DETAILED ACTION
Reissue
The present reissue application is directed to US 11,964,895 B2 (“895 Patent”). 895 Patent issued on April 23, 2024 with claims 1-19 from application 18/119,570 filed on March 9, 2023, which is a continuation of PCT/US2021/058551 filed on November 9, 2021 and 17/521,364 filed on November 8, 2021, and claims priority to 63/113,507 filed on November 13, 2020.
This application was filed on May 16, 2025. Since this date is after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. Furthermore, the present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application presents broadened claims, which are permitted because Applicant filed these claims and demonstrated an intent to broaden within two years of the issue date of 895 Patent.
The most recent amendment was filed on October 9, 2025. The status of the claims is:
Claims 1-19: Canceled
Claims 20-39: New
This is a first, non-final action.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
895 Patent (US 11,964,895 B2)
Dannoux (US 2020/0002211 A1)
Oomori (US 2006/0040071 A1)
Keech (US 2018/0127310 A1)
Amma (US 2020/0278483 A1)
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Examiner objects to the Consent of Assignee and Statement under 37 CFR 3.73.
Examiner objects to claim 37 for minor informalities.
Claims 20-39 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite
Claims 20-34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Amma.
Claims 38 and 39 may contain allowable subject matter.
Summary of the Claims
895 Patent is directed to a glass article and its method of forming. Claim 20 is representative:
20. A glass article, comprising:
two primary surfaces,
lateral edges,
glass of the glass article having a composition in terms of weight percentage of representative oxides comprising:
7-45 wt% of silica, and
high-index dopants comprising La2O3, Nb2O5, and TiO2;
a low liquidus viscosity of the glass, viscosity of 0.01 poise to 3000 poise;
an index of refraction of the glass within a range of 1.7 to 3.0, where the index of refraction is at room temperature for wavelength of 589 nm;
a width of the glass article between the lateral edges, the width within a range of 15 mm to 500 mm;
a thickness of the glass article between the two primary surfaces, the thickness within a range of 0.1 mm to 8.5 mm;
a low warp of the glass article, the warp of 100 μm or less, where the warp refers to a difference between maximum and minimum distances of a median plane equidistant from the primary surfaces from a reference plane as per ASTM F1390; and
a total thickness variation of the glass article of 100 μm or less, where the total thickness variation refers to a difference between the maximum thickness and the minimum thickness of the glass article in free, unclamped, state.
Claims 20, 36, and 38 are the independent claims. Claims 36 and 38 recite a glass article with additional details.
Consent of Assignee and Statement under 37 CFR 3.73
The Consent of Assignee filed on May 16, 2025 is improper because it is signed by “Russell S. Magaziner, Director of Patent Procurement.” Where the assignee is a juristic entity, the consent may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization, or a person who makes a statement of authorization to act on behalf of the assignee as discussed in MPEP 325. A “Director of Patent Procurement” is not someone in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization.
Furthermore, a 37 CFR 3.73 paper establishing the ownership of the assignee must be submitted in order to support the consent of the assignee. The papers filed on May 16, 2025 identifying the assignment of “Document No. 63/113507” (a provisional application) to Corning Incorporated is insufficient to establish that Corning Incorporated is the owner of 895 Patent.
Claim Amendment
Examiner objects to the claim amendment filed on October 9, 2025 because an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims is required. Applicant’s remark that “For example, support for the amendments may be found in the ’895 patent at paragraphs [0004], [0015], [0085], [00110]-[00113], [00120], [00122], [00127], and [00144]” is insufficient because 895 Patent does not have paragraph numbers and Applicant has not clearly explained where in the patent is there disclosure supporting the specific limitations in the claims.
Claim Objections
Examiner objects to claim 37 for minor informalities.
In claim 37, the phrase “the the” in line 2 of the claim should be changed to “the” for grammatical reasons.
Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. There is no statement describing at least one error.
Furthermore, in a broadening reissue, the assignee of 100% of the entire right, title and interest in the patent (who must be named as the reissue applicant) may sign the declaration if the application for the original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest. Therefore, the declaration by the assignee must check the box confirming that “The application for the original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest”:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the reissue application. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single
word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. For example, Applicant may identify claim 1 of the patent as being broadened and identify a phrase in patent claim 1 that is not in the new reissue claims.
A new declaration is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 20-39 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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.
Claim 26 is 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 26 recites “wherein width is within a range of 50 mm to 400 mm.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear to what “width” refers or if it is “a width of the glass article” previously recited in parent claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 20-34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech.
Regarding independent claim 20, Dannoux discloses a glass article (i.e., glass ribbon 30B in Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
two primary surfaces and lateral edges (i.e., glass ribbon 30B has two primary surfaces and lateral edges as shown in Figure 2),
glass of the glass article having a composition comprising of silica, and high-index dopants comprising La2O3, Nb2O5, and TiO2 (i.e., SiO2/silica and La2O3, Nb2O5, and TiO2; paragraph [0040]);
a low liquidus viscosity of the glass, viscosity of 0.01 poise to 3000 poise (i.e., “5 poise to 50000 poise,” which includes values in the claimed range; paragraph [0056])
an index of refraction of the glass within a range of 1.7 to 3.0 (i.e., a refractive index “from about 1.5 to about 2.1” or “from about 1.7 to about 1.85,” which includes values in the claimed range; paragraph [0041]);
a width of the glass article between the lateral edges, the width within a range of 15 mm to 500 mm (i.e., a width 32 of glass ribbon 30b is from “about 400 mm to about 5 mm,” which includes values in the claimed range; paragraph [0050]);
a thickness of the glass article between the two primary surfaces, the thickness within a range of 0.1 mm to 8.5 mm (i.e., thickness 34 of glass ribbon 30b is from “2 mm or less,” which includes values in the claimed range; paragraph [0057]);
a low warp of the glass article, the warp of 100 μm or less (i.e., glass ribbon 30b may have a warp “less than 5 μm, less than 0.1 μm” or “as low as 0.01 μm”; paragraph [0054]),
a total thickness variation of the glass article of 100 μm or less, where the total thickness variation refers to a difference between the maximum thickness and the minimum thickness of the glass article in free, unclamped, state (i.e., glass ribbon 30b “may have a thickness variation as low as 0.01 μm”; paragraphs [0031] and [0054]).
Further regarding claim 20, Dannoux discloses glass of the glass article having a composition in terms of weight percentage of representative oxides comprising: 7-45 wt% of silica. Dannoux discloses specific compositions of two embodiments, “Glass A” and “Glass B” by molar percentages (e.g., “40.2 mol% SiO2” or “42.7 mol% SiO2”; paragraph [0040]). The molar masses (i.e., grams per mole) of all the components of Glass A or Glass B are well known constant values1. Using these values, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able sum the weighted moles to determine the hypothetical mass of 100 moles of Glass A or Glass B2 and then convert the molar percentages disclosed by Dannoux into weight percentages. In other words, the weight percentages of the composition are inherently disclosed when the molar percentages are disclosed. In this case, Dannoux discloses that the weight percentage of silica, i.e., SiO2, is 28.2 wt% in Glass A and 28.0 wt% in Glass B, which is in the claimed range.
Further regarding claim 20, Dannoux discloses a refractive index “from about 1.5 to about 2.1” or “from about 1.7 to about 1.85” (paragraph [0041]) but does not specifically disclose the index of refraction is at room temperature for wavelength of 589 nm. However, Oomori teaches a system that is related to the one disclosed by Dannoux, including an optical element (paragraph [0002]) and further teaches determining an index of refraction at room temperature for wavelength of 589 nm using a known Abbe refractometer device (paragraphs [0040], [0159], and [0172]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically use a standard measure of index of refraction and a known refractometer device as taught by Oomori with the article disclosed by Dannoux in order to advantageously enable a known measurement of the desired value with predictable results. It also would have been well understood in the art that Dannoux’s disclosure of a refractive index “from about 1.5 to about 2.1” or “from about 1.7 to about 1.85” (paragraph [0041]) would fall within the claimed range even if measured by a slightly different standard.
Further regarding claim 20, Dannoux discloses glass ribbon 30b “may have a warp as low as 0.01 μm” (paragraph [0054]), but does not specifically disclose that the warp refers to a difference between maximum and minimum distances of a median plane equidistant from the primary surfaces from a reference plane as per ASTM F1390. However, Keech teaches a system that’s is related to the one disclosed by Dannoux including an optical element (paragraph [0003]) and further teaches measuring warp as a difference between maximum and minimum distances of a median plane equidistant from the primary surfaces from a reference plane as per ASTM F1390 (paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically use a standard measure of warp as taught by Keech with the article disclosed by Dannoux in order to advantageously enable a known measurement of the value with predictable results. It also would have been well understood in the art that Dannoux’s disclosure of “a warp as low as 0.01 μm” (paragraph [0054]) would fall within the claimed range even if measured by a slightly different standard.
Regarding claim 21, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses that the total thickness variation is less than 50 μm (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 22, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses that the total thickness variation is less than 25 μm and at least 0.01 μm (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 23, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses that the warp is less than 50 μm and at least 0.01 μm (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 24, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses that the index of refraction is at least 2.0 (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 25, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses that the thickness 34 is within a range of 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 26, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses that the width is within a range of 50 mm to 400 mm (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 27, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses that the liquidus viscosity is in a range of 1 to 100 poise (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 28, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses at least 0.2 wt% La2O3. As discussed above with regard to claim 20, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of La2O3, which is 20.5 wt% in Glass A and 16.0 wt% in Glass B (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 29, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses at least 0.5 wt% Nb2O5. As discussed above with regard to claim 20, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of Nb2O5, which is 14.9 wt% in Glass A and 17.7 wt% in Glass B (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 30, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses at least 5 wt% TiO2. As discussed above with regard to claim 20, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of TiO2, which is 8.7 wt% in Glass A and 8.1 wt% in Glass B (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 31, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses no more than 30 wt% La2O3. As discussed above with regard to claim 20, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of La2O3, which is 20.5 wt% in Glass A and 16.0 wt% in Glass B (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 32, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses no more than 20 wt% TiO2. As discussed above with regard to claim 20, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of TiO2, which is 8.7 wt% in Glass A and 8.1 wt% in Glass B (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 33, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses no more than 30 wt% Nb2O5. As discussed above with regard to claim 20, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of Nb2O5, which is 14.9 wt% in Glass A and 17.7 wt% in Glass B (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 34, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses the article is a sheet (paragraphs [0028]-[0033]).
Regarding independent claim 36, Dannoux discloses a glass article (i.e., glass ribbon 30B in Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
two primary surfaces, lateral edges (i.e., glass ribbon 30B has two primary surfaces and lateral edges as shown in Figure 2);
glass of the glass article having a composition in terms of weight percentage of representative oxides comprising:
5-55 wt% of silica (i.e., as discussed above with regard to claim 20, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of silica, i.e., SiO2, which is 28.2 wt% in Glass A and 28.0 wt% in Glass B; paragraph [0040]);
5.4-30 wt% La2O3 (as discussed above with regard to claim 20, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of La2O3, which is 20.5 wt% in Glass A and 16.0 wt% in Glass B; paragraph [0040]), and
4.8-30 wt% Nb2O5 (as discussed above with regard to claim 20, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of Nb2O5, which is 14.9 wt% in Glass A and 17.7 wt% in Glass B, paragraph [0040]);
a liquidus viscosity in a range of 0.01 poise to 10 poise (i.e., “5 poise to 50000 poise,” which includes values in the claimed range; paragraph [0056]);
an index of refraction of the glass of at least 2.0 (i.e., a refractive index “from about 1.5 to about 2.1,” which includes values in the claimed range; paragraph [0041]),
a width of the glass article between the lateral edges, the width within a range of 15 mm to 400 mm (i.e., a width 32 of glass ribbon 30b is from “about 400 mm to about 5 mm,” which includes values in the claimed range; paragraph [0050]);
a thickness of the glass article between the two primary surfaces, the thickness within a range of 0.1 mm to 3.0 mm (i.e., thickness 34 of glass ribbon 30b is from “2 mm or less,” which includes values in the claimed range; paragraph [0057]);
a low warp of the glass article, the warp of 50 μm or less (i.e., glass ribbon 30b may have a warp “less than 5 μm, less than 0.1 μm” or “as low as 0.01 μm”; paragraph [0054]),
a total thickness variation of the glass article of 25 μm or less, where the total thickness variation refers to a difference between the maximum thickness and the minimum thickness of the glass article in free, unclamped, state (i.e., glass ribbon 30b “may have a thickness variation as low as 0.01 μm”; paragraphs [0031] and [0054]).
Further regarding claim 36, Dannoux discloses a refractive index “from about 1.5 to about 2.1” (paragraph [0041]) but does not specifically disclose the index of refraction is at room temperature for wavelength of 589 nm. However, Oomori teaches a system that is related to the one disclosed by Dannoux, including an optical element (paragraph [0002]) and further teaches determining an index of refraction at room temperature for wavelength of 589 nm using a known Abbe refractometer device (paragraphs [0040], [0159], and [0172]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically use a standard measure of index of refraction and a known refractometer device as taught by Oomori with the article disclosed by Dannoux in order to advantageously enable a known measurement of the desired value with predictable results. It also would have been well understood in the art that Dannoux’s disclosure of a refractive index “from about 1.5 to about 2.1” or “from about 1.7 to about 1.85” (paragraph [0041]) would fall within the claimed range even if measured by a slightly different standard.
Further regarding claim 36, Dannoux discloses glass ribbon 30b “may have a warp as low as 0.01 μm” (paragraph [0054]), but does not specifically disclose that the warp refers to a difference between maximum and minimum distances of a median plane equidistant from the primary surfaces from a reference plane as per ASTM F1390. However, Keech teaches a system that’s is related to the one disclosed by Dannoux including an optical element (paragraph [0003]) and further teaches measuring warp as a difference between maximum and minimum distances of a median plane equidistant from the primary surfaces from a reference plane as per ASTM F1390 (paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically use a standard measure of warp as taught by Keech with the article disclosed by Dannoux in order to advantageously enable a known measurement of the value with predictable results. It also would have been well understood in the art that Dannoux’s disclosure of “a warp as low as 0.01 μm” (paragraph [0054]) would fall within the claimed range even if measured by a slightly different standard.
Regarding claim 37, in the glass article taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, Dannoux discloses that the silica is within a range of 7-45 wt%, and that the glass article further comprises TiO2 in a range of 5-20 wt%. Again, Dannoux states the molar percentage and therefore inherently discloses the weight percentage of silica, i.e., SiO2, which is 28.2 wt% in Glass A and 28.0 wt% in Glass B; and the weight percentage of TiO2, which is 8.7 wt% in Glass A and 8.1 wt% in Glass B (paragraph [0040]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Amma.
Regarding claim 35, Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech teaches a glass article as discussed above with regard to claim 34 but does not disclose an augmented reality device comprising an optical system comprising a light guide. However, Amma teaches a system that is related to the one taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech, including a glass article including silica, La2O3, Nb2O5, and TiO2 (Amma, paragraph [0042]). Amma further teaches an augmented reality device comprising an optical system comprising a light guide, comprising a sheet of this glass article (Amma, Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0002]-[0003], [0112] and [0145]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an augmented reality device comprising an optical system comprising a light guide as taught by Amma with the glass article sheet taught by Dannoux in view of Oomori and Keech in order to advantageously implement the augmented reality device with a glass sheet efficiently produced as a glass ribbon at lower cost and having high dimensional stability (Dannoux, paragraphs [0002]-[0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38 and 39 may be allowable if Applicant overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 251 rejection set forth in this Office action.
The prior art does not specifically disclose or fairly suggest a glass article including the combination of all of the elements, steps, and limitations recited in claims 38 and 39 (including all of the limitations of any respective parent claims), particularly including glass of the glass article having a composition in terms of weight percentage of representative oxides comprising: SiO2, 5-55 wt%; ZrO2, 5-10 wt%; CaO, 3.5-18 wt%; La2O3, 0.2 wt% to 30 wt%; Nb2O5, 0.5 wt% to 20 wt%; TiO2, 5-20 wt%; As2O3, 0% to 0.2 wt%; and at least one of (A), (B), (C), and/or (D), where: (A) is Er2O3, 0.05% to 0.9 wt%; (B) is Pr2O3, 0.05% to 1 wt%; (C) is Ho2O3, 0.05% to 1 wt%; and (D)is CeO2, 0.05% to 1 wt%.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which this reissue application is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to Examiner Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023; the Examiner’s supervisor, SPE Patricia Engle at (571) 272-6660; or the Central Reexamination Unit at (571) 272-7705.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Conferees: /DEANDRA M HUGHES/ /Patricia L Engle/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 SPRS, Art Unit 3991
1 The molar mass of SiO2 is 60.08 g/mol; B2O3 is 69.6182 g/mol; Li2O (in Glass A only) is 29.88 g/mol; BaO (in Glass B only) is 153.33 g/mol; CaO is 56.0774 g/mol; La2O3 is 325.81 g/mol; ZrO2 is 123.218 g/mol; Nb2O5 is 265.81 g/mol; and TiO2 is 79.866 g/mol.
2 The hypothetical mass of 100 moles of Dannoux’s Glass A is 85.736 g and the hypothetical mass of 100 moles of Dannoux’s Glass B is 91.507 g.