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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 23 October 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the applicant states that the Invention of Group I and Group II are not mutually exclusive since the claims overlap in scope. This is not found persuasive since the claims of Group II are drawn to a filter which is classified separately than a filter glass which does not require the glass to be an actual filter . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. The Examiner will consider rejoinder once the elected claims are indicated allowable. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 9 March 2023 and 16 May 2023 have been considered by the Examiner. Drawings The original drawings received on 9 March 2023 are accepted by the Examiner. Claim Comment Claims 12 and 13 recite a range in the format of “between X and Y”. the term “between” is read such that the range does not include the endpoints. As in claim 12, the phrase “between 610 nm and 640 nm” is n umerically as 61 0 nm > T 50 > 640 nm . As to claim 13, the phrase “between 620 nm and 632 nm” is numerically as 620 nm>T 50 >632 nm. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6 is rejected as indefinite for being unclear what is being limited by the term s “other coloring components” and optically active components”. Is the claim limiting the “other coloring components” to coloring components other than the recited components of V 2 O 5 and CuO of claim 1 , or other coloring components other than the components Fe 2 O 3 and CoO as recited in the listing of components in line 2 of claim 6. It is unclear of which coloring components the claim is refer r ing too . Additionally, it is unclear what “optically active components” are being included since line 2 lists optically active components : Yb 2 O 3 and Gd 2 O 3 . Does claim 6 include limiting La 2 O 3 and y203 as optically active components? This renders the claim indefinite. Claim 7 recites the glass is free of other coloring components and defines the other coloring components as comprising “Cr, Mn, and/or Ni”. It is unclear if other coloring components such as Co can be included in the glass and still meet the limitation. Additionally, it is unclear based on the “and/or” if the glass is free of one of the components such as Cr, if the other components Mn and Ni could be included in the glass. Claim 8 recites the glass is free of optically active components and defines the other coloring components as comprising “ Pr , Nd, Sm , Eu, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, and/or Tm”. It is unclear if other optically active components such as La 2 O 3 can be included in the glass and still meet the limitation. Additionally, it is unclear based on the “and/or” if the glass is free of one of the components such as Pr , if the other components such as Nd and Sm could be included in the glass. Claim 9, which depends from claim 8, recites the glass is free of laser-active components. It is unclear what laser-active components meet the limitation. The specification in paragraph [0070] states “optically active, such as laser-active components, such as Pr , Nd, Sm , Eu, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, and/or Tm . ” It is unclear based on the specification if the claim is limiting other laser-active components other than those listed in claim 8 or if it is limiting the claim to not include any of the components listed in claim 8 plus any other laser -active components . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1, 2, and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun , Chinese Patent Publication CN 110194589 A. A machine-generated translation of CN 110194589 A accompanie d the Information Disclosure Statement filed 16 May 2023 . In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation. Sun disclose s a glass comprising in terms of weight percentages 60-72% of P 2 O 5 , 3-12% of Al 2 O 3 , 8-18% of CuO , 1.5-15% of Li 2 O , 0.02-3% of V 2 O 5 , 0-10% of MgO , 0-10% of BaO , 0-8% of Na 2 O , 0-8% of K 2 O , 0-6% of CaO , and 0-6% of SrO . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraph [00 11 ]. Sun disclose s the glass does not include SiO 2 , B 2 O 3 , ZnO , F, and Fe 2 O 3 . See paragraph [00 14 ]. Sun discloses the glass comprises one or more of La 2 O 3 , Gd 2 O 3 , Y 2 O 3 , and Yb 2 O 3 in the amount of 0-5 wt %. See paragraph [0061] Sun discloses the T 50 wavelength is from 620 nm to 650 nm, the Tg of the glass is at least 400°C, and the coefficient of thermal expansion is at most 95 x 10 -7 /K. See paragraph [0016]. The compositional ranges of Sun are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass composition as recited in claims 1 , 2 , and 4-15 . See MPEP 2131.03. As to claim 1, Sun discloses Example 13 having 68.5% of P 2 O 5 , 7.2% of Al 2 O 3 , 3.4% of Li 2 O , 0.3% of K 2 O , 7.2% of MgO , 1.0% of SrO , 2.5% of BaO , 9.4% of CuO , and 0.6% of V 2 O 5 , (see Table 2), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of weight percentages >1.1-6% of Li 2 O , at least one of Na 2 O and K 2 O , 55.0-75.0% of P 2 O 5 , 4.1-8.0% of Al 2 O 3 , 8.0-18.0% of CuO , 0-<0.8% of V 2 O 5 , 0-2.0% of SiO 2 , 0-2.0% of F, where the total amount of R’O is 0-11.0 and the total amount of R 2 O is 3.0-17.0%,as recited in instant claim 1. As to claim 2, Sun discloses Example 13 having 0.3 wt % of K 2 O , (see Table 2), which reads on the glass comprising at least one of Na 2 O and K 2 O with a content of at least 0.3%, as recited in instant claim 2. As to claim 4 , Sun discloses Example 13 having 9.4 wt % of CuO and 0.6 wt % of V 2 O 5 (see Table 2), which reads on the limitations the CuO content being at most 17.0 wt % and/or at least 8.5 wt % and/or V 2 O 5 content being present in an amount of not more than 0.6 wt %, as recited in instant claim 4 . As to claim 5, Sun discloses Example 13 having 0wt% of La 2 O 3 and Y 2 O 3 (see Table 2), which reads on the glass comprising at most 4.0 wt % of La 2 O 3 and/or at most 4.0 wt % of Y 2 O 3 . As to claim 6, Sun discloses Example 13 having 0 wt % of B 2 O 3 (see Table 2), which reads on the glass being free of at least one of B 2 O 3 , ZrO 2 , Nb 2 O 5 , Y b 2 O 3 , Gd 2 O 3 , WO 3 , Fe 2 O 3 , PbO and/or CoO , as recited in instant claim 6. As to claim 7, Sun discloses Example 13 (see Table 2) which is free of Cr, Mn, and Ni, which reads on a glass being free of coloring components comprising Cr, Mn, and/or Ni, as recited in instant claim 7. As to claim 8, Sun discloses Example 13 (see Table 2) which is free of Pr , Nd, Sm , Eu, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er , and Tm , which reads on a glass being free of optically active components comprising Pr , Nd, Sm , Eu, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, and/or Tm , as recited in instant claim 8 . As to claim 9, Sun discloses Example 13 (see Table 2), which reads on the glass being free of laser-active components as recited in instant claim 9. As to claim 10, since the composition of Sun is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Sun would inherently possess for a glass having a thickness of 0.205 mm, the T avg in a range of 430-565 nm of at least 83% or transmittance at 700 nm of not more than 12% as recited in claim 10. 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). As to claim 11, since the composition of Sun is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Sun would inherently possess for a glass having a thickness of 0.205 mm, the T avg in a range of 430-565 nm of at least 86% or transmittance at 700 nm of not more than 11% as recited in claim 11. See MPEP 2112. As to claim 12, Sun discloses that the glass of Example 13 has a transmittance at 50% l 50 of 629 nm (see Table 5), which reads on the glass having a T 50 in the range of between 610 nm and 640 nm, as recited in instant claim 12. As to claim 13, Sun discloses that the glass of Example 13 has a transmittance at 50% l 50 of 629 nm (see Table 5), which reads on the glass having a T 50 in the range of between 620 nm and 632 nm, as recited in instant claim 13. As to claim 14, Sun discloses that the glass of Example 13 has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 90 x10 -7 /K (see Table 2), which reads on the limitation a coefficient of thermal expansion of not more than 13 x 10 6 /K as recited in instant claim 14. As to claim 15, Sun discloses that the glass of Example 13 has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 90 x10 -7 /K (see Table 2), which reads on the limitation a coefficient of thermal expansion of not more than 12.5 x 10 6 /K as recited in instant claim 15. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, Chinese Patent Publication CN 110194589 A. A machine-generated translation of CN 110194589 A accompanied the Information Disclosure Statement filed 16 May 2023. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation. Sun discloses a glass comprising in terms of weight percentages 60-72% of P 2 O 5 , 3-12% of Al 2 O 3 , 8-18% of CuO , 1.5-15% of Li 2 O , 0.02-3% of V 2 O 5 , 0-10% of MgO , 0-10% of BaO , 0-8% of Na 2 O , 0-8% of K 2 O , 0-6% of CaO , and 0-6% of SrO . See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraph [0011]. Sun discloses the glass does not include SiO 2 , B 2 O 3 , ZnO , F, and Fe 2 O 3 . See paragraph [0014]. Sun discloses the glass comprises one or more of La 2 O 3 , Gd 2 O 3 , Y 2 O 3 , and Yb 2 O 3 in the amount of 0-5 wt %. See paragraph [0061] Sun discloses the T 50 wavelength is from 620 nm to 650 nm, the Tg of the glass is at least 400°C, and the coefficient of thermal expansion is at most 95 x 10 -7 /K. See paragraph [0016]. As to claim 3, Sun fails to teach any examples where the glass satisfied at least one of : a total R’O is at most 10.5 wt %; the glass contains a maximum of two components selected from the group of R’O; or the glass contains only one component selected from the group of R’O . However, the weight percent ranges taught by Sun have overlapping compositional ranges with instant claim 3. See paragraphs [0011], [0014], and [0061] Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Sun because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Sun overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff , 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari , 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schreder et al., German Patent Publication DE 10 2012 210 552 A1. A machine-generated translation of DE 10 2012 210 552 A1 accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation. Schreder et al. disclose a glass comprising in terms of weight percentages 25-75% of P 2 O 5 , 0.5-15% of Al 2 O 3 , 0-10% of MgO , 0-10% of CaO , 0-35% of BaO , 0-16% of SrO , 0-12% of Li 2 O , 0-12% of Na 2 O , 0-12% of K 2 O , 1-20% of CuO , 0-20% of F, wherein RO is 0-40% and R 2 O is 0.5-20%. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraph [0007]. The compositional ranges of Schreder et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the glass composition as recited in claims 1-15. See MPEP 2131.03. As to claim 1, Schreder et al. discloses Example 40 having 63.7 % of P 2 O 5 , 4.1 % of Al 2 O 3 , 1.3% of B 2 O 3 , 0.7% of CaO , 5.1% of BaO , 0.01% of ZnO , 3.6% of Li 2 O , 4.2% of Na 2 O , 3.2% of K 2 O , 0.2% of As 2 O 3 , and 14.0% of CuO (see Table 7 ), which reads on a glass comprising in terms of weight percentages >1.1-6% of Li 2 O , at least one of Na 2 O and K 2 O , 55.0-75.0% of P 2 O 5 , 4.1-8.0% of Al 2 O 3 , 8.0-18.0% of CuO , 0-<0.8% of V 2 O 5 , 0-2.0% of SiO 2 , 0-2.0% of F, where the total amount of R’O is 0-11.0 and the total amount of R 2 O is 3.0-17.0%,as recited in instant claim 1. As to claim 2, Schreder et al. disclose Example 40 having 3.2 wt % of K 2 O , (see Table 7 ), which reads on the glass comprising at least one of Na 2 O and K 2 O with a content of at least 0.3%, as recited in instant claim 2. As to claim 3, Schreder et al. disclose Example 40 having 5.8 wt % of RO , (see Table 7), which reads on the glass comprising a total R’O is at most 10.5 wt %, as recited in instant claim 3. As to claim 4, Schreder et al. disclose Example 40 having 14.0 wt % of CuO (see Table 7 ), which reads on the limitations the CuO content being at most 17.0 wt % and/or at least 8.5 wt % and/or V 2 O 5 content being present in an amount of not more than 0.6 wt %, as recited in instant claim 4. As to claim 5, Schreder et al. disclose Example 40 having 0 wt % of La 2 O 3 and Y 2 O 3 (see Table 7 ), which reads on the glass comprising at most 4.0 wt % of La 2 O 3 and/or at most 4.0 wt % of Y 2 O 3 . As to claim 6, Schreder et al. disclose Example 40 having 0 wt % of ZrO 2 (see Table 7 ), which reads on the glass being free of at least one of B 2 O 3 , ZrO 2 , Nb 2 O 5 , Yb 2 O 3 , Gd 2 O 3 , WO 3 , Fe 2 O 3 , PbO and/or CoO , as recited in instant claim 6. As to claim 7, Schreder et al. disclose Example 40 (see Table 7 ) which is free of Cr, Mn, and Ni, which reads on a glass being free of coloring components comprising Cr, Mn, and/or Ni, as recited in instant claim 7. As to claim 8, Schreder et al. disclose Example 40 (see Table 7 ) which is free of Pr , Nd, Sm , Eu, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er , and Tm, which reads on a glass being free of optically active components comprising Pr , Nd, Sm , Eu, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, and/or Tm, as recited in instant claim 8. As to claim 9, Schreder et al. disclose Example 40 (see Table 7 ), which reads on the glass being free of laser-active components as recited in instant claim 9. As to claim 10, since the composition of Schreder et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Schreder et al. would inherently possess for a glass having a thickness of 0.205 mm, the T avg in a range of 430-565 nm of at least 83% or transmittance at 700 nm of not more than 12% as recited in claim 10. 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). As to claim 11, since the composition of Schreder et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Schreder et al. would inherently possess for glass having a thickness of 0.205 mm, the T avg in a range of 430-565 nm of at least 86% or transmittance at 700 nm of not more than 11% as recited in claim 11. See MPEP 2112. As to claim 12, since the composition of Schreder et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Schreder et al. would inherently possess the glass having a T 50 in the range of between 610 nm and 640 nm, as recited in instant claim 12. As to claim 13, since the composition of Schreder et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Schreder et al. would inherently possess the glass having a T 50 in the range of between 620 nm and 632 nm, as recited in instant claim 13. As to claim 14, since the composition of Schreder et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Schreder et al. would inherently possess the glass having a coefficient of thermal expansion of not more than 13 x 10 6 /K as recited in instant claim 14. As to claim 15, since the composition of Schreder et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the glasses of Schreder et al. would inherently possess the glass having a coefficient of thermal expansion of not more than 12.5 x 10 6 /K as recited in instant claim 15. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1363 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber R. Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 1 December 2025