CTFR 18/887,733 CTFR 87399 DETAILED ACTION 07-103 AIA 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 Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 2018/0148369) . Regarding claim 1, Gross discloses a glass article that includes a glass composition including SiO 2 in an amount from about 66 mol % to about 80 mol %, Al 2 O 3 in an amount in a range from about 2 mol % to about 15 mol %, and B 2 O 3 in an amount in a range from about 0.9 mol % to about 15 mol %, see abstract. Note that the disclosed ranges for SiO 2 and B 2 O 3 overlap the claimed ranges. 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 I. Additionally, based on the ranges disclosed for SiO 2 , Al 2 O 3 and B 2 O -3 , the reference is considered to render obvious an amount of Al 2 O 3 such that the sum of the three compounds is at least 90 mol %, see abstract. The reference further discloses that in one or more embodiments, the glass composition is substantially free of Li 2 O [0044]. The reference further discloses that the glass composition has a liquidus viscosity of greater than 500 kP, the temperature at 200 poise viscosity as less than 1725°C and the density as about 2.5 g/cm 3 or less, see Table 1 and [0012 & 0069]. Note that the ranges and examples disclosed overlap and/or are within the claimed ranges; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Further note that given the reference renders obvious the claimed composition, it is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed properties; see MPEP 2112.01 I & II: ““Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition…a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Regarding claim 2, the reference discloses that the glass composition includes Na 2 O in an amount from about 6 mol % to about 15 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract and MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses that the glass composition includes K 2 O in an amount from about 0 mol % to about 4 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range [0043]; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 4, based on the ranges disclosed for Na 2 O and K 2 O, the reference is considered to render obvious the claimed total amount, see above discussion. Regarding claim 5, the reference discloses that the glass composition includes CaO in an amount less than about 1 mol % and MgO in an amount from about 0 mol % to about 1.8 mol %, which renders obvious the claimed total amount [0048-0050]. Regarding claim 6, based on the values disclosed for Na 2 O, K 2 O, MgO and CaO, the reference is considered to render obvious the claimed total amount, see above discussion. Regarding claim 7, the reference discloses the amount of Fe 2 O 3 as from about 0 mol % to about 1 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range [0056]; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 8, the reference discloses the density of the glass composition as about 2.5 g/cm 3 or less, which overlaps the claimed range [0012]; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 9, the reference discloses the strain point as less than about 520°C and the annealing point as less than about 570°C, both of which overlap the claimed ranges [0012]; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 10, the reference discloses the glass composition includes one or more alkali metal oxides, one or more alkaline metal oxides, a total amount of Na 2 O, K 2 O, MgO and CaO that overlaps the claimed range, and an annealing point that overlaps the claimed range, see above discussion and Gross abstract & [0012, 0043-0050]; see also MPEP 2144.05 I. Note that based on the values disclosed for the alkali metal oxides, alkaline metal oxides, Al 2 O 3 , SiO 2 and B 2 O 3 , the reference is considered to render obvious a glass composition that satisfies the claimed relationships, see above discussion. For example, the reference renders obvious Applicant’s Examples DSG and DSW from Table 100, which satisfy the claimed relationships; see Gross [0041-0050]. Regarding claim 11, the reference renders obvious the claimed total amounts, see above discussion, Gross [0041-0050] and MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 12, the reference discloses that the glass composition includes CaO in an amount less than about 1 mol % and MgO in an amount from about 0 mol % to about 1.8 mol %, which renders obvious the claimed total amount as less than or equal to 2.5 mol % [0048-0050]. Regarding claim 13, the reference discloses that the glass composition includes Na 2 O in an amount from about 6 mol % to about 15 mol %, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract and MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 14, the reference discloses Al 2 O 3 in an amount in a range from about 2 mol % to about 15 mol % and Na 2 O in an amount from about 6 mol % to about 15 mol %, which renders obvious a glass composition that satisfies the claimed relationship, see abstract. Regarding claim 15, the reference discloses a glass article that includes a glass composition including SiO 2 in an amount from about 66 mol % to about 80 mol %, Al 2 O 3 in an amount in a range from about 2 mol % to about 15 mol %, B 2 O 3 in an amount in a range from about 0.9 mol % to about 15 mol %, one or more alkali metal oxide and one or more alkaline metal oxide, see abstract and [0040 & 0048]. Note that the disclosed ranges for SiO 2 and B 2 O 3 overlapped the claimed ranges. 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 I. Additionally, based on the ranges disclosed for SiO 2 , Al 2 O 3 and B 2 O -3 , the reference is considered to render obvious an amount of Al 2 O 3 such that the sum of the three compounds is at least 90 mol %, see abstract. The reference further discloses that in one or more embodiments, the glass composition is substantially free of Li 2 O [0044]. The reference further discloses that the glass composition has a liquidus viscosity of greater than 500 kP, the temperature at 200 poise viscosity as less than 1725°C and the density as about 2.5 g/cm 3 or less, see Table 1 and [0012 & 0069]. Note that the ranges and examples closed for the claimed values overlap and/or are within the claimed ranges; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Further note that given the reference renders obvious the claimed composition, it is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed properties; see MPEP 2112.01 I & II: ““Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition…a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Regarding claim 16, based on the values disclosed for the alkali metal oxides, alkaline metal oxides, Al 2 O 3 , SiO 2 and B 2 O 3 , the reference is considered to render obvious a glass composition that satisfies the claimed relationships, see above discussion. For example, the reference renders obvious Applicant’s Examples DSG and DSW from Table 100, which satisfy the claimed relationships; see Gross [0041-0050]. Regarding claims 17 and 18, the reference discloses the strain point as less than about 520°C, the annealing point as less than about 570°C, and the temperature at 200 poise viscosity as within the claimed range, see Table 1 Examples and [0012]. Note that the ranges and examples disclosed overlap and/or are within the claimed ranges; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Further note that given the reference renders obvious the claimed composition, it is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed properties; see MPEP 2112.01 I & II: ““Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition…a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Regarding claim 19, the reference discloses that the glass article exhibits a sag temperature in a range from about 600°C to about 700°C, which overlaps the claimed range, see abstract and MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 20, the reference discloses that the glass article exhibits a CTE of 45 x 10 -7 ppm/°C or greater, which overlaps the claimed range [0073]; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Alternatively, given the reference renders obvious the claimed composition, it is considered to render obvious a glass with the claimed property; see above discussion and MPEP 2112.01 I & II: ““Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition…a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the rejection is based on the abstract, Table 1 and paragraph [0012] of the cited reference, however, Gross teaches a glass composition with Li 2 O in an amount outside the amount recited in amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant notes that the reference teaches an alkali metal oxide selected from a group that includes Li 2 O, Na 2 O and K 2 O in an amount greater than about 5 mol% [0012]. Additionally, Applicant cites examples in Table 1 of Gross that substantially exceed the claimed amount or do not meet the claimed amounts for other components of the glass. Similarly, Applicant argues that Gross does not meet the Li 2 O amount of claim 15. As such, Applicant requests the withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gross. Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, Examiner notes that paragraph 12 and Table 1 were not cited in support of the rejections of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Additionally, as discussed above, the reference discloses that in one or more embodiments, the glass composition is substantially free of Li 2 O [0044]. Further, the portion of the reference cited by Applicant stating the alkali metal oxide is selected from a group that includes Li 2 O, Na 2 O and K 2 O also indicates Li 2 O is not necessarily present. While Applicant is correct that the examples do not disclose the claimed amount of Li 2 O in conjunction with the claimed amounts of SiO 2 or B 2 O 3 , Examiner notes that that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, see MPEP 2123. Given the reference does in fact disclose a glass composition that is Li 2 O-free, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gross are respectfully maintained. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/887,733 Page 2 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/887,733 Page 3 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/887,733 Page 4 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/887,733 Page 5 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/887,733 Page 6 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/887,733 Page 7 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/887,733 Page 8 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/887,733 Page 9 Art Unit: 1783 Application/Control Number: 18/887,733 Page 10 Art Unit: 1783
Prosecution Insights