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Any rejections and or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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 1-12 and 14-19 are currently pending.
Claim 13 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are currently rejected.
Claim 1-11 and 14-19 are 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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aitken et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2022/0234941 A1.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun, Chinese Patent Publication CN 101941797 A.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted 26 November 2025 has 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.
Claim 1-11 and 14-19 are 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.
Claim 1, lines 11-12 recite a mass ratio [TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5)] is 0.20 or more. This is considered to contain new matter since the original specification in paragraph [0077] reads that the range of the [TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5)] mass ratio is 0.10 to 0.60. The claim as written includes values greater than 0.60.
Claims 2-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph since they fail to correct the issue stated above.
It is noted that claim 12 does correct the issue pointed out above in claim 1 and hence is not rejected above. However, claim 12 would be considered to fail to further limit claim 1, if claim 1 was amended to include the upper limit of the [TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5)] mass ratio as recited in the specification, paragraph [0077] of 0.60.
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 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aitken et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2022/0234941 A1.
Aitken et al. disclose an optical glass composition in terms of mole percentages comprising 10-40% of P2O5, 0.5-50% of TiO2, 0.5-35% of K2O, 0.5-3% of CaO, 0-50% of Nb2O5, 0-15% of MgO, 0-10% of Al2O3, 0-4.5% of Li2O, 0-1% of V2O5, 0-20% of TeO2+SnO+SnO2, 0-15% of SiO2+GeO2, 0-15% of SiO2, 0-20% of BaO, 0-15% of Na2O, 0-10% of WO3, 0-5% of Ta2O5, and 0-10% of Bi2O3. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0007] and [0044]-[0062] and Tables 3 and 4. Aitken et al. disclose the optical glass has a refractive index of 1.75-2.06. See paragraph [0063]. Aitken et al. disclose the glass has a density of at most 4.2 g/cm3. See paragraph [0064]. Aitken et al. disclose the optical glass is optical elements. See paragraphs [0003], [0156], and [0157]. The compositional ranges of Aitken et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the optical glass as recited in claims 1-19. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of mass%, 10-40% of P2O5, at most 20% of Bi2O3, 0-15% of WO3, 5-40% of TiO2, and 20-60% of Nb2O5, wherein the Al2O3+SiO2 content is at most 2%, the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content is at most 5%, the ZnO+SrO+BaO content is from 0.01-12, TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5) of at least 0.2, and (Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO)/(K2O+BaO) of at most 0.51 and the optical glass has a refractive index of at least 1.950, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a content of P2O5+TiO2+Nb2O5 of 70 to 98%, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a content of MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO of 0.1-12%, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a content of Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO of 0.5-17%, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a content of TiO2+Nb2O5 of 40-80%, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of P2O5/(P2O5+TiO2+Nb2O5) of 0.15-0.4, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of K2O/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of greater than 0, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of TiO2/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of 1-500, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of (MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO)/(Li2O+Na2O+K2O) of 0.1-300, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of BaO/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) of greater than 0, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of TiO2/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) of 0.1-50, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5) of 0.1-0.6, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 14, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of (TiO2+Nb2O5)/(SiO2+B2O3+Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) of 0.5-20, as recited in instant claim 14.
As to claim 15, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass having an Abbe number of 15-20, as recited in instant claim 15.
As to claim 16, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass having a specific gravity of at most 4.2, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, Aitken et al. disclose Examples 48 and 106 (see Table 5), which reads on an optical glass having a ratio of refractive index/specific gravity of at least 0.48, as recited in instant claim 17.
As to claim 18, Aitken et al. disclose the optical glass is used for making optical elements (see paragraphs [0003], [0156], and [0157]), which reads on the optical glass being an optical element blank, as recited in instant claim 18.
As to claim 19, Aitken et al. disclose the optical glass is an optical element (see paragraphs [0003], [0156], and [0157]), which reads on the optical glass being an optical element, as recited in instant claim 19.
wt%
Ex. 48
Ex. 106
P2O5
23.89
23.15
TiO2
15.06
12.78
Li2O
0.60
Na2O
1.66
K2O
2.54
4.39
CaO
1.06
5.02
BaO
5.89
6.40
Nb2O5
49.21
48.19
Ta2O5
0.08
0.07
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun, Chinese Patent Publication CN 101941797 A.
A machine-generated translation of CN 101941797 A accompanied the IDS filed 26 November 2025. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Sun discloses an optical glass composition in terms of mass percentages comprising 16-40% of P2O5, 8-25% of TiO2, 40-60% of Nb2O5, 0.5-10% of BaO, 0-5% of B2O3, 0-5% of SiO2, 0-15% of Na2O+K2O, 0-5% of Bi2O3, and 0-5% of MgO+CaO+SrO. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0009]-[0028] and [0041]-[0051]. Sun discloses the optical glass has a refractive index of 1.91-1.98 and an Abbe number of 14-20. See paragraphs [0029] and [0030]. Sun discloses the optical glass is used optical elements. See paragraphs [0031] and [0053]. The compositional ranges of Sun et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the optical glass as recited in claims 1-6, 10-12, and 16-19. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Sun discloses Example 5 (see Table in paragraphs [0066] and [0067]), which reads on an optical glass comprising in terms of mass%, 10-40% of P2O5, at most 20% of Bi2O3, 0-15% of WO3, 5-40% of TiO2, and 20-60% of Nb2O5, wherein the Al2O3+SiO2 content is at most 2%, the Li2O+Na2O+K2O content is at most 5%, the ZnO+SrO+BaO content is from 0.01-12, TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5) of at least 0.2, and (Li2O+Na2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO)/(K2O+BaO) of at most 0.51 and the optical glass has a refractive index of at least 1.950, as recited in instant claim 1
As to claim 2, Sun discloses Example 5 (see Table in paragraphs [0066] and [0067]), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a content of P2O5+TiO2+Nb2O5 of 70 to 98%, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Sun discloses Example 5 (see Table in paragraphs [0066] and [0067]), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a content of MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO of 0.1-12%, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Sun discloses Example 5 (see Table in paragraphs [0066] and [0067]), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a content of Li2O+Na2O+K2O+MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO of 0.5-17%, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Sun discloses Example 5 (see Table in paragraphs [0066] and [0067]), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a content of TiO2+Nb2O5 of 40-80%, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Sun discloses Example 5 (see Table in paragraphs [0066] and [0067]), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of P2O5/(P2O5+TiO2+Nb2O5) of 0.15-0.4, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 10, Sun discloses Example 5 (see Table in paragraphs [0066] and [0067]), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of BaO/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) of greater than 0, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Sun discloses Example 5 (see Table in paragraphs [0066] and [0067]), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of TiO2/(MgO+CaO+ZnO+SrO+BaO) of 0.1-50, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Sun discloses Example 5 (see Table in paragraphs [0066] and [0067]), which reads on an optical glass in terms of mass% having a ratio of TiO2/(TiO2+Nb2O5) of 0.1-0.6, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 16, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the optical glasses of Sun would inherently possess the specific gravity property of at most 4.2, as recited in instant claim 16. 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).
tant claim 16.
As to claim 17, since the composition of the reference is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the optical glasses of Sun would inherently possess the ratio of refractive index/specific gravity of at least 0.48, as recited in instant claim 17.
As to claim 18, Sun discloses the optical glass is used for press molding (see paragraphs [0031] and [0053]), which reads on the optical glass being an optical element blank, as recited in instant claim 18.
As to claim 19, Sun discloses the optical glass is an optical element (see paragraphs [0031] and [0053]), which reads on the optical glass being an optical element, as recited in instant claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 12 November 20025, with respect to the rejections over Masashi et al. (JP 2020-019710 A) and Zhang (CN 107417094 A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Masashi et al. and Zhang has been withdrawn.
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
10 January 2026