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 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:”yo” should be “to”?. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1 - 20 and 25 - 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2012126603A(JP’603).
Regarding claim 1, JP’603 discloses an optical glass (pages 2-5 ) containing by mole% of cation,
P5+ 25.0 to 50.0% (page 2, paragraph 6),
Al3+ 5.0 to 15.0% (page 2, paragraph 7),
Ba2+15.0% to 40.0% (page 3, paragraph 3),
Li+ 10.0% or less (page 4, paragraph 5),
Ti4+ 5.0% or less (page 4, paragraph 10); and
a total of the O2- content and the F- content is preferably 98.0% or more, more preferably 99.0% or more, more preferably 100% in terms of anion% (page 5, paragraphs 7-8). The F- content is preferably 15.0 to 40.0% in terms of anion% (page 5, paragraphs 7-8).
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing
identical ranges. However, the reference discloses “close” ranges, and close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, JP’603 discloses that the glass contains 10.0% or less Li+. See page 4, paragraph 5.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, JP’603 discloses that the glass contains 5% or less Ti4+(page 4, paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 6, JP’603 discloses that Mg2+ content is 1.0 to 20.0% (page 2, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 7, JP’603 discloses that the total percentage of P5+ (25.0 to 50.0%) and Al3+ (5.0 to 15.0%) is read on the claimed range. See pages 2-5.
Regarding claim 8, JP’603 discloses that the total percentage Mg2+(1.0 to 20.0% and Ba2+ (15.0% to 40.0%) is read on the claimed range. See pages 2-5.
Regarding claim 9, JP’603 discloses that the total percentage of Y3+ (1.5% to 9.0%), La3+ (1.5% to 9.0% ) and Gd3+ (1.5% to 9.0% ) is read on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, JP’603 discloses that the Ti4+ content is preferably 10.0% or less. Zr4+ is preferably 10.0% or less. the Ta5+ content is preferably 10.0% or less, the W6+ content is preferably 10.0% or less, and the Nb5+ content is preferably 10.0% or less. See pages 2-5.
Regarding claim 11, the content of P5+ is preferably 25.0 to 50.0%. the content of Al3+ is preferably 5.0 to 15.0%. Thus, the proportion of a percentage content of P5+ to a percentage content of AI3+ is read on the claimed range. See pages 2-5.
Regarding claims 12-14, the Ba2+ content is preferably 15.0% to 40.0% and the Zn2+ content is preferably more than 0% and 7.0% or less. The Li + content is preferably 20.0% or less, the Mg2+ content is preferably 1.0 to 20.0%, the Ca2+ content is preferably 0% to 20.0%, and the content of Sr2+ is preferably 0% to 20.0%. The content of Y3+ is more preferably 1.5% or more, and further preferably 2.0% or more. Moreover, it is more preferable that it is 9.0% or less, the content of La3+ is more preferably 1.5% or more, and further preferably 2.0% or more. Moreover, it is more preferable that it is 9.0% or less, It is more preferable that it is 8.0% or less. The content of Gd3+ is more preferably 1.5% or more, and further preferably 2.0% or more. Moreover, it is more preferable that it is 9.0% or less, It is more preferable that it is 8.0% or less. The Ti4 + content is preferably 10.0% or less, more preferably 8.0% or less. Zr4+ is preferably 10.0% or less. The Ta5 + content is preferably 10.0% or less, the W6 + content is preferably 10.0% or less, The Nb5+ content is preferably 10.0% or less. The F- content is preferably 15.0 to 40.0% in terms of anion%. Further, it is more preferably 18.0% or more, and further preferably 20.0% or more. Thus, the proportions are read on the claimed proportions. See pages 2-5.
Regarding claims15, 17 and 26, an optical glass having a partial dispersion ratio (θg, F) of 0.535 or more and a refractive index (nd) of 1.44 or more. See pages 1 and 6.
Regarding claims 16 and 25, optical glass has a refractive index (nd) 1.55 or more and an Abbe number ((nu) d) 55 or more. See pages 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 18, the anomalous dispersion (Δθg, F) is preferably 0.006 or more, more preferably 0.008 or more, more preferably 0.010 or more, and more preferably 0.011 or more. Preferably, it is 0.012 or more, more preferably 0.013 or more. See page 6
Regarding claims 19-20, The Examiner respectfully submits that although the prior art combination does not disclose the claimed properties, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art combination, since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully submits that the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the substantial ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise. Li + has a property of lowering the glass transition point (Tg) while maintaining devitrification resistance during glass formation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Regarding claim 27, JP’603 discloses the optical glass (pages 2-5 ) containing by mole% of cation,
Al3+ 5.0 to 15.0% (page 2, paragraph 7),
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the upper limit of F- is 14.94% and the teaching of JP’603 falls outside the scope of the claim of the present application.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses “close” ranges, and close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 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, 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731