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.
Status of the Claims
Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-6 and 8-34 are currently pending.
Claims 13-17, 21, and 25-29 have been withdrawn.
Claims 7 and 47 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 18-24, and 30-34 are currently rejected.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or second paragraph.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 22-24, 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flannery et al., US 4,309,218.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 22-24, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al., CN 101244889 A.
Claim 4, 11, 12, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., CN 101244889 A.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flannery et al., US 4,309,218.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 22-24, 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flannery et al., US 4,309,218.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flannery et al., US 4,309,218.
Claim 6 has an objection for depending from a rejected claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 26 November 2025 and 9 January 2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 1 March 2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, lines 15-16 the claim recites that the mass ratio of the [TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5)] is 0.20 or more. This is considered new matter since the original specification in paragraph [0074] recites that the mass ratio of [TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5)] has an upper limit of 0.60. Furthermore, in claim 1, lines 22-23, the claim recites the mass ratio of [TiO2/Nb2O5] is 0.8 or less. This is considered new matter since the original specification in paragraph [0076] recites that the mass ratio of [TiO2/Nb2O5] has a lower limit of 0.10.
Claims 2-12 and 14-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, since they fail to correct the above new matter issue.
Should claim 1 be amended to include the upper limit of 0.60 for the mass ratio of [TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5)], claim 11 would fail to further limit claim 1 unless amended.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al., International Patent Publication WO 2017/006998 A1.
A machine-generated translation of WO 2017/006998 A1 accompanied the IDS filed 26 November 2025. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Kaneko et al. disclose an optical glass comprising in terms of mass percentages, 7-35% of P2O5, 1-45% of TiO2, 5.5-55% of Nb2O5, 0-29% of Bi2O3, 0-4% of B2O3, 0-8% of SiO2, 0-5% of Al2O3, 0-45% of WO3, 0-1.2% of Li2O, 0-6% of Na2O, 0-12% of K2O, 0-2% of Rb2O, 0-6% of Cs2O, 0-5% of MgO, 0-5% of CaO, 0-6% of SrO, 0-6% of BaO, 0-5% of ZnO, 0-9% of Ta2O5, 0-4% of Ga2O3, 0-5% of In2O3, 0-5% of Sc2O3, 0-8% of HfO2, 0-6% of GeO2, 0-5% of La2O3, 0-8% of Gd2O3, 0-5% of Y2O3, 0-5% of Yb2O3, and 0-5% of TeO2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0056], [0058], [0060], [0066], [0074], [0078], [0086], [0088], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0096]-[0099], [0104], [0108], [0110]-[0113], [0117], [0119], [0121], [0123], [0125], and [0129]. Kaneko et al. disclose that the optical glass has a refractive index of at most 2.10. See paragraph [0010]. Kaneko et al. disclose that the optical glass has an Abbe number of at most 16.7. See paragraph [0010]. Kaneko et al. disclose that the optical glass is used as a lens preform. See paragraphs [0001] and [0002]. Kaneko et al. disclose that the optical glass is either polished or press molded to form an optical element such as a lens. See paragraphs [0001] and [0002]. The compositional ranges of Kaneko et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the optical glass composition as recited in claims 1-2 and 14-18. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, at least 5% of P2O5, at most 20% of Bi2O3, at least 1% of TiO2, wherein the optical glass has a ratio TiO2/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of 2.5-10 and a mass ratio of TiO2/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) of 1.25-10, a mass ratio of [(Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO)/(K2O+BaO)] of 0.70 or less, a mass ratio of [TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5)] of 0.20 or more, a mass ratio of [(TiO2+Nb2O5)/(SiO2+B2O3+lli2o+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO)] of 4.0-15.0, and a mass ratio of [TiO2/Nb2O5] of 0.8 or less, wherein the optical glass has a refractive index of 1.900 or more and an Abbe number of at most 25.0, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 0.01-20% of K2O, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 5-80% of Nb2O5, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Kaneko et al. disclose Example 13 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 70-98% of P2O5+TiO2+Nb2O5, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 0.01-20% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 0.01-30% of ZnO+SrO+BaO, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 7, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, 40-80% of TiO2+Nb2O5+WO3+Bi2O3, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, having a ratio P2O5/(P2O5+TiO2+Nb2O5) of 0.15-0.4, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, having a ratio (MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO)/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of 0.3-10, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, having a ratio BaO/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) of greater than 0, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, having a ratio TiO2/( TiO2+Nb2O5) of 0.1-0.6, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of weight percentages, having a ratio TiO2/(Nb2O5+WO3+Bi2O3) of 0.1-2, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 14, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass having a specific gravity of at most 4.20, as recited in claim 14. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 15, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13-16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass having a ratio of the refractive index/specific gravity of 0.48-0.60, as recited in claim 15. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 16, Kaneko et al. disclose Examples 13, 15, and 16 (see Table 1-1-1 and Table 1-3), which reads on an optical glass having a Tg of 380-800°C, as recited in claim 16. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 17, Kaneko et al. disclose the optical glass is a polished or press molded to form a lens (see paragraphs [0001] and [0002]), which reads on an optical element blank, as recited in instant claim 17.
As to claim 18, Kaneko et al. disclose the optical glass is a polished or press molded to form an optical element such as a lens (see paragraphs [0001] and [0002]), which reads on an optical element, as recited in instant claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
13 January 2026