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 Interpretation
The term “normal gravity acceleration on Earth” in interpreted in view of the definition given in ¶ [0017] of the specification, of 9.80665 m/s2, or rounded to 9.81 m/s2.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3 of each claim, after “interior and/or on a surface”, the phrase --of the product-- should be added to clearly specify which “interior” and “surface” are being referred to. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are 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.
Claim 1 does not contain a proper transition phrase (i.e., “comprising”, “consisting of”, or “consisting essentially of” - see MPEP 2111.03). Thus, it is unclear what portion of the claim is the preamble and what portion of the claim is the body. Specifically, it is unclear if the recited “processing” is an active step of the claimed method. It is also unclear if the claim is open-ended or if it is closed/exclusive.
Claim 12 does not contain a proper transition phrase (i.e., “comprising”, “consisting of”, or “consisting essentially of” - see MPEP 2111.03). Thus, it is unclear what portion of the claim is the preamble and what portion of the claim is the body. Specifically, it is unclear if the recited “processing” is an active step of the claimed method. It is also unclear if the claim is open-ended or if it is closed/exclusive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ray ’90 (C.S. Ray and D.E. Day. Glass melting in microgravity. Journal of the Japan Society for Microgravity Applications, Vol 7 No. 3, 1990.).
Regarding claim 1, Ray ’90 teaches making a product comprising a glass or amorphous material by processing a liquid material in an environment with a gravity acceleration less than the normal gravity acceleration on Earth (Abstract, first ¶, p. 94; first two full ¶, p. 97; II. Experimental, pp. 97-99).
Regarding claim 12, Ray ’90 teaches making a product comprising a glass or amorphous metal oxide material by processing a liquid metal oxide material in an environment with a gravity acceleration less than the normal gravity acceleration on Earth (Abstract, first ¶, p. 94; first two full ¶, p. 97; II. Experimental, pp. 97-99; Samples 2 and 3, Table 1, p. 98).
Regarding claim 2, Ray ’90 further teaches the liquid material comprises a metal oxide (Samples 2 and 3, Table 1, p. 98).
Regarding claim 6, Ray ’90 further teaches the liquid is processed without any contact with a container or other solid or liquid surface during a heating and cooling process (Abstract, first ¶, p. 94; first two full ¶, p. 97; II. Experimental, pp. 97-99).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Ray ’90 further teaches predetermining a critical cooling rate for vitrification of the liquid material, and cooling the liquid material at the critical cooling rate or a faster rate (I. Introduction, p. 95; B. Enhanced Glass Formation for Sample 2, p. 101; Fig. 4; D. Analysis of Sample 3, p. 103).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Ray ’90 further teaches the liquid material has a critical cooling rate for glass formation that is lower in reduced gravity than in normal gravity acceleration on Earth, wherein the critical cooling rate in reduced gravity does not result in crystallization during the processing (I. Introduction, p. 95; Fig. 4; D. Analysis of Sample 3, p. 103).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Ray ’90 further teaches the product includes a plurality of phases, at least one of the plurality of phases being a glass phase, and the plurality of phases are distributed in an interior and/or on a surface (of the product) (B. Enhanced Glass Formation for Sample 2, p. 101), the method further comprising cooling the liquid from above a glass transition temperature to below the glass transition temperature in the environment with the gravity acceleration less than the normal gravity level on Earth (Abstract, first ¶ , p. 94; first two full ¶, p. 97; II. Experimental, pp. 97-99; Fig. 4).
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) 3-5 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray ’90 (C.S. Ray and D.E. Day. Glass melting in microgravity. Journal of the Japan Society for Microgravity Applications, Vol 7 No. 3, 1990.) in view of NASA ’12 (NASA STEM Team. “What is Microgravity?” NASA, 2012-02-15. [https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/for-kids-and-students/what-is-microgravity-grades-5-8/].).
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 13, Ray ’90 teaches microgravity during spacecraft flight, but does not explicitly describe a percent of gravity acceleration relative to the normal gravity acceleration on Earth. In analogous art of microgravity research, NASA ’12 suggests that microgravity includes gravity acceleration that is less than 5% of the normal gravity acceleration on Earth (“Microgravity…” paragraph, 1st page; graph, 4th page). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the method of Ray ’90 to operate with the gravity acceleration that is less than 5% of the normal gravity acceleration on Earth as a range of gravitation acceleration experienced during spacecraft flight, as suggested by NASA ‘12.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ray ’90 teaches microgravity during spacecraft flight, but does not explicitly describe a percent of gravity acceleration relative to the normal gravity acceleration on Earth. In analogous art of microgravity research, NASA ’12 suggests that spacecraft flight achieving microgravity includes transitioning from greater than the normal gravity acceleration on Earth (1.8 g, graph, 4th page) to essentially 0% of the normal gravity acceleration on Earth (Zero-g, graph, 4th page). Thus at some times during that transition, the gravity acceleration would be from 5-99% of the normal gravity acceleration on Earth. NASA ’12 further suggests that materials behave different in varying gravitational environments (Why Does NASA Study Microgravity?”, 4th page). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate with the gravity acceleration that is 5-99% of the normal gravity acceleration on Earth as a range of gravitational acceleration experienced during spacecraft flight, and for the benefit of studying material behavior in varying gravitational environments, as suggested by NASA ’12.
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray ’90 (C.S. Ray and D.E. Day. Glass melting in microgravity. Journal of the Japan Society for Microgravity Applications, Vol 7 No. 3, 1990.).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Ray ’90 further teaches the samples are spheres with a size greater than 0.5 mm in dimension along two orthogonal directions, which were melted intending to achieve spherical products of substantially the same size (“Eight spherical samples, ~6 ± 1 mm in diameter”, II. Experimental, p. 97). Sample 2 was deformed by unintended contact with the surrounding structure (Fig. 3), and Sample 3 was unintentionally deformed to an ellipsoid (D. Analysis of Sample 3, pp. 11-12), which may be considered a deformed sphere or a disc. Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to select a shape of the sample and/or the product for melting and cooling, and could further alter the shape of the product after cooling as desired.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ray ’90 (C.S. Ray and D.E. Day. Glass melting in microgravity. Journal of the Japan Society for Microgravity Applications, Vol 7 No. 3, 1990.) in view of Babin ’97 (Babin et al. Aerodynamic Trapping and Laser Heating for Containerless Glass Processing in Microgravity. Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 11, No. 1, January-March 1997.).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Ray ’90 further teaches the method further comprising cooling the liquid from above a glass transition temperature to below the glass transition temperature in the environment with the gravity acceleration less than the normal gravity level on Earth (Abstract, first ¶, p. 94; first two full ¶, p. 97; II. Experimental, pp. 97-99; Fig. 4). Ray ’90 is silent regarding the product containing bubbles and/or voids distributed inside a body of the product. In analogous art of processing glass in microgravity, Babin ’97 suggests processing a liquid material in an environment with a gravity acceleration less than the normal gravity acceleration on Earth by cooling the liquid from above a glass transition temperature to below the glass transition temperature, wherein the product contains bubbles and/or voids distributed inside a body of the product, depending upon rotation, temperature, viscosity, and time of the processing, and particular glass composition and impurities (Abstract; Experiments, p. 114; Fining, Cooling and Vitrification, p. 115; paragraphs “Forces responsible…”, p. 116 through “Fining is important”, p. 117; Fig. 7). 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 Ray ’90 for the product to contain bubbles and/or voids distributed inside a body of the product, depending upon rotation, temperature, viscosity, and time of the processing, and particular glass composition and impurities, as suggested by Babin ’97.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Frischat ’95 (Frischat. Glass and glass-ceramics in the extreme environment of space. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 183 (1995) 92-99.) discusses gas bubbles in glass melts in microgravity.
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