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 .
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.
Claim(s) 18-26 and 28-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mao et al. (CN109665714A with reference to machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Mao).
Regarding claim 18, Mao discloses an optical glass (see Mao at the title, disclosing an optical glass), wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, comprising 15-30% of SiO2 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 14.5 wt.% SiO2, which is 15 wt.% SiO2 when accounting for the claimed significant figures.), 6-20% of Nb2O5 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 19 wt.% Nb2O5); 15-35% of TiO2 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 21 wt.% TiO2); 15-35% of BaO (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 18.5 wt.% BaO); 1-10% of ZrO2 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 5 wt.% ZrO2), wherein (ZnO+SrO+Ln2O3)/SiO2 is below 0.6, and the Ln2O3 is one or more of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3.
Regarding claim 19, Mao discloses wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, further comprising: 0-6% of B2O3; and/or 0-10% of WO3; and/or 0-8% 0-3% of Li2O; and/or 0-8% of Na2O; and/or 0-5% of K2O; and/or 0-8% of SrO; and/or 0-12% of CaO; and/or 0-8% of MgO; and/or 0-10% of Ln2O3; and/or 0-5% of Al2O3; and/or 0-1% of clarifying agent, the Ln2O3 is one or more of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3, and the clarifying agent is one or more of Sb2O3, SnO2, SnO, and CeO2 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 2 wt.% B2O3).
Regarding claim 20, Mao discloses wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, and one or more of the following 9 conditions are satisfied: 1) Nb2O5/BaO is 0.2-1.2; 2) TiO2/(Nb2O5+ZrO2) is 0.6-5.5; 3) SiO2/(Nb2O5+TiO2) is 0.3-1.3; 4) B2O3/SiO2 is below 0.4; 5) Na2O/CaO is below 5.0; 6) Li2O/B2O3 is below 0.5; 7) (SiO2+TiO2)/(Nb2O5+ZrO2+CaO+BaO) is 0.5-2.2; 8) 10xLi2O/Nb2O5 is below 0.7 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 19 wt.% Nb2O5 and 18.5 wt.% BaO for a ratio of Nb2O5/BaO of 1.0).
Regarding claim 21, Mao discloses wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, and one or more of the following 9 conditions are satisfied: 1) Nb2O5/BaO is 0.2-1.0; 2) TiO2/(Nb2O5+ZrO2) is 0.7-4.0; 3) SiO2/(Nb2O5+TiO2) is 0.35-1.0; 4) B2O3/SiO2 is 0.001-0.3; 5) Na2O/CaO is 0.001-3.0; 6) Li2O/B2O3 is below 0.3; 7) (SiO2+TiO2)/(Nb2O5+ZrO2+CaO+BaO) is 0.6-2.0; 8) 10xLi2O/Nb2O5 is below 0.4 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 19 wt.% Nb2O5 and 18.5 wt.% BaO for a ratio of Nb2O5/BaO of 1.0).
Regarding claim 22, Mao discloses wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, and one or more of the following 9 conditions are satisfied: 1) Nb2O5/BaO is 0.25-0.9; 2) TiO2/(Nb2O5+ZrO2) is 0.8-3.0; 3) SiO2/(Nb2O5+TiO2) is 0.4-0.8; 4) B2O3/SiO2 is 0.03-0.2; 5) Na2O/CaO is 0.05-2.5; 6) Li2O/B2O3 is below 0.1; 7) (SiO2+TiO2)/(Nb2O5+ZrO2+CaO+BaO) is 0.8-1.8; 8) 10xLi2O/Nb2O5 is below 0.2, and the Ln2O3 is one or more of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 14.5 wt.% SiO2, and 2 wt.% B2O3 for a ratio of B2O3/SiO2 of 0.14).
Regarding claim 23, Mao discloses wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, and one or more of the following 5 conditions are satisfied: 1) Nb2O5/BaO is 0.3-0.8; 2) TiO2/(Nb2O5+ZrO2) is 1.0-2.5; 3) (ZnO+SrO+Ln2O3)/SiO2 is below 0.3; 4) Li2O/B2O3 is below 0.05; 5) (SiO2+TiO2)/(Nb2O5+ZrO2+CaO+BaO) is 0.9-1.5; and the Ln2O3 is one or more of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 1 wt.% ZnO, 2 wt.% SrO, 0% Gd2O3, and 14.5 wt.% SiO2, for a value of (ZnO+SrO+Ln2O3)/SiO2 of 0.2).
Regarding claim 24, Mao discloses wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, in which: SiO2 is 16-23%; and/or Nb2O5 is 8-17%; and/or TiO2 is 20-30%; and/or BaO is 20-30%; and/or ZrO2 is 2-7%; and/or B2O3 is 0.5-4%; and/or WO3 is 0-2%; and/or ZnO is 0-2%; and/or Li2O is 0-1%; and/or Na2O is 0.5-5%; and/or K2O is 0-2%; and/or SrO is 0-2%; and/or CaO is 3-7%; and/or MgO is 0-2%; and/or Ln2O3 is 0-7%; and/or Al2O3 is 0-2%; and/or clarifying agent is 0-0.2%, the Ln2O3 is one or more La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3, and the clarifying agent is one or more of Sb2O3, SnO2, SnO, and CeO2 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising 21 wt.% TiO2).
Regarding claim 25, Mao discloses wherein components thereof do not contain ZnO; and/or do not contain Li2O; and/or do not contain P2O5; and/or do not contain Bi2O3; and/or do not contain Ta2O5; and/or do not contain Te2O3, and/or do not contain WO3 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising no P2O5).
Regarding claim 26, Mao discloses wherein a refractive index nd of the optical glass is 1.89-1.96 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising a refractive index nd of 1.9595), and an Abbe number vd is 20-28 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising an Abbe number vd of 24.25).
Regarding claim 28, while Mao does not explicitly disclose wherein λ70 of the optical glass is below 460nm; and/or λ5 is below 400nm; and/or acid resistance stability DA is above class 2; and/or water resistance stability DW is above class 2; and/or upper limit of devitrification temperature is below 1200°C; and/or Young's modulus E is above 9000X107/Pa; and/or thermal expansion coefficient α100~300°C is below 110x10-7/K; density ρ is below 4.30 g/cm3; and/or abrasion degree FA is above 150; and/or relative partial dispersion Pg.F is 0.6000-0.6500, the devitrification resistance of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0029] of the PGPub which states if a content of SiO2 is lower than 12, it is difficult to achieve [increased devitrification resistance]. Because the composition of the glass of Mao has a SiO2 content of 14.5, it would inherently possess the claimed devitrification resistance. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 29, while Mao does not explicitly disclose wherein λ70 of the optical glass is below 440nm; and/or λ5 is below 380nm; and/or acid resistance stability DA is class 1; and/or water resistance stability DW is class 1; and/or upper limit of devitrification temperature is below 1150°C; and/or Young's modulus E is above 10000X107/Pa; and/or thermal expansion coefficient α100~300°C is below 110x10-7/K; density ρ is below 4.10 g/cm3; and/or abrasion degree FA is 200-300; and/or relative partial dispersion Pg.F is 0.6150-0.6250, the devitrification resistance of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0029] of the PGPub which states if a content of SiO2 is lower than 12, it is difficult to achieve [increased devitrification resistance]. Because the composition of the glass of Mao has a SiO2 content of 14.5, it would inherently possess the claimed devitrification resistance.
Regarding claim 30, Mao discloses a glass preform, made of the optical glass (see Mao at the first sentence of the description, disclosing a preform).
Regarding claim 31, Mao discloses an optical element, made of the optical glass (see Mao at the first sentence of the description, disclosing an optical element).
Regarding claim 32, Mao discloses an optical instrument, comprising the optical glass (see Mao at the first sentence of the description, disclosing an optical instrument).
Regarding claim 33, Mao discloses an optical element, made of the glass preform (see Mao at the first sentence of the description, disclosing an optical element and a glass preform).
Regarding claim 34, Mao discloses an optical instrument, comprising the optical element (see Mao at the first sentence of the description, disclosing an optical instrument and an optical element).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao.
Regarding claim 27, Mao makes obvious a refractive index nd of the optical glass is 1.91-1.94 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising a refractive index nd of 1.9595, which is close to touching the claimed range). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph), and an Abbe number vd is 22-26 (see Mao at Table 1, Example 3, disclosing an example of an optical glass comprising an Abbe number vd of 24.25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Example 3 from Tabel 1 of Mao does not disclose 15-30% of SiO2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. When accounting for the claimed significant figures, Example 3 of Mao discloses 14.5 wt.% SiO2, which is 15 wt.% SiO2 when adjusted to account for the claimed significant figures. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
At page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Example 3 of Mao contains 7.0 wt.% La2O3, and therefore, the ratio (ZnO+SrO+Ln2O3)/SiO2 would actually be 0.69, which is outside of the claimed range. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and note Applicant appears to be arguing that Ln2O3 is the sum of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3. Examiner notes this is not what claim 1 recites. Claim 1 explicitly recites “one or more of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3”. The phrase “one or more of” does not mean “the sum of”. The phrase “one or more of” means any one of, or any combination of. As such, Ln2O3 can be any one of, or any combination of, La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard per MPEP 2111, Examiner notes that Ln2O3 can be Y2O3, which is 0, which makes the claimed ratio 0.2, which is within the claimed range. As such, Examiner notes the arguments are not convincing.
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 CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
