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 § 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 is 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “a plurality of inclined surfaces”. However, Claim 2 recites an inclined surface, which creates an issue of antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “at least one of the principal surfaces”. However, Claim 1 only recites a principal surface; therefore, there is an issue of antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite. The claim is interpreted to only one principal surface.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites “a glass composition” which creates an antecedent basis issue that renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “one of the principal surfaces…” However, Claim 1 only recites a principal surface; therefore, there is an issue of antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite. The claim is interpreted to only one principal surface.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim is drawn only to the use of the claimed glass sheet without any further limitations as to the method steps that define manner in which the process of use is carried out. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are ambiguous, which renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanase (WO 2017/018375 A1) [translated and referenced via US 2018/0217317 A1] in view of Akiba et al. (US 2018/0251395 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Yanase teaches a light-guiding plate comprising a glass sheet having a refractive index of 1.56 to 2.00 (Paragraph 0026), an angle formed by a principal and an end surface of 90 +3 degrees, (Paragraph 0028) and an end surface having a surface roughness of 1 micron or less. (Paragraph 0027). These ranges overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Yanase does not specifically teach the glass sheet composition with the claimed ranges are recited in Claims 1 and 5.
Akiba teaches a glass composition suitable for use as light-guiding plate. (Paragraph 0003, 0210). Akiba teaches the glass composition can comprise, in terms of mass, 10 to 50% of SiO2, 0 to 20% of BaO, 0 to 20% or TiO2, 0 to 50% of La2O3 and 20 to 75% of Nb2O3. (Paragraph 0014-0030). These composition ranges for the glass overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Akiba teaches this glass composition offers the advantage of a high refractive index (Paragraph 0009), while offering high strength, as conventional high refractive index glass compositions cannot offer strength and environmental resistance. (Paragraph 0007, 0046). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the high refractive glass composition claimed and taught by Akiba is the glass plate of Yanase to yield a glass plate with improved strength and resistances.
Regarding Claim 4, Yanase teaches the principal surface can have a roughness of less than 0.5 nm. (Paragraph 0018). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 6, Yanase teaches forming predetermined surface irregularities, an uneven surface, formed on the principal surface of the glass. (Paragraph 0054)
Regarding Claim 7, Yanase teaches a head-mounted display comprising the glass plate of Claim 1. (Paragraph 0025).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanase and Akiba, in further view of Wada (WO 2017/018420 A1)
Regarding Claim 2-3, Yanase does not specifically teach the glass sheet has a plurality of inclined surfaces and one inclined surface in at least a part of a region between the end surface and the principal surface.
Wada teaches a glass sheet to be used as a light-guiding plate (Page 24), where the glass sheet has a plurality of inclined surfaces and one inclined surface in at least a part of a region between the end surface and the principal surface. (Page 4, 35-37; Fig. 4). Wada teaches a glass sheet having a plurality of inclined surfaces and one inclined surface in at least a part of a region between the end surface and the principal surface allows for a high light utilization efficiency of a light source. (Page 33, 34). Thus, as Wada teaches chamfering the edge improves the efficiency of the light source, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply a plurality of inclined surfaces and one inclined surface in at least a part of a region between the end surface and the principal surface to the glass plate of Yanase for the improved efficiency.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights