: one modified by “about,” and one not modified by “about.” It will be further understood that the end-points of each of the ranges are significant both in relation to the other end-point, and independently of the other end-point.”
This does not clearly define the boundaries of what is, and is not, “about”. For example, instant claim 6 claims a total transmittance from about 0.5% to about 4%. This range is unclear because a person having ordinary skill in the arts would not reasonably know if 4.1% is “about 4%”, if 4.5% is “about 4%”, if 5% is “about” 4%, or if 7% is “about 4%” or not. All claims are rejected for the same ambiguity.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the heat treating" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 24 depends upon claim 20, which has three separate heat treatments. It is unclear which heat treatment is being referred to in claim 24.
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) 1-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka et al. (US20190177212, hereinafter referred to as Dejneka).
Regarding claim 1, Dejneka makes obvious a glass-ceramic (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing a glass-ceramic), comprising: 5 mol% ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 40 mol% (see Dejneka at [0080], disclosing Al2O3 may include from 0 mol % to about 50 mol % Al2O3, 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); 30 mol% ≤ B2O3 ≤ 60 mol% (see Dejneka [0082], disclosing from about 2 mol % to about 40 mol % of B2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 10 mol% ≤ WO3 ≤ 50 mol% (see Dejneka at [0081], disclosing WO3 is from about 1.0 mol % to about 20 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0 mol% ≤ SnO2 ≤ 5 mol% (see Dejneka at [0086], disclosing 0.01 mol % to about 5 mol % of SnO2, which is within the claimed range.); and 1 mol% ≤ R2O ≤ 30 mol%, wherein R2O is at least one of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O, or Cs2O (see Dejneka at [0015], disclosing R2O from about 0.1 mol % to about 50 mol %, where R2O is one or more of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O and Cs2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 2, Dejneka makes obvious R2O is at least one of Li2O or Na2O (see Dejneka at [0015], disclosing R2O from about 0.1 mol % to about 50 mol %, where R2O is one or more of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O and Cs2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 3, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic is silica-free (see Dejneka at [0079], disclosing from about 1 mol % to about 99 mol % SiO2. Examiner notes about 1 mol% SiO2 is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic comprises a glassy phase and at least one crystalline phase (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing a glass-ceramic includes glass and crystalline phases), and further wherein the at least one crystalline phase comprises crystallites that range in size from 5 nm to 100 nm, as observed in transmission electron microscopy (see Dejneka at [0094], disclosing from about 1 nm to about 100 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, Dejneka makes obvious the at least one crystalline phase is uniformly distributed throughout a thickness of the glass-ceramic (see Dejneka at Fig. 9, showing the crystalline phase uniformly distributed throughout the thickness of the glass-ceramic.).
Regarding claim 6, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic comprises a thickness from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm (See Dejneka at [0106], disclosing a thickness of about 0.5mm) and at least one of: (a) a total transmittance of less than or equal to 4% at ultraviolet wavelengths below 400 nm, or (b) a total transmittance from about 0.5% to about 4% in the near-infrared spectrum from 700 nm to 1500 nm (see Dejneka at [0104], disclosing the article may exhibit a less than 1% transmittance at wavelengths of about 368 nm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 7, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic further comprises a total transmittance of at least 0.5% in the visible spectrum from 400 nm to 700 nm (see Dejneka at [0106], disclosing at a thickness of about 0.5 mm, the transmittance of the article of such compositions can range from about 4% to about 30% in the visible spectrum, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, the intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Please note that where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (See MPEP 2112(III)). In the instant case, the intended use of being used for a solar shield is not given patentable weight as such undisclosed use is inherent in Dejneka.
Regarding claim 9, Dejneka makes obvious a glass-ceramic (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing a glass-ceramic), comprising: 7 mol% ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 30 mol% (see Dejneka at [0080], disclosing Al2O3 may include from 0 mol % to about 50 mol % Al2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 35 mol% ≤ B2O3 ≤ 55 mol% (see Dejneka [0082], disclosing from about 2 mol % to about 40 mol % of B2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 15 mol% ≤ WO3 ≤ 40 mol% (see Dejneka at [0081], disclosing WO3 is from about 1.0 mol % to about 20 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0 mol% ≤ SnO2 ≤ 2.5 mol% (see Dejneka at [0086], disclosing 0.01 mol % to about 5 mol % of SnO2, which is within the claimed range.); and 5 mol% ≤ R2O ≤ 25 mol%, wherein R2O is at least one of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O, or Cs2O (see Dejneka at [0015], disclosing R2O from about 0.1 mol % to about 50 mol %, where R2O is one or more of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O and Cs2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 10, Dejneka makes obvious R2O is at least one of Li2O or Na2O (see Dejneka at [0015], disclosing R2O from about 0.1 mol % to about 50 mol %, where R2O is one or more of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O and Cs2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 11, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic is silica-free (see Dejneka at [0079], disclosing from about 1 mol % to about 99 mol % SiO2. Examiner notes about 1 mol% SiO2, which is close to touching the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 12, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic comprises a glassy phase and at least one crystalline phase (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing a glass-ceramic includes glass and crystalline phases), and further wherein the at least one crystalline phase comprises crystallites that range in size from 5 nm to 100 nm, as observed in transmission electron microscopy (see Dejneka at [0094], disclosing from about 1 nm to about 100 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 13, Dejneka makes obvious at least one crystalline phase is uniformly distributed throughout a thickness of the glass-ceramic (see Dejneka at Fig. 9, showing the crystalline phase uniformly distributed throughout the thickness of the glass-ceramic.).
Regarding claim 14, Dejneka makes obvious further comprising: 11.5 mol% ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 24.5 mol% (see Dejneka at [0080], disclosing Al2O3 may include from 0 mol % to about 50 mol % Al2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 44 mol% ≤ B2O3 ≤ 49 mol% (see Dejneka [0082], disclosing from about 2 mol % to about 40 mol % of B2O3, which is close to touching the claimed range. ); 20 mol% ≤ WO3 ≤ 25 mol% (see Dejneka at [0081], disclosing WO3 is from about 1.0 mol % to about 20 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0 mol% ≤ SnO2 ≤ 0.25 mol% (see Dejneka at [0086], disclosing 0.01 mol % to about 5 mol % of SnO2, which is within the claimed range.); and 13 mol% ≤ R2O ≤ 19.5 mol%, wherein R2O is at least one of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O, or Cs2O (see Dejneka at [0015], disclosing R2O from about 0.1 mol % to about 50 mol %, where R2O is one or more of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O and Cs2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 15, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic comprises a thickness from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm (See Dejneka at [0106], disclosing a thickness of about 0.5mm) and at least one of: (a) a total transmittance of less than or equal to 4% at ultraviolet wavelengths below 400 nm, or (b) a total transmittance from about 0.5% to about 4% in the near-infrared spectrum from 700 nm to 1500 nm (see Dejneka at [0104], disclosing the article may exhibit a less than 1% transmittance at wavelengths of about 368 nm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 16, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic comprises a thickness from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm (See Dejneka at [0106], disclosing a thickness of about 0.5mm) and at least one of: (a) a total transmittance of less than or equal to 3.5% at ultraviolet wavelengths below 400 nm, or (b) a total transmittance from about 0.5% to about 2.5% in the near-infrared spectrum from 700 nm to 1500 nm (see Dejneka at [0104], disclosing the article may exhibit a less than 1% transmittance at wavelengths of about 368 nm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 17, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic comprises a thickness from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm (See Dejneka at [0106], disclosing a thickness of about 0.5mm) and at least one of: (a) a total transmittance of less than or equal to 3.5% at ultraviolet wavelengths below 400 nm, or (b) a total transmittance from about 0.5% to about 9% in the near-infrared spectrum from 700 nm to 2400 nm (see Dejneka at [0104], disclosing the article may exhibit a less than 1% transmittance at wavelengths of about 368 nm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 18, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic further comprises a total transmittance of at least 0.5% in the visible spectrum from 400 nm to 700 nm (see Dejneka at [0106], disclosing at a thickness of about 0.5 mm, the transmittance of the article of such compositions can range from about 4% to about 30% in the visible spectrum, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 19, the intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Please note that where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (See MPEP 2112(III)). In the instant case, the intended use of being used for a solar shield is not given patentable weight as such undisclosed use is inherent in Dejneka.
Regarding claim 20, Dejneka makes obvious a method of making a glass-ceramic (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing a glass-ceramic), comprising: mixing a batch comprising (see Dejneka at [0007], disclosing a mixing method): 5 mol% ≤ Al2O3 ≤ 40 mol% (see Dejneka at [0080], disclosing Al2O3 may include from 0 mol % to about 50 mol % Al2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 30 mol% ≤ B2O3 ≤ 60 mol% (see Dejneka [0082], disclosing from about 2 mol % to about 40 mol % of B2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 10 mol% ≤ WO3 ≤ 50 mol% (see Dejneka at [0081], disclosing WO3 is from about 1.0 mol % to about 20 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 0 mol% ≤ SnO2 ≤ 5 mol% (see Dejneka at [0086], disclosing 0.01 mol % to about 5 mol % of SnO2, which is within the claimed range.); and 1 mol% ≤ R2O ≤ 30 mol%, wherein R2O is at least one of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O, or Cs2O (see Dejneka at [0015], disclosing R2O from about 0.1 mol % to about 50 mol %, where R2O is one or more of Li2O, Na2O, K2O, Rb2O and Cs2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.); melting the batch between about 1100°C and about 1450°C to form a melt (see Dejneka at [0143], disclosing melting the batch between about 1500° C. and about 1700°. Examiner notes about 1500°C overlaps with about 1450°C); annealing the melt between about 380°C and about 500°C to define an annealed melt (see Dejneka at [0143], disclosing annealing the melt between about 500° C. and about 600° C, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and heat treating the annealed melt between about 500°C and about 1000°C from about 5 minutes to about 48 hours to form the glass-ceramic (see Dejneka at [0143], disclosing heat treating the annealed melt between about 500° C. and about 1000° C. from about 5 minutes to about 48 hours to form the glass-ceramic.).
Regarding claim 21, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic is silica-free (see Dejneka at [0079], disclosing from about 1 mol % to about 99 mol % SiO2. Examiner notes about 1 mol% SiO2, which is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Regarding claim 22, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic comprises a glassy phase and at least one crystalline phase (see Dejneka at the Abstract, disclosing a glass-ceramic includes glass and crystalline phases), and further wherein the at least one crystalline phase comprises crystallites that range in size from 5 nm to 100 nm, as observed in transmission electron microscopy (see Dejneka at [0094], disclosing from about 1 nm to about 100 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 23, Dejneka makes obvious the at least one crystalline phase is uniformly distributed throughout a thickness of the glass-ceramic (see Dejneka at Fig. 9, showing the crystalline phase uniformly distributed throughout the thickness of the glass-ceramic.).
Regarding claim 25, Dejneka makes obvious the glass-ceramic comprises a thickness from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm (See Dejneka at [0106], disclosing a thickness of about 0.5mm) and at least one of: (a) a total transmittance of less than or equal to 4% at ultraviolet wavelengths below 400 nm, or (b) a total transmittance from about 0.5% to about 4% in the near-infrared spectrum from 700 nm to 1500 nm (see Dejneka at [0104], disclosing the article may exhibit a less than 1% transmittance at wavelengths of about 368 nm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka in view of Second Dejneka et al. (US20190177206, hereinafter referred to as Second Dejneka).
Regarding claim 24, while Dejneka does not explicitly disclose a heat treating is conducted in a reducing atmosphere, Dejneka discloses automotive windshields (see Dejneka at [0108]). Dejneka also discloses the article may include at least one of Ag from about 0.01 mol % to about 0.75 mol % (see Dejneka at [0088]), and Ag, Au and/or Cu containing examples of the article may produce rod-like precipitates having a length of from about 2 nm to about 20 nm and a width, or diameter, of from about 2 nm to about 10 nm (See Dejneka at [0094]). Dejneka teaches the size and/or quantity of the precipitates may be varied across the article such that different portions of the article may have different optical properties. For example, portions of the article where the precipitates are present may lead to changes in the absorbance, color, reflectance and/or transmission of light (see Dejneka at [0095]).
Second Dejneka also discloses automotive windshields (see Second Dejneka at [0113]). Second Dejneka discloses the reflection treatment, under reducing atmospheres, causes Ag1+ cations in the article 10 to be reduced to form metallic silver precipitates within the body of the article 10 that are sufficiently large (e.g., >50 nm) to scatter visible wavelengths of light (e.g., about 400 nm to about 700 nm) (see Dejneka at [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Dejneka to select a reducing atmosphere for the heat treatment as disclosed by Dejneka with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming metallic silver precipitate to scatter visible wavelengths of light as taught by Dejneka.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20210070018.
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
Prosecution Insights