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 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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamagata (US 2014/0283737).
As to claim 1, Yamagata discloses a glass container (see 0018) comprising: a glass body comprising an external surface (see annotated Fig. 1), an internal surface opposite the external surface (see annotated Fig.1), a thickness (T) extending between the external surface and the internal surface, and an external surface layer extending from the external surface into the thickness of the glass body (51 of Fig. 1). wherein the external surface layer has a porosity greater than the porosity of a remainder of the glass body extending from the external surface layer to the internal surface Yamagata teaches the container has a two layer structure where the outside is formed of an opaque silica glass layer (52) and the inside is formed from transparent silica gas layer (52). Yamagata describes the outside material as “porous opaque silica glass” and further explains that opaque silica glass layer contains gaseous bubbles, whereas transparent silica glass layer (52) contains substantially no gaseous bubble. The porosity of external surface layer 51 is greater than the porosity of the remainder of the glass body represented by transparent silica glass layer (52) (see abstract, 0018, 0043, 0046-0051, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
445
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, the body of the container is silica glass (see abstract, 0002, 0018).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata (US 2014/0283737) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zhou et al. (CN1840497).
The teachings of Yamagata as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Yamagata fail to teach the external surface layer extends greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 100 nm from the external surface into the thickness of the glass body as required by claim 2.
Zhou et al. teaches forming nanoscale micropores in a glass surface by surface treatment including acid etching and discloses micropore depths of 20nm to 100nm (see ). Zhou et al. further teaches that providing such nanoscale microporosity improves the adhesion of material subsequently applied to the glass surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanoscale surface porosity treatment of Zhou et al. to the exterior porous surface of Yamagata in order to provide controlled porous glass surface having the surface properties and improved adhesion taught by Zhou.
Claim(s) 3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata (US 2014/0283737) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Borrelli et al. (US 2008/0248942).
The teachings of Yamagata as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Yamagata fail to teach the external surface layer has a porosity greater than 30% and less than or equal to 50% as required by claim 3.
Borrelli et al. Teaches porous glasses produced by phase separation and leaching and expressly quantifies their porosity. Borrelli et al. teaches porous glass having 30% porosity and further discuses porous Vycor glass produced by phase separation followed by leaching (see 0010, 0064).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the30% porosity taught by Borrelli et al. in the external layer of Yamagata. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to glass articles where Yamagata teaches the outer layer has formed of porous silica glass but does not specify the amount of porosity in the layer. Borrelli et al. teaches a known porosity value for porous silica glass and the porosity affects physical and chemical properties of the glass (see 0004).
As to claim 5, Borrelli et al. teaches the porous glass pore sizes generally range from 40 to 200 Angstroms (4-20nm, see 0009).
As to claim 6, Yamagata teaches that the glass body represented by transparent silica glass layer 52 contains substantially no gaseous bubbles, thereby teaches the inner remainder should have little to no void structure. Borrelli teaches porous glass having an average mean glass size of 4-10 nm (0027).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata (US 2014/0283737) as applied to claim 1 above.
The teachings of Yamagata as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Yamagata fails to teach the remainder of the glass body has a porosity greater than or equal to 0% and less than or equal to 30% as required by claim 4.
Yamagata states the inner layer contains substantially no gaseous bubbles and has a bulk density of about 2.20 g/cm3, where the porous layer has a bulk density of about 1.9 to 2.15 g/cm3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the remainder of the body with a porosity within the claimed range because Yamagata teaches minimizing the porosity of the layer.
As to claim 7, Yamagata teaches the remainer of the body has a density of 2.20g/cm3 and further teaches the layer is formed by heating and melting silica powder. It would have been obvious to fully consolidate the inner glass during melting to eliminate residual voids and achieve the desired free from gaseous bubbles layer.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata (US 2014/0283737) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Fadeev et al. (US 2017/0087058).
The teachings of Yamagata as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Yamagata fails to teach the glass container is a coated glass container comprising a polymer disposed of pores of the external surface layer of the glass body as required by claim 9.
Fadeev teaches glass containers having polymer-containing low-friction coatings bonded to the exterior surface of the glass container. The polymer can be polyimides, fluoropolymers, silsesquioxane based polymers, and silicone resins (see abstract, 0012, 0093).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass container of Yamagata to include the polymer layer on the outer surface as taught by Fadeev et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to glass articles where Fadeev et al. teaches the layer provides protection to the glass article and thermal stability (see abstract, 0016).
As to claim 10, Fadeev et al. teaches the layer is applied to the external surface.
As to claim 11. Fadeev teaches that the polymer low friction coating has a coefficient of friction less than 0.7 (see 0012).
As to claim 12, Fadeev et al. teaches the glass container can be used as pharmaceutical packages (see abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 pm.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
