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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-26 are pending in the application, claims 11-26 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants' election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 30 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 July 2026.
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 1-10 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.
With Regards to Claims 1-10: Instant claim 1 recites the limitation --at least one of the first major surface of the second major surface comprises spodumene crystals, has a spodumene crystal ratio equal to or less than about 0.02-- in lines 5 to 6. As written the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that the range includes a value of zero (0), in which case the aforementioned limitation is either optional or that there is no spodumene crystal on at least one of the first major surface and the second major surface; or (2) that the first major surface and/or the second major surface must "comprise" some amount of spodumene crystal thereon, in which case said range does not include a value of zero (0) (i.e., the range is "greater than zero and equal to or less than about 0.02"). For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that both interpretations read on the claim limitation.
Claims 2-10, which depend from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 2: Instant claim 2 recites the limitation --the spodumene crystals comprise a number density of 110 spodumene crystals per mm2 or less-- in lines 1 to 2. As written the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that the range includes a value of zero (0), wherein there would be no spodumene crystals; or (2) that the range is almost zero (i.e., greater than zero (0)). For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that both interpretations read on the claim limitation.
With Regards to Claim 3: Instant claim 3 recites the limitation --the spodumene crystals comprise an average size of 20 µm or less-- in lines 1 to 2. As written the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that the range includes a value of zero (0), wherein are no spodumene crystals; or (2) that the range is almost zero (i.e., greater than zero (0)). For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that both interpretations read on the claim limitation.
With Regards to Claim 8: Instant claim 8 recites the limitation --the spodumene crystal ratio equal to or less than about 2%-- in lines 1 to 2. As written the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that the range includes a value of zero (0), in which case the aforementioned limitation is either optional or that there is no spodumene crystal on either the first major surface or the second major surface; or (2) that the first major surface and/or the second major surface must "comprise" some amount of spodumene crystal thereon, in which case said range does not include a value of zero (0) (i.e., the range is "greater than zero and equal to or less than about 2%"). For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that both interpretations read on the claim limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With Regards to Claim 8: Instant claim 8 recites the limitation --the spodumene crystal ratio is equal to or less than about 2%-- in lines 1 to 2. Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, recites --a spodumene crystal ratio equal to or less than about 0.02-- in lines 5 to 6. In that said range of "less than about 2%" in claim 8 is merely the percentage form of the range of "less than about 0.02" of claim 1, the limitation of claim 8 is deemed by the examiner to be of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends (i.e., changing the units of measurement does not qualify as further limiting the claim).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baell et al. (WO 2012/075068 A2).
Regarding Claim 1: Baell teaches a substantially transparent or opaque lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic sheet imparted with various colors or tints ([0007]-[0009], [0017], [0020], [0022], [0026], and [0029] of Baell). Baell also teaches in one embodiment that the glass-ceramic is predominantly composed of a stuffed beta-quartz solid solution phase including traces of beta-spodumene solid solution and minor glass phase, and in another embodiment that the glass-ceramic exhibits an alkali gradient with the Na varying from about 10% at the surface to about 5% in the bulk and Li2O varies from about 1-2% on the surface to about a maximum of 9% in the bulk ([0046], [0047] and [0053]-[0055] of Baell). (In the instant case, since the amount of Li2O cannot exceed about 2% on the surface, the amount of spodumene crystals (i.e., LiAl(SiO3)2) present on said surface would be limited, such that the surface comprises a spodumene crystal ratio that less than 0.02 as claimed. Furthermore, in that the glass ceramic of Baell can be opaque, it would have a transmittance of less than 92% for at least one wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 750 nm as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 8: Baell teaches that the spodumene crystal ratio is equal to or less than about 2% ([0053]-[0055] of Baell).
Regarding Claim 9: Baell teaches that the alkali aluminosilicate glass composition is doped with at least one of Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, Co, Fe, Mn, Cr, V, and Ti ([0022], [0024], [0026], [0028], and [0029] of Baell).
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ernsberger (US 3,454,386 A).
Regarding Claim 1-6 and 8: Ernsberger teaches forming precursor lithium aluminosilicate (LAS) glass plates, after which the plates have their surfaces ground and polished using conventional techniques, and are then subsequently heat treated at 647°C for two hours, and wherein the precursor composition comprises Ag (e.g., AgNO3) and Ce (e.g., CeO2) colorants ([Col. 2: li. 42 to Col. 3: li. 57] and [Col. 6: li. 1 to Col. 8: li. 4] of Ernsberger). Ernsberger also teaches that the produced samples of LAS glass plates have a surface of Silica-O (i.e., a surface depleted of lithium) (figures 1 to 2, [Col. 2: li. 42 to Col. 3: li. 57], and [Col. 4: li. 12-51] of Ernsberger).
With Respect to Claims 1-3 and 8: Ernsberger teaches that the produced samples of LAS glass plates have a surface of Silica-O (i.e., a surface depleted of lithium) (figures 1 to 2, [Col. 2: li. 42 to Col. 3: li. 57], and [Col. 4: li. 12-51] of Ernsberger). As such, said surface would inherently possess the spodumene crystal with a ratio of 0, an average size of 0, and a number density of 0; which anticipates the claimed ranges of --equal to or less than about 0.02-- {instant claim 1}, --20 µm or less-- {instant claim 2}, --110 spodumene crystals per mm2 or less-- {instant claim 3}, and --equal to or less than about 2%-- {instant claim 8}.
With Respect to Claims 1 and 4-6: Ernsberger teaches the claimed color glass panel, but does not explicitly recite --a transmittance through the glass panel from the first major surface to the second major surface is less than 92% for at least one wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 750 nm-- {instant claim 1}, --according to CIE L*a*b* color space, the glass panel comprises an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle-- {instant claim 4}, --at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface comprises a polished surface with an average surface roughness Sa of 10 nm or less-- {instant claim 5}, and --a first concentration of Li2O in a region from the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface to a depth of about 100 nm is less than a second concentration of Li2O at a midpoint of a thickness of the glass body between the first major surface and the second major surface-- {instant claim 6}. However, Ernsberger uses the same material and performs the same steps as applicants' (i.e., a color glass panel comprising an alkali aluminosilicate glass composition containing Li2O, wherein a surface is polished, then heat treated at a temperature in a range from 500°C to 700°C for one to twenty hours; see ([Col. 6: li. 1 to Col. 8: li. 4]) of Ernsberger and ([0006], [0038], and [0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the color glass panel inherently possesses --a transmittance through the glass panel from the first major surface to the second major surface is less than 92% for at least one wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 750 nm-- {instant claim 1}, --according to CIE L*a*b* color space, the glass panel comprises an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle-- {instant claim 4}, --at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface comprises a polished surface with an average surface roughness Sa of 10 nm or less-- {instant claim 5}, --a first concentration of Li2O in a region from the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface to a depth of about 100 nm is less than a second concentration of Li2O at a midpoint of a thickness of the glass body between the first major surface and the second major surface-- {instant claim 6}
Regarding Claim 9: Ernsberger teaches that the alkali aluminosilicate glass composition is doped with Au, Ag, Cu, Fe, Mn, V, and Ce (Table II, [Col. 6: li. 4-15], and [Col. 9: li. 16-20] of Ernsberger).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gabel et al. (US 2016/0130171 A1) (referred to herein as "Gabel'171").
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 8: Gabel'171 teaches a lithium-containing, transparent glass-ceramic material, wherein the lithium aluminosilicate (LAS) glass-ceramic material having an Li-depleted, usually predominantly amorphous (vitreous) surface zone/layer formed on the top face thereof (figure 2, [0017], [0024], and [0025] of Gabel'171). Gabel'171 also teaches that the transparent glass ceramic can include iron (Fe) to have a brown tint ([0046] and [0047] of Gabel'171). It is also taught by Gabel'171 that the transparent glass sheet has transmission values of less than 80% at 400 nm (figure 5 of Gabel'171); which anticipates the claimed range of --less than 92% for at least one wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 750 nm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
With Respect to Claims 1-3 and 8: Gabel'171 discloses that the surface is a Li-depleted layer (figure 2 and [0017] of Gabel'171), as such it would inherently possess the spodumene crystal with a ratio of 0, an average size of 0, and a number density of 0; which anticipates the claimed ranges of --equal to or less than about 0.02-- {instant claim 1}, --20 µm or less-- {instant claim 2}, --110 spodumene crystals per mm2 or less-- {instant claim 3}, and --equal to or less than about 2%-- {instant claim 8}.
Regarding Claim 6: Gabel'171 teaches that a first concentration of Li2O in a region from the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface to a depth of about 100 nm is less than a second concentration of Li2O at a midpoint of a thickness of the glass body between the first major surface and the second major surface (figure 2 of Gabel'171).
Regarding Claim 9: Gabel'171 teaches that the alkali aluminosilicate glass composition is doped with at least Fe ([0046] and [0047] of Gabel'171).
Regarding Claim 10: Gabel'171 teaches an electronic device comprising a housing, the housing comprising the color glass panel ([0006] of Gabel'171).
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gabel et al. (US 2012/0157290 A1) (referred to herein as "Gabel'290").
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 8: Gabel'290 teaches a colored lithium aluminosilicate (LAS) glass article comprising microstructured zones, a first microstructured zone extending inwards from the surface, a second microstructured zone, and a third microstructured zone in this order, wherein the first microstructured zone is a substantially amorphous microstructure which is depleted of Li and Mg ions ([0016], [0022], [0023], [0026], [0050]-[0052], and [0087]-[0105] of Gabel'290). Gabel'290 also discloses that the colored LAS glass is opaque with a transmission of 0% at 400 nm and 600 nm ([0167] of Gabel'290); which anticipates --a transmittance through the glass panel from the first major surface to the second major surface is less than 92% for at least one wavelength in a range from 380 nm to 750 nm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
With Respect to Claims 1-3 and 8: Gabel'290 discloses that the surface is a Li-depleted layer ([0105] of Gabel'290), as such it would inherently possess the spodumene crystal with a ratio of 0, an average size of 0, and a number density of 0; which anticipates the claimed ranges of --equal to or less than about 0.02-- {instant claim 1}, --20 µm or less-- {instant claim 2}, --110 spodumene crystals per mm2 or less-- {instant claim 3}, and --equal to or less than about 2%-- {instant claim 8}.
Regarding Claim 6: Gabel'290 teaches that a first concentration of Li2O in a region from the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface to a depth of about 100 nm is less than a second concentration of Li2O at a midpoint of a thickness of the glass body between the first major surface and the second major surface (figures 2A to 2B and [0105]-[0107] of Gabel'290).
Regarding Claim 10: Gabel'290 teaches an electronic device comprising a housing, the housing comprising the color glass panel ([0069]-[0086] of Gabel'290).
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baell et al. (WO 2012/075068 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (WO 2022/266405 A1).
Baell is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 4: Baell fails to disclose that the --CIE L*a*b* color space, the glass panel comprises an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle--.
Guo discloses a LAS glass doped with a colorant having a CIEL*a*b* color space, with an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle ([0002], [0205], and [0207]-[0329] of Guo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the LAS colored glass of Guo with the color glass disclosed by Baell in order to have --CIE L*a*b* color space, the glass panel comprises an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the LAS colored glass of Guo with the color glass disclosed by Baell, from the stand-point of having a desired color ([0315] of Guo).
Regarding Claim 10: Baell in view of Guo also discloses an electronic device comprising a housing, the housing comprising the color glass panel ([0398] of Guo).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabel et al. (US 2016/0130171 A1) (referred to herein as "Gabel'171") as applied to claim 1 above.
Gabel'171 is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 4: Gabel'171 discloses the claimed color glass panel, but does not explicitly recite --CIE L*a*b* color space, the glass panel comprises an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle--. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have adjusted the color to have L* be between 55 to 96.5, |a*| of at least 0.3 or |b*| of at least 0.5, since such a change amounts to mere aesthetic design choice (i.e., change in color). See MPEP §2144.04(I).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabel et al. (US 2012/0157290 A1) (referred to herein as "Gabel'290") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (WO 2022/266405 A1).
Gabel'290 is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claims 4 and 9: Gabel'290 discloses that the color glass panel can include colored oxides ([0022] of Gabel'290), but fails to disclose --according to CIE L*a*b* color space, the glass panel comprises an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle-- {instant claim 4} or --the alkali aluminosilicate glass composition is doped with at least one of Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, Co, Fe, Mn, Cr, V, Ti, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu-- {instant claim 9}.
Guo discloses a LAS glass doped with a colorant (e.g., Au, Ag, Ni, Cu, Co, Ce, Ti, Cr) having a CIEL*a*b* color space, with an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle ([0002], [0205], [0207]-[0329], and [0354]-[0372] of Guo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the LAS colored glass of Guo with the color glass disclosed by Gabel'290 in order to have --according to CIE L*a*b* color space, the glass panel comprises an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle-- {instant claim 4} and --the alkali aluminosilicate glass composition is doped with at least one of Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, Co, Fe, Mn, Cr, V, Ti, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu-- {instant claim 9}. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the LAS colored glass of Guo with the color glass disclosed by Gabel'290, from the stand-point of having a desired color ([0315] of Guo).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Baell et al. (WO 2012/075068 A2): Baell teaches --a color glass panel--, wherein Baell's color glass panel further comprises --a substantially transparent or opaque lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic sheet imparted with various colors or tints; wherein in one embodiment that the glass-ceramic is predominantly composed of a stuffed beta-quartz solid solution phase including traces of beta-spodumene solid solution and minor glass phase, and in another embodiment that the glass-ceramic exhibits an alkali gradient with the Na varying from about 10% at the surface to about 5% in the bulk and Li2O varies from about 1-2% on the surface to about a maximum of 9% in the bulk-- ([0007]-[0009], [0017], [0020], [0022], [0026], [0029], [0046], [0047], and [0053]-[0055] of Baell). However, Baell does not teach that --the spodumene crystals comprise an average size of 20 µm or less-- {instant claim2}, --the spodumene crystals comprise a number density of 110 spodumene crystals per mm2 or less-- {instant claim 3}, --an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle-- {instant claim 4}, --the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface comprises a polished surface with an average surface roughness Sa of 10 nm or less-- {instant claim 5}, --a first concentration of Li2O in a region from the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface to a depth of about 100 nm is less than a second concentration of Li2O at a midpoint of a thickness of the glass body between the first major surface and the second major surface-- {instant claim 6}, --the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface comprises an etched surface with an average surface roughness Sa of 80 nm or less-- {instant claim 7}, or --an electronic device comprising a housing, the housing comprising the color glass panel-- {instant claim 10}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Baell with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Baell in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Ernsberger (US 3,454,386 A): Ernsberger teaches --a color glass plate--, wherein Ernsberger's color glass plate further comprises --forming precursor lithium aluminosilicate (LAS) glass plates, after which the plates have their surfaces ground and polished using conventional techniques, and are then subsequently heat treated at 647°C for two hours, and wherein the precursor composition comprises Ag (e.g., AgNO3) and Ce (e.g., CeO2) colorants; wherein the produced samples of LAS glass plates have a surface of Silica-O-- (figures 1 to 2, [Col. 2: li. 42 to Col. 3: li. 57], [Col. 4: li. 12-51], and [Col. 6: li. 1 to Col. 8: li. 4] of Ernsberger).--. However, Ernsberger does not teach that --the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface comprises an etched surface with an average surface roughness Sa of 80 nm or less-- {instant claim 7} or --an electronic device comprising a housing, the housing comprising the color glass panel-- {instant claim 10}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Ernsberger with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Ernsberger in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Gabel et al. (US 2016/0130171 A1) (referred to herein as "Gabel'171"): Gabel'171 teaches --a color glass plate--, wherein Gabel'171s color glass plate further comprises --a lithium-containing, transparent glass-ceramic material, wherein the lithium aluminosilicate (LAS) glass-ceramic material having an Li-depleted, usually predominantly amorphous (vitreous) surface zone/layer formed on the top face thereof; that the transparent glass ceramic can include iron (Fe) to have a brown tint; and wherein the transparent glass sheet has transmission values of less than 80% at 400 nm-- (figures 2, 5, [0017], [0024], [0025], [0046], and [0047] of Gabel'171)--. However, Gabel'171 does not teach that --an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle-- {instant claim 4} or --the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface comprises an etched surface with an average surface roughness Sa of 80 nm or less-- {instant claim 7}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Gabel'171 with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Gabel'171 in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
With regards to the closest prior art of record Gabel et al. (US 2012/0157290 A1) (referred to herein as "Gabel'290"): Gabel'290 teaches --a color glass plate--, wherein Gabel'290s color glass plate further comprises --a colored lithium aluminosilicate (LAS) glass article comprising microstructured zones, a first microstructured zone extending inwards from the surface, a second microstructured zone, and a third microstructured zone in this order, wherein the first microstructured zone is a substantially amorphous microstructure which is depleted of Li and Mg ions; and wherein the colored LAS glass is opaque with a transmission of 0% at 400 nm and 600 nm-- ([0016], [0022], [0023], [0026], [0050]-[0052], [0087]-[0105], and [0167] of Gabel'290). However, Gabel'290 does not teach that --an L* parameter in a range from 55 to 96.5 and at least one of an a* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.3 or a b* parameter having an absolute value of at least 0.5 as measured under F2 illumination and a 100 standard observer angle-- {instant claim 4}, --the at least one of the first major surface or the second major surface comprises an etched surface with an average surface roughness Sa of 80 nm or less-- {instant claim 7}, or --the alkali aluminosilicate glass composition is doped with at least one of Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, Co, Fe, Mn, Cr, V, Ti, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu-- {instant claim 9}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Gabel'290 with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Gabel'290 in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights