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 .
Examiner’s Comment
The “Hv” claimed is defined as the Vicker’s Hardness, “Hvafter” is defined as the Vicker’s Hardness after chemical strengthening and “Hvbefore” is defined as the Vicker’s Hardness before chemical strengthening (see Applicants’ publication par 0119-0121).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 20, 2026 has been entered.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki (JPS598637) cited by Applicants in view of either one of USPub20180251395 or WO2018051754.
Regarding claims 1 and 3: Hiroaki teaches an optical glass having a composition, in mass%, shown below (see abstract).
Oxide
Mass%
SiO2
20-38
TiO2
25-35
Na2O
0-15
Nb2O5
0-15
B2O3
0-5
La2O3
None disclosed (0%)
CaO
0-5
K2O
5-20
Li2O
0-5 (this allows for 0% both in mass and mol)
Al2O3
0-5
ZrO2
0-8
BaO
10-25
Sb2O3
0-1
P2O5
0.5-6
The above composition not only provides overlap with the individual ranges and “substantially free” (i.e. 0-5wt%) limitations claimed but allows for SiO2+Na2O totals also overlapping that claimed providing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Further, regarding the SiO2+Na2O total specifically, it is additionally noted for the record that given that Hiroaki does clearly suggest SiO2+Na2O totals suitable for their inventive compositions being that which falls within the claimed range (see for instance Example 8 in Hiroaki’s Table which has a SiO2+Na2O total of 44mass% and Example 9 which has a SiO2+Na2O total of 40mass%), using a total amount within the range claimed would have been particularly obvious within Hiroaki’s overlapping composition above.
While Hiroaki may not teach their optical glass being chemically strengthened comprising a CS layer on the surface, Hiroaki also does not exclude such features. Instead, Hiroaki only generally teaches an optical glass.
As ‘395 and ‘754, who each similarly teach optical glasses (see 0003-0004 in ‘395 and entirety of ‘754), suggest it being desirable in art to chemically strengthen optical glass producing a CS layer in the surface thereof for enhanced strength (see abstract and 0053 in ‘395 and 0042-0043 in ‘754), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Hiroaki to include chemically strengthening their optical glass producing a CS layer in the surface according to ‘395 or ‘754 in order to enhance strength.
While Hiroaki may not explicitly discuss an Hv change as claimed, the following is noted.
Initially, the glass of Hiroaki has a composition overlapping that claimed. Additionally, Hiroaki was modified above to include chemically strengthening their optical glass according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754. Given that chemically strengthening according to ‘395 will be single step using a Na:K salt bath with a ratio of 1:0 at 400oC for 30 min (see Ex 10 and 11 in Table 2 and 0197) which is substantially similar to Applicants’ chemical strengthening method (see Applicants’ discussion in published par 0103 and 0105 of a single step using a sodium NaNO3 salt, potassium KNO3 salt or mixed salt thereof at 370-550oC for 1-1440min) and chemically strengthening according to ‘754 will be done with salts, durations and temperatures also substantially similar to Applicants’ chemical strengthening method (see Applicants’ discussion in published par 0103-0105 compared with for instance that shown in Table 7 of ‘754), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties to be achieved (MPEP 2112).
While Hiroaki may not teach that the shortest wavelength at which a sample of the glass having 10mm thickness exhibits a spectral transmittance of 5% is 400nm or less, however, given that Hiroaki’s glass composition meets that claimed and their glass is chemically strengthened according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754 which is also substantially similar to Applicants’ method as discussed above, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same optical properties to result when measuring a a sample of the glass with 10mm thickness (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 4 and 7: Hiroaki’s glass has a refractive index of 1.71-1.85 and an Abbe number of 23-30 (Abstract).
2. Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP2013543832, using original document and corresponding English document US2013276880A1) cited by Applicants in view of either one of USPub20180251395 or WO2018051754.
Regarding claims 1 and 3: ‘832 teaches an optical glass having a composition, in mass% such as that shown below.
Oxide
Mass% (see par 0137 in original document and 0138 in English document)
SiO2
25-50
TiO2
15-30
Na2O
3-13
Y2O3+Yb2O3+GdO3+Ta2O5+Nb2O5
0-15
B2O3
0-8
La2O3
None disclosed (0%)
CaO
0-3
K2O
0.5-8
Li2O
0-2 (allows for 0%)
Al2O3
0-3
ZrO2
0-5
BaO
4-18
P2O5
None disclosed (0%)
The above composition not only provides overlap with the individual SiO2, TiO2, Na2O, B2O3, La2O3, CaO, K2O, and Li2O ranges claimed but also allows for Nb2O5 amounts and SiO2+Na2O totals overlapping that claimed providing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Further, regarding the Nb2O5 content and SiO2+Na2O total, it is additionally noted for the record that given that ‘832 does clearly suggest Nb2O5 individual content as well as SiO2+Na2O totals suitable for their inventive compositions being that which falls within the claimed ranges (see for instance Examples in Tables), using such a Nb2O5 amount and SiO2+Na2O total amount within the ranges claimed would have been particularly obvious within ‘832’s overlapping composition above.
Additionally, although not shown above and ‘832 teaches that while not preferred, ‘832 does teach that their glass may contain antimony oxide (Sb2O3) for refining in conventional amounts up to 1wt% (see 0046, 0140) overlapping the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
While ‘832 may not teach their optical glass being chemically strengthened comprising a CS layer on the surface, ‘832 also does not exclude such features. Instead, ‘832 only generally teaches an optical glass.
As ‘395 and ‘754, who each similarly teach optical glasses (see 0003-0004 in ‘395 and entirety of ‘754), suggest it being desirable in art to chemically strengthen optical glass producing a CS layer in the surface thereof for enhanced strength (see abstract and 0053 in ‘395 and 0042-0043 in ‘754), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘832 to chemically strengthen their optical glass producing a CS layer in the surface according to ‘395 or ‘754 in order to enhance strength.
While ‘832 may not explicitly discuss an Hv change as claimed, the following is noted.
Initially, the glass of ‘832 has a composition overlapping that claimed. Additionally, ‘832 was modified above to include chemically strengthening their optical glass according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754. Given that chemically strengthening according to ‘395 will be single step using a Na:K salt bath with a ratio of 1:0 at 400oC for 30 min (see Ex 10 and 11 in Table 2 and 0197) which is substantially similar to Applicants’ chemical strengthening method (see Applicants’ discussion in published par 0103 and 0105 of a single step using a sodium NaNO3 salt, potassium KNO3 salt or mixed salt thereof at 370-550oC for 1-1440min) and chemically strengthening according to ‘754 will be done with salts, durations and temperatures also substantially similar to Applicants’ chemical strengthening method (see Applicants’ discussion in published par 0103-0105 compared with for instance that shown in Table 7 of ‘754), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties to be achieved (MPEP 2112).
While 832’ may not teach that the shortest wavelength at which a sample of the glass having 10mm thickness exhibits a spectral transmittance of 5% is 400nm or less, however, given that 832’s glass composition meets that claimed and their glass is chemically strengthened according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754 which is also substantially similar to Applicants’ method as discussed above, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same optical properties to result when measuring a sample of the glass having 10mm thickness (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 4 and 7: ‘832’s glass has a refractive index of greater than 1.6-1.85 (par 0139 in English document) and Abbe number greater than or equal to 20 (0044 in English document).
3. Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN110316958) cited by Applicants in view of either one of USPub20180251395 or WO2018051754.
Regarding claims 1 and 3: ‘958 teaches an optical glass that can have a composition, in mass%, as described and shown in Table below (see entire disclosure and citation from ‘958 below which is clarified with the provided table).
“(6)The optical glass according to any one of (1) to (5), wherein the composition is expressed by weight percent, comprising: SiO 2 : 33 to 42%; and/or TiO 2 : 22 to 32%; and/or Na 2 O: 10 ～20%; and/or BaO: 5 to 15%; and/or Nb2O5: 3 to 14%; and/or K2O: 0 to 4.5%; and/or B2O3: 0 to 5%; and/or SrO: 0 ～5%; and/or CaO: 0 to 5%; and/or MgO: 0 to 5%; and/or Ln2O3: 0 to 5%; and/or ZrO2: 0 to 3%; and/or Li2O: 0 ～4%; and/or Al2O3: 0 to 3%; and/or ZnO: 0 to 3%; and/or Sb2O3: 0 to 0.5%, wherein the Ln2O3 is one of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, Yb2O3 Or a variety.”
Oxide
Mass%
SiO2
33-42
TiO2
22-32
Na2O
10-20
Nb2O5
3-14
B2O3
0-5
La2O3 (Ln2O3)
0-5
CaO
0-5
K2O
0-4.5
Li2O
0-4 (allows for 0%)
Al2O3
0-3
ZrO2
0-3
BaO
5-15
Sb2O3
0-0.5
P2O5
None disclosed (0%)
The above composition not only provides overlap with the individual ranges claimed but allows for SiO2+Na2O totals also overlapping that claimed providing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Further, regarding the SiO2+Na2O total specifically, note that at minimum the above composition would require at least 33% SiO2 and at least 10% Na2O which necessarily provides for a total of at least 43% falling within the range claimed.
While ‘958 may not teach their optical glass being chemically strengthened comprising a CS layer on the surface, ‘958 also does not exclude such features. Instead, ‘958 only generally teaches an optical glass.
As ‘395 and ‘754, who each similarly teach optical glasses (see 0003-0004 in ‘395 and entirety of ‘754), suggest it being desirable in art to chemically strengthen optical glass producing a CS layer in the surface thereof for enhanced strength (see abstract and 0053 in ‘395 and 0042-0043 in ‘754), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘958 to include chemically strengthening their optical glass producing a CS layer in the surface according to ‘395 or ‘754 in order to enhance strength.
While ‘958 may not explicitly discuss an Hv change as claimed, the following is noted.
Initially, the glass of ‘958 has a composition overlapping that claimed. Additionally, ‘958 was modified above to include chemically strengthening their optical glass according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754. Given that chemically strengthening according to ‘395 will be single step using a Na:K salt bath with a ratio of 1:0 at 400oC for 30 min (see Ex 10 and 11 in Table 2 and 0197) which is substantially similar to Applicants’ chemical strengthening method (see Applicants’ discussion in published par 0103 and 0105 of a single step using a sodium NaNO3 salt, potassium KNO3 salt or mixed salt thereof at 370-550oC for 1-1440min) and chemically strengthening according to ‘754 will be done with salts, durations and temperatures also substantially similar to Applicants’ chemical strengthening method (see Applicants’ discussion in published par 0103-0105 compared with for instance that shown in Table 7 of ‘754), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same properties to be achieved (MPEP 2112).
While ‘958 may not teach that the shortest wavelength at which a sample of the glass having 10mm thickness exhibits a spectral transmittance of 5% is 400nm or less, however, given that 958’s glass composition meets that claimed and their glass is chemically strengthened according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754 which is also substantially similar to Applicants’ method as discussed above, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same optical properties to result when measuring a 10mm thick sample (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 4 and 7: ‘958’s glass has a refractive index of 1.72-8.8 and Abbe number of 22-30 (see citation below).
“(11) The optical glass according to any one of (1) to (10) has a refractive index nd of 1.72 to 1.80, preferably 1.73 to 1.79, more preferably 1.74 to 1.78, and an Abbe number νd of 22 to 30, preferably 23 ～29, more preferably 24 to 28.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments are summarized below.
Applicants initially argue that the claimed glass recites,
PNG
media_image1.png
112
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and argue that Hiroaki does not disclose any evaluation results concerning light-transmission and does not consider at all the optical properties or crack resistance of glass after chemical strengthening.
This is not persuasive. Initially note that Hiroaki does not have to explicitly disclose evaluation results concerning light-transmission, optical properties or crack resistance of glass after chemical strengthening. Instead, Hiroaki’s glass only has to have the claimed properties and features to meet the claim. In the instant case, it was discussed in the Office Action that while Hiroaki may not explicitly disclose the change rate or evaluation of optical properties as claimed, given that Hiroaki’s glass composition meets that claimed and their glass is chemically strengthened according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754 which is also substantially similar to Applicants’ method as discussed above, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same change rate to result as well as the same optical properties to result when measuring a 10mm thick sample (MPEP 2112). Note that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicants argue that in order to obtain the claimed optical properties in chemically strengthened glass, it is necessary to adjust composition and strengthening conditions in consideration of ion exchange caused by chemical temperature and Hiroaki neither mentions any relationship between optical properties after chemical strengthening nor does Hiroaki disclose any evaluation results concerning optical properties after chemical strengthening.
This is not persuasive because Hiroaki does not need to mention a relationship between optical properties after chemical strengthening nor does Hiroaki have to explicitly mention any evaluation results concerning optical properties after chemical strengthening. Instead, Hiroaki’s glass only has to have the claimed properties to meet the claim. In the instant case, as mentioned above, given that Hiroaki’s glass composition meets that claimed and their glass is chemically strengthened according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754 which is also substantially similar to Applicants’ method, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same optical properties to result when measuring a 10mm thick sample (MPEP 2112).
Applicants argue that given that ‘832 teaches that their thickness if less than 5mm and teaches away from a thickness more than 5mm, ‘832 fails to disclose “a shortest wavelength at which a sample of the chemically strengthened optical glass having a thickness of 10mm exhibits a spectral transmittance of 5% is 400nm or less” as claimed and there would be no motivation for one skilled in the art to modify ‘832 to include such features.
This is not persuasive. Initially it is simply noted for clarity of record that ‘832 does not actually teach away from thicknesses more than 5mm but in contrast, ‘832 only discloses that the thickness is “preferably” less than 5mm for specific reasons (see par 0032) and it has been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to preferred embodiments nor do preferred embodiments constitute a teaching away (see MPEP 2123). However, the Examiner would also like to note that regardless of ‘832’s preferred thickness being less than 5mm, the claim does not actually require the glass to be 10mm thick. Specifically, claim 1 never actually positively recites the glass being 10mm thick but rather, only recites a property at which a sample of the glass with a thickness of 10mm will have (i.e. if one took a 10mm sample of the claimed glass, then it would have the recited property). As such, ‘832 does not have to teach their glass having 10mm thickness but instead, ‘832’s glass only needs to have the recited property if a 10mm sample thickness of their glass was evaluated.
In the instant case, given that 832’s glass composition meets that claimed and their glass is chemically strengthened according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754 which is also substantially similar to Applicants’ method, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same optical properties to result upon measuring a 10mm thick sample (MPEP 2112).
Applicants argue that ‘832 only measures transmittance at 420nm which is higher than the claimed 400nm.
This is not persuasive. Regardless of whether or not ‘832 explicitly measures transmittance at 400nm does not matter as long as ‘832’s glass will have the claimed properties at the argued wavelength. In the instant case, given that 832’s glass composition meets that claimed and their glass is chemically strengthened according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754 which is also substantially similar to Applicants’ method, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same optical properties at 400nm or less to result upon measuring a 10mm thick sample (MPEP 2112).
Applicants argue that ‘832 teaches that Sb2O3 may be added in limited cases where the glass is produced by drawing method, down draw, etc. and the chemical strengthening treatments in ‘395 and ‘754 are premised on application to glass produced by reheat press molding or precision press molding which are entirely different than the drawing method, down draw, etc. of ‘832.
This is not persuasive. It appears that Applicants are arguing that because the embodiment in ‘832 that comprises Sb2O3 as claimed has their raw glass made by a different method than that of ‘395 and ‘754 then it would not have been obvious to modify ‘832 with the chemical strengthening treatment of ‘395 or ‘754 but this is not persuasive. While the initial raw glass in ‘832 may be made by a different method than the raw glasses of ‘395 or ‘754 in no way means that a post chemical strengthening treatment as is taught by ‘395 or ‘754 cannot still be used. Note that there is nothing in ‘395 or ‘754 that states that their chemical strengthening treatments can only be done on raw glasses made according to their specifically disclosed methods nor is there any teaching therein that states that their post strengthening treatments would not be applicable to other optical raw glasses made by alternative methods. Instead, ‘395 and ‘754 only generally suggests that it is desirable in the art of optical glasses to chemically strengthen them producing a CS layer in the surface thereof for enhanced strength (see abstract and 0053 in ‘395 and 0042-0043 in ‘754). Given that ‘832 is an optical glass, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘832 to chemically strengthen producing a CS layer in the surface according to ‘395 or ‘754 in order to enhance strength.
Applicants argue that the claimed glass recites,
PNG
media_image1.png
112
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and argue that ‘958 does not disclose any evaluation results concerning light-transmission and does not consider at all the optical properties or crack resistance of glass after chemical strengthening.
This is not persuasive. Initially note that ‘958 does not have to explicitly disclose evaluation results concerning light-transmission, optical properties or crack resistance of glass after chemical strengthening. Instead, 958’s glass only has to have the claimed properties and features to meet the claim. In the instant case, it was discussed in the Office Action that while 958 may not explicitly disclose the change rate or evaluation of optical properties as claimed, given that 958’s glass composition meets that claimed and their glass is chemically strengthened according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754 which is also substantially similar to Applicants’ method as discussed above, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same change rate to result as well as the same optical properties to result when measuring a 10mm thick sample (MPEP 2112). Note that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicants argue that in order to obtain the claimed optical properties in chemically strengthened glass, it is necessary to adjust composition and strengthening conditions in consideration of ion exchange caused by chemical temperature and 958 neither mentions any relationship between optical properties after chemical strengthening nor does 958 disclose any evaluation results concerning optical properties after chemical strengthening.
This is not persuasive because 958 does not need to mention a relationship between optical properties after chemical strengthening nor does 958 have to explicitly mention any evaluation results concerning optical properties after chemical strengthening. Instead, 958’s glass only has to have the claimed properties to meet the claim. In the instant case, as mentioned above, given that 958’s glass composition meets that claimed and their glass is chemically strengthened according to the teachings of ‘395 or ‘754 which is also substantially similar to Applicants’ method, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same optical properties to result when measuring a 10mm thick sample (MPEP 2112).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights