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 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The letter “i” in “K2SIO3” should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word --the-- should be inserted before “at least one of metal oxide nanoparticles and metalloid oxide nanoparticles” because this element was already recited in claim 1. 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.
Claim 4 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 4 recites “the at least one metal oxide nanoparticle”. This is unclear because it does not match the corresponding limitation in line 4 of claim 1, “at least one of metalloid oxide nanoparticles and metal oxide nanoparticles” in context or number. Examiner recommends --the metal oxide nanoparticles-- or --the nanoparticles--.
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) 1-6, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu ‘649 (CN 104556649 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 1, Liu ‘649 teaches a salt bath comprising from 0.1 wt.% to 3 wt.% nanoparticles, the nanoparticles comprising at least one of metalloid oxide nanoparticles and metal oxide particles (nano silicon dioxide, nano aluminum oxide; Abstract, ¶ [00015]-[0007], [0025]-[0026], [0029], [0037], [0040], [0043], [0051], [0055], [0062], [0066] - wherein the amounts of nanoparticles taught by Liu ‘649 include ranges overlapping the claimed range and specific examples falling in the claimed range), and at least one alkali metal salt comprising a second alkali metal cation (potassium nitrate; Abstract, ¶ [0005], [0012], [0025], [0037], [0040], [0043], [0051], [0062]).
Regarding an atomic radius of the second alkali metal cation being larger than atomic radius of a first alkali metal cation in an alkali-containing glass article, the alkali-containing glass article constitutes material worked upon by the claimed system in an intended use of the system. It has been held that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115 and 2111.02. Nonetheless, Liu ‘649 does teach examples in which the second alkali metal cation in the salt bath does have an atomic radius that is larger than an atomic radius of a first alkali metal cation in an alkali-containing glass article (¶ [0025], [0028], [0051], [0054], [0062], [0065] - wherein potassium has a larger atomic radius than sodium).
Regarding the at least one alkali metal salt being capable of decomposing to at least one of an alkali metal nitrite, an alkali metal oxide, or an alkali hydroxide, the alkali metal salt taught by Liu ‘649 is potassium nitrate (Abstract, ¶ [0005], [0012], [0025], [0037], [0040], [0043], [0051], [0062]), which is KNO3. This is the same composition described in Applicant’s specification as being capable of decomposing to at least one of an alkali metal nitrite, an alkali metal oxide, or an alkali hydroxide (specification ¶ [0019], [0046], [0056]). While Liu ‘649 does not explicitly describe this capability, it has been held that if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding the nanoparticles being capable of actively reacting with the at least one of the alkali metal nitrite, the alkali metal oxide, or the alkali hydroxide, the nanoparticles taught by Liu ‘649 are SiO2 and Al2O3 (Abstract, ¶ [0005]-[0007], [0025]-[0026], [0029], [0037], [0040], [0043], [0051], [0055], [0062], [0066]). These are the same as compositions described in Applicant’s specification as being capable of actively reacting with the at least one of the alkali metal nitrite, the alkali metal oxide, or the alkali hydroxide (specification ¶ [0019], [0060]). While Liu ‘649 does not explicitly describe this capability, it has been held that if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Liu ‘649 further teaches the alkali metal salt comprises KNO3 (Abstract, ¶ [0005], [0012], [0025], [0037], [0040], [0043], [0051], [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu ‘649 further teaches the nanoparticles comprise SiO2 and Al2O3 (Abstract, ¶ [0005]-[0007], [0025]-[0026], [0029], [0037], [0040], [0043], [0051], [0055], [0062], [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu ‘649 further teaches the alkali metal cation comprises KNO3 (Abstract, ¶ [0005], [0012], [0025], [0037], [0040], [0043], [0051], [0062]) and the at least one metal oxide nanoparticles comprise SiO2 (Abstract, ¶ [0005]-[0007], [0025]-[0026], [0029], [0037], [0043], [0051], [0055], [0062], [0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu ‘649 teaches KNO3 as described above, but does not explicitly teach that at least a portion of the KNO3 decomposes to at least one of KNO2, K2O, or KOH. Firstly, this limitation is interpreted as a capability of the KNO3 because this is a claim to a salt bath system and not to a method that includes a step of decomposing. Secondly, it has been held that if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01. Thus the KNO3 of Liu ‘649 has the claimed capability.
Regarding claim 6, Liu ‘649 teaches SiO2 as described above. The recited limitation is interpreted as a capability of the SiO2 because this is a claim to a salt bath system and not to a method that includes a step of reacting. It has been held that if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01. Thus the SiO2 of Liu ‘649 has the claimed capability.
Regarding claim 9, Liu ‘649 further teaches the nanoparticles comprises at least 90 wt.% of the at least one metal oxide nanoparticles and metalloid oxide nanoparticles (Abstract, ¶ [00015]-[0007], [0025]-[0026], [0029], [0037], [0040], [0043], [0051], [0055], [0062], [0066] - wherein all of the nanoparticles comprises metal oxide nanoparticles).
Regarding claim 11, Liu ‘649 further teaches a temperature of the salt bath is from 350°C to 500°C (¶ [0014], [0015], [0032], [0049], [0069]).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu ‘649 (CN 104556649 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Shekarriz ’13 (Shekarriz, M. et al. Systematic synthesis of high surface area silica nanoparticles in sol-gel condition by using the central composite design (CCD) method. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, v. 92, n. 5, p. 828-834, 2013.).
Regarding claim 7, Liu ‘649 is silent regarding an average surface area of the metal oxide nanoparticles. In analogous art of nanoparticles, Shekarriz ’13 suggests metal oxide nanoparticles having an average surface area from 300 m2/g to 600 m2/g can be produced from cheap precursor materials (Abstract; Table 2). 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 teachings of Liu ‘649 by utilizing nanoparticles having an average surface area of from 300 m2/g to 600 m2/g, as suggested by Shekarriz ’13, as a substitution of known metal oxide nanoparticles, and for the benefit of using nanoparticles produced from cheap precursor materials.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu ‘649 (CN 104556649 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein).
Regarding claim 8, Liu ‘649 further teaches the nanoparticles have an average size of from 1 nm to 25 nm (¶ [0007], [0025]), where in the particle size range disclosed by Liu ‘649 overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu ‘649 (CN 104556649 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Jensen ‘802 (US 2003/0110802 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Liu ‘649 is silent regarding a pH of the salt bath being from 6 to 8. In analogous art of molten salt glass strengthening, Jensen ‘802 suggests a pH of a molten salt bath should be close to neutral (7), and in the range from 6 to 8 for the benefit of preventing pitting and etching of the glass surface by the molten salt (¶ [0012]-[0014], [0019]-[0020]). 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 teachings of Liu ‘649 by making a pH of the salt bath be from 6 to 8 for the benefit of preventing pitting and etching of the glass surface by the molten salt, as suggested by Jensen ‘802.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu ‘649 (CN 104556649 A - English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) in view of Bartholomew ‘545 (US 3,661,545).
Regarding claim 12, Liu ‘649 is silent regarding the salt bath further comprising at least one alkaline earth metal cation. In analogous art of molten salt glass strengthening, Bartholomew ‘802 suggests that a salt bath comprising KNO3 used for glass strengthening may comprise at least one alkaline earth metal cation which is present as an impurity or which is leached out of the glass article during treatment (column 3, lines 17-21). Liu ‘649 teaches a glass article that contains an alkaline earth metal species which is treated in the KNO3 salt bath (Ca; ¶ [0020], [0028], [0054], [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the system of Liu ‘649 the salt bath further comprises at least one alkaline earth metal cation which is present as an impurity or which is leached out of the glass article during treatment, as suggested by Bartholomew ‘545. Liu ‘649 and Bartholomew ‘545 are silent regarding the nanoparticles being capable of actively reacting with the at least one alkaline earth metal cation in order to form a product that does not deposit on the surface of the glass article. However, Liu ‘649 teaches SiO2 nanoparticles, and Liu ‘649 and Bartholomew ‘545 suggest Ca alkaline earth metal cations, as described above. Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0063] describes that alkaline earth metal cations such as Ca2+ may react with nanoparticles to form alkaline earth silicates and prevent the formation of a layer on the surface of the glass. It has been held that if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01. Thus it is considered that the nanoparticles and alkaline earth metal cation as suggested by Liu ‘649 and Bartholomew ‘545 are capable of actively reacting in order to form a product that does not deposit on the surface of the glass article.
Conclusion
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