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 .
Claims 1-8 are currently pending in the present application.
Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended; claims 2 and 4 are original; and claims 5-8 have been previously presented.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 02 February 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that two separate embodiments of prior art reference of record Yoneda were used to reject independent claim 1, therefore the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) was improper. This argument is not persuasive. Example 15 was cited in the previous office action dated 03 October 2025. Paragraph 63 of Yoneda, which describes Example 15, clearly states that “In accordance with the procedures of Example 1…,” where details relating to Example 1 are set forth in paragraphs 54-58 of Yoneda. Thus, the citations of paragraphs 57, 54, 63, and 55 set forth in the previous office action all refer to a single embodiment, and therefore the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is proper.
As an extension of its argument above, applicant further argues that Yoneda is silent regarding the thicknesses of the metal layer simply because the thicknesses are not recited in paragraph 63. However, paragraph 55 discloses that each metal layer has a thickness of 30 micrometers, which is within the claimed range.
Applicant also argues that the thickness of the metal layers of Yoneda being “about 30” micrometers falls outside of the claimed range of 0.030 to 0.045 mm and that Yoneda discloses that the thickness of the metal layer of Yoneda being “about 0.040” mm falls outside of the claimed range of 0.001 to 0.040 mm. This argument is not persuasive. A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range (MPEP § 2131.03). It is reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date to conclude that the limitation “about 30 micrometers” includes values near 30 and also a value of 30 itself; similarly, it is reasonable for a person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date to conclude that the limitation “about 0.040” millimeters includes values near 0.04 and also the value of 0.04 itself.
Applicant also argues that the values of the ranges are critical; however, there currently is no evidence of record to support this assertion. Applicant cannot point to any recitation within the present specification stating or reasonably inferring that the values are critical, nor has any inventor affidavit or statement to that effect been submitted and made of record. By way of a non-limiting example, there is no evidence of record that a metal layer having a thickness of 0.029 mm or a thickness of 0.046 mm, instead of thicknesses of 0.030 or 0.045 mm as claimed, fail to achieve the stated goal of heat resistance. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record (MPEP § 2145.I).
Finally, Applicant argues that the device of Yoneda focuses on the goal of weatherability whereas the device of the present specification focuses on the goal of heat resistance. However, arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention are not germane to a rejection under section 35 U.S.C. §102 (MPEP 2131.05).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoneda (US 20090237787), of record.
Re: claim 1, Yoneda discloses a polarizing glass (para. 57) in which metal layers are formed and a metal halide layer containing metal halide fine particles is formed between the metal layers (para. 54 discloses CuCl, a known metal halide), the metal layers being layers in which many substantially needle-shaped metal fine particles are dispersed to be oriented parallel to one another (para. 54 discloses “the CuCl particles are elongated into a shape of about 40 x 600 nm… and are aligned in the glass.”), wherein a total thickness of the polarizing glass is smaller than 0.12 mm (para. 63 discloses a total thickness of 0.1 mm, which is within the claimed range), a thickness of each of the metal layers is 0.030 to 0.045 mm (para. 55 discloses that each metal layer has a thickness of 30 micrometers = 0.030 mm, which is within the claimed range), and a thickness of the metal halide layer is 0.001 to 0.040 mm (thickness of metal halide layer = total thickness of the polarizing glass – 2 x total thickness of each metal layer = 0.1 mm – 2 x 0.030 mm = 0.1 mm – 0.06 mm = 0.040 mm, which is within the claimed range).
Re: claim 2, Yoneda discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yoneda further discloses that the metal fine particles are copper or silver fine particles (para. 55 discloses CuCl particles).
Re: claim 3, Yoneda a polarizing glass (para. 57) in which metal layers are formed and a metal halide layer containing metal halide fine particles is formed between the metal layers (para. 54 discloses CuCl, a known metal halide), the metal layers being layers in which many substantially needle-shaped metal fine particles are dispersed to be oriented parallel to one another (para. 54 discloses “the CuCl particles are elongated into a shape of about 40 x 600 nm… and are aligned in the glass.”), wherein a total thickness of the polarizing glass is smaller than 0.12 mm (para. 63 discloses a total thickness of 0.1 mm, which is within the claimed range), a thickness of each of the metal layers is 0.010 to 0.030 mm (para. 55 discloses that each metal layer has a thickness of 30 micrometers = 0.030 mm, which is within the claimed range), and a thickness of the metal halide layer is 0.001 to 0.060 mm (thickness of metal halide layer = total thickness of the polarizing glass – 2 x total thickness of each metal layer = 0.1 mm – 2 x 0.030 mm = 0.1 mm – 0.06 mm = 0.040 mm, which is within the claimed range).
Re: claim 4, Yoneda discloses the limitations of claim 3, and Yoneda further discloses that the metal fine particles are copper or silver fine particles (para. 55 discloses CuCl particles).
Re: claims 5-8, Yoneda discloses the limitations of claims 1-4, respectively, and Yoneda further discloses an optical isolator comprising the polarizing glass (para. 57 discloses “When this polarizing glass is employed in an optical communication optical isolator…”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights