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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are currently pending.
Claim 17 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-16, and 18-21 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-8, 10,13-15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grabowski et al., U.S. Patent US 4,584,279 A.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski et al., U.S. Patent US 4,584,279 A in view of Amma et al., International Patent Publication WO2018/235725 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10,13-15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grabowski et al., U.S. Patent US 4,584,279 A
Grabowski et al. disclose an optical glass composition comprising in terms of mass percentages: 0-10% of SiO2, 2-20% of B2O3, 0-2% of Al2O3, 1-16% of TiO2, 0-10% of ZrO2, 33-55% of La2O3, 0.5-10% of Y2O3, 0.5-15% of Nb2O5, 0-10% of Gd2O3, 0-15% of Ta2O5, 0-3% of P2O5. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, column 2, lines 5-18. Grabowski et al. disclose the optical glass has a refractive index of at least 1.9. See column 1, lines 65-69. Grabowski et al. disclose the optical glass has an Abbe number of at least 25. See column 1, lines 65-69. The compositional ranges of Grabowski et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the optical glass as recited in claims 1—8, 10, 20, and 21. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Grabowski et al. disclose Examples 4-6, 9, and 13-16 (Table 1), which reads on an optical glass comprising 1-30 mass% of Nb2O5, 10-60 mass% of La2O3, 1-20 mass% of Gd2O3, and 0-0.1% of ZnO, a refractive index from 1.9-2.3, as recited in instant claim 1. Since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Grabowski et al. would inherently possess the t450 property as recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 2, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Grabowski et al. would inherently possess the t520 property as recited in claim 2. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 3, Grabowski et al. disclose the glass comprises 1-16 mass% of TiO2, (see column 2, lines 5-18), since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Grabowski et al. would inherently possess the Ti2+/Ti4+ property as recited in claim 3. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 4, Grabowski et al. disclose the glass comprises 0.5-15 mass% of Nb2O5, (see column 2, lines 5-18), since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Grabowski et al. would inherently possess the Nb2+/Nb5+ property as recited in claim 4. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 5, Grabowski et al. disclose Examples 4-6, 9, and 13-16 (Table 1), which reads on the optical glass comprising 1-20% of SiO2, 1-25% of B2O3, and 1-30% of TiO2, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Grabowski et al. disclose Example 6 (Table 1), which reads on the optical glass comprising in terms of mass percentages 0-15% of ZrO2 and 0-5% of Y2O3, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Grabowski et al. disclose Examples 4-6, 9, and 13-16 (Table 1), which reads on the comprising in terms of mass percentages 0-5% of CaO and 0-5% of SrO, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Grabowski et al. disclose the glass comprises 2-20 mass% of B2O3 and 0-10 mass% of SiO2 (see column 2, line 5-18), since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Grabowski et al. would inherently possess the B3+/Si4+ property as recited in claim 8. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 10, Grabowski et al. disclose Examples 4-6, 9, and 13-16 (Table 1), which reads on the optical glass having an Abbe number of 20-35, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 13, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Grabowski et al. would inherently possess the same liquidus viscosity property as recited in claim 13. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 14, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Grabowski et al. would inherently possess the same thermal expansion coefficient of at most 95 x 10-7/°C, as recited in instant claim 14. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 15, Grabowski et al. disclose Examples 4-6, 9, and 13-16 (Table 1), which read on the optical glass having a density of at most 5.5 g/cm3, as recited in instant claim 15.
As to claim 20, Grabowski et al. disclose Examples 6 and 13 (Table 1), which reads on an optical glass comprising 6.1-9% of Nb2O5, 45-50.5% of La2O3, 0-0.1% of ZnO, and 6-9% of Gd2O3, as recited in instant claim 20.
As to claim 21, Grabowski et al. disclose Example 6 (Table 1), which reads on an optical glass having a refractive index of 1.95-2.00, as recited in instant claim 21.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabowski et al., U.S. Patent US 4,584,279 A in view of Amma et al., International Patent Publication WO2018/235725 A1.
This rejection is over the International Patent Publication because this reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, for convenience, the column and line numbers of the English language equivalent US Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0123044 A1 will be cited below.
Grabowski et al. teach an optical glass composition comprising in terms of mass percentages: 0-10% of SiO2, 2-20% of B2O3, 0-2% of Al2O3, 1-16% of TiO2, 0-10% of ZrO2, 33-55% of La2O3, 0.5-10% of Y2O3, 0.5-15% of Nb2O5, 0-10% of Gd2O3, 0-15% of Ta2O5, 0-3% of P2O5. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, column 2, lines 5-18. Grabowski et al. teach the optical glass has a refractive index of at least 1.9. See column 1, lines 65-69. Grabowski et al. teach the optical glass has an Abbe number of at least 25. See column 1, lines 65-69.
Grabowski et al. fail to teach that the glass has the recited thickness, long diameter, and that the glass is a light guide, for various wearable image display devices.
Amma et al. teach an optical glass composition comprising in terms of mass percentages: 0-70% of SiO2, 5-70% of Nb2O5, 0-0% of Ta2O5, 0-15% of Li2O, 0-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-30% of SrO, 0-550% of BaO, 0-55% of TiO2, 0-55% of ZrO2, 0-55% of WO3, 0-55% of Bi2O3, 0-55% of TeO2, and 1-55% of Ln2O3, where Ln is at least one of Y, La, Gd, Yb, and Lu. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0085]-[0106]. Amma et al. teach the optical glass has a thickness of 0.01-2 mm. See paragraph [0044]. Amma et al. teach the optical glass have an area of 8cm2 (800 mm2) or even 6,500cm2 (650,000 mm2). See paragraph [0045]. Amma et al. teach the optical glass is an optical plate useful in various devices such as glasses with projector, glass or goggle type displays, or virtual reality displays. See paragraph [0128]. The compositional ranges of Amma et al. are sufficiently similar to the glasses of Grabowski et al.
As to claim 9, Grabowski et al. as modified by Amma et al. teach the optical glass plate can using other fining agents other than As2O3 (see paragraph [0122]), which reads on the optical glass comprising no arsenic, fluorine, and lead, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 11, Grabowski et al. as modified by Amma et al. teach the optical glass plate has a thickness of 0.01-2 mm (see paragraph [0044]), which reads on the optical glass having a thickness of at most 1 mm, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Grabowski et al. as modified by Amma et al. teach the area of the main surface of the optical glass is at least 8 cm2 (800 mm2) and more preferably at least 6,500 cm2 (650,000 mm2) wherein one dimension of the main surface would be of at least 50 mm (see paragraph [0045]), which reads on the optical glass having a long diameter of the main surface of 50 mm or longer, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 16, Grabowski et al. as modified by Amma et al. teach the optical glass is a light guide plate (see paragraph [0004]), which reads on the light guide plate as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claims 18 and 19, Grabowski et al. as modified by Amma et al. teach the optical glass is a light guide plate in different products such as wearable equipment including glasses with projector, glass and goggle type displays, and virtual reality display devices (see paragraph [0128]), which reads on the light guide plate being a wearable image device selected from eyeglasses with a projector, eyeglasses or goggle type displays, virtual reality or augmented reality display devices, and virtual image display devices; and the wearable image display device, as recited in instant claims 18 and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5 and 6, filed 31 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10, 13-16, 20, and 21 under 102(a)(1) over Kuang (US 2015/0203395 A1) and the rejection of claims 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kuang (US 2015/0203395) in view of Amma et al. (WO 2018/235725) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a 102 rejection of Grabowski et al. and a 103 rejection of Grabowski et al. in view of Amma et al. as shown in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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 R. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
11 July 2026
Prosecution Insights