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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim and Specification Objections
At least claim 1 and Specification (throughout) are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “principal” is found throughout the application and claims referring to a surface. However, the term should be “principle”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111183316 to Mi in view of KR 2015/0139431 to Matsuishi et al and JP 2018-163353 to Myaska et al.
Mi recites a glass sheet (Figure 1A) comprising a first principle surface (101) and a second principle surface (102) opposed to each other and an end surface connecting the first principle surface to the second principle surface to each other, wherein the glass sheet has an uneven structure (106) that functions as a diffraction grating on at least one of the first or second principle surfaces, the uneven structure being formed in a region where incident light enters and the incident light having entered inside the glass sheet comprises a first light guided (112) while repeating total reflection between the first principle surface and the second principle surface and the second light (110) emitted in a direction being a different direction, outside.
But Mi fails to expressly recite wherein the glass sheet has a refractive index (nd) from 1.6-2.2 and has an R shape in at least part of the end surface, the end surface has a surface roughness Ra of 100nm or less and the second light emitted in the direction of the end surface. However, Matsuishi teaches a glass sheet (section entitled “Technical field” says “the present invention relates to a glass sheet production method and a glass sheet production apparatus”), comprising a first principal surface (figure 11, 10b) and a second principal surface opposed to each other (10a) and an end surface connecting the first principal surface and the second principal surface to each other (11) and has an R shape in at least part of the end surface (calls it an R shape and is the same as applicant’s figure 1), and the end surface has a surface roughness Ra of 100 nm or less (when discussing forming the end 11, Matsuishi say, “In the present modified example, the end face of the glass plate 10, 11 and 12, resin-bonded diamond wheel, and chamfering processed by the wheel, or may be further polished by a pair of grinding wheels. By polishing the end face (11, 12) by a grinding wheel, of the end face (11, 12)It is possible to reduce the surface roughness. In addition, the end surface polished by the abrasive wheel (11, 12) has an arithmetic average roughness Ra of not more than 100 preferably, and more preferably 80 nm” Matsuishi further teaches the surface roughening to be done by etching). Since Mi teaches the light extraction features (106) to be formed by etching the surface and Matsuishi also teaches etching to form a surface roughness, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided an R shape in at least part of the end surface and a surface roughness of 100nm or less in order to produce the desired light extraction features.
Furthermore, although Mi in view of Matsuishi do not specify that the glass sheet has a refractive index of from 1.6 to 2.2, see Myaska teach who teach a glass substrate comprising a first principal surface (142) and a second principal surface (141) opposed to each other and an end surface (14) connecting the first principal surface and the second principal surface to each other, wherein the glass sheet has a refractive index of from 1.6 to 2.2 (they say, “Further, the refractive index of the light guide substrate 14 at the temperature T may be in the range of 1.4 ≦ n ≦ 2.2. A high refractive index of the light guide substrate 14 is preferable in that the viewing angle becomes large, but generally a material having a high refractive index causes a decrease in transmittance. For this reason, the refractive index n of the light guide substrate 14 is preferably 1.5 ≦ n ≦ 2.0, and more preferably 1.6 ≦ n ≦ 1.9.”)
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a glass panel with an R shaped end for the purpose of outputting a signal that has a refractive index between 1.6 and 2.2 as taught by Myaska in the system of Mi in view of Matsuishi since Myaska teach that this is well known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In regard to claim 2, Matsuishi teach wherein the glass sheet has an R shape in an entirety of the end surface.
In regard to claim 5, see paragraph 19 which teaches a thickens of between 0.2mm-0.8 mm.
In regard to claim 6, see paragraphs 21 and 23.
In regard to claim 8, Mi teaches a light guiding plate comprising a glass sheet.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111183316 to Mi in view of KR 2015/0139431 to Matsuishi et al and JP 2018-163353 to Myaska et al as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of U.S. Patent 10,442,729 to Katayama et al.
In regard to claim 3, although modified Mi do not specifically teach that their thickness variation is 5 microns or less, Katayama teach that this is well known. See column 4, lines 26-40.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide thickness variation of 5 microns or less as taught by Katayama in the system of modified Mi since Katayama teach that this is well known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In regard to claim 4, although modified Mi do not specifically teach wherein the first principal surface and the second principal surface each have a surface roughness Ra of 10 nm or less, see claim 1 of Katayama. They teach these surfaces have a roughness of 10nm or less.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide a glass sheet with an R shaped end of a glass sheet that has a surface roughness of 10nm or less as taught by Katayama in the system of modified Mi since Katayama teach that this is well known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as currently applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874