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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 is directed towards the method for preparing luminescent antibacterial glass powders of claim 6, wherein in the step (d), each of the luminescent antibacterial glass powders has an average diameter of 5 to 15 μm based on D50.
The closest prior art is Schreder et al. (US20040180773) in view of Anderson et al. (US20040213539). Schreder in view of Anderson fails to disclose or make obvious the method for preparing luminescent antibacterial glass powders of claim 6, wherein in the step (d), each of the luminescent antibacterial glass powders has an average diameter of 5 to 15 μm based on D50.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreder et al. (US20040180773, hereinafter referred to as Schreder).
Regarding claim 1, Schreder makes obvious a luminescent antibacterial glass composition comprising: 20 to 40 wt% of SiO2 (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 15-90 wt.% SiO2, 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); 1.5 to 10 wt% of B2O3 (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-40 wt.% B2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 20 to 40 wt% of ZnO (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-30 wt.% ZnO, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 5 to 10 wt% of Al2O3 (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 1-35 wt.% Al2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.); 5 to 10 wt% of MgO (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% MgO, which overlaps with the claimed range.); a total of 5 to 30 wt% of at least one of Na2O, K2O, or CaO (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% Na2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.); a total of 0.1 to 5 wt% of at least one of CuO or Ag2O (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% CuO, which overlaps with the claimed range.); and 0.1 to 2 wt% of a luminescent oxide (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% Eu2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 2, Schreder makes obvious Na2O is added in a content of 2 to 10 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% Na2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.), wherein K2O is added in a content of 2 to 15 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% K2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.), wherein CaO is added in a content of 1 to 5 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% CaO, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 3, Schreder makes obvious CuO is added in a content of 0.1 to 5 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% CuO, which overlaps with the claimed range.), wherein Ag2O is added in a content of 0.1 to 2 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% Ag. Examiner notes Ag will be present in the form of Ag2O as shown in Table 1.).
Regarding claim 4, Schreder makes obvious wherein the luminescent oxide includes at least one of Eu2O3 or Tb4O7 (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% Eu2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, Schreder makes obvious the luminescent oxide is Eu2O3, wherein Eu2O3 is added in a content of 0.5 to 1.0 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% Eu2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreder in view of Anderson et al. (US20040213539, hereinafter referred to as Anderson).
Regarding claim 6, Schreder makes obvious a method for preparing luminescent antibacterial glass powders, the method comprising: (a) a step of mixing and stirring 20 to 40 wt% of SiO2 (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 15-90 wt.% SiO2, which overlaps with the claimed range.), 1.5 to 10 wt% of B2O3 (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-40 wt.% B2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.), 20 to 40 wt% of ZnO (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-30 wt.% ZnO, which overlaps with the claimed range.), 5 to 10 wt% of Al2O3 (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 1-35 wt.% Al2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.), 5 to 10 wt% of MgO (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% MgO, which overlaps with the claimed range.), a total of 5 to 30 wt% of at least one of Na2O, K2O, or CaO (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% Na2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.), a total of 0.1 to 5 wt% of at least one of CuO or Ag2O (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% CuO, which overlaps with the claimed range.), and 0.1 to 2 wt% of a luminescent oxide with each other to prepare a luminescent antibacterial glass composition (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% Eu2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.);
While Schreder is directed towards waveguides (see Schreder at [0002]), Schreder does not explicitly disclose a step of melting the luminescent antibacterial glass composition, a step of cooling the molten luminescent antibacterial glass composition, and a step of pulverizing the cooled luminescent antibacterial glass composition to obtain the luminescent antibacterial glass powders, because Schreder does not explicitly disclose the method of forming the waveguide. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the arts would naturally look to the prior art to determine an appropriate method for forming the waveguide glass.
Anderson is directed towards optical waveguide glass (see Anderson at the Abstract). Anderson discloses forming a melt (see Anderston at [0034]), cooling the melt (see Anderson at [0034]), and grinding (see Anderson at [0037]).
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 waveguide glass of Schreder to use the waveguide glass forming method of Anderson with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming a waveguide glass.
Regarding claim 7, Schreder makes obvious Na2O is added in a content of 2 to 10 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% Na2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.), K2O is added in a content of 2 to 15 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% K2O, which overlaps with the claimed range.), and CaO is added in a content of 1 to 5 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% CaO, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Schreder makes obvious CuO is added in a content of 0.1 to 5 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% CuO, which overlaps with the claimed range.), and Ag2O is added in a content of 0.1 to 2 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-20 wt.% Ag. Examiner notes Ag will be present in the form of Ag2O as shown in Table 1.).
Regarding claim 9, Schreder makes obvious the luminescent oxide includes at least one of Eu2O3 or Tb4O7 (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% Eu2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 10, Schreder makes obvious the luminescent oxide is Eu2O3, wherein Eu2O3 is added in a content of 0.5 to 1.0 wt% (see Schreder at Table 2, disclosing a glass comprising 0-10 wt.% Eu2O3, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 11, while Schreder does not explicitly disclose the melting is performed at a temperature of 1,000 to 1,300°C and for 30 to 90 minutes because Schreder does not disclose the melting temperature and time, it is obvious to use the glass forming method disclosed by Anderson as detailed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Anderson discloses calcination at 1300°C for one hour (see Anderson at [0050]).
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 waveguide glass of Schreder to use the waveguide glass forming method of Anderson with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming a waveguide glass.
Conclusion
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