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.
Claim 14 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. It is unclear as to what component or measurement area length refers to. Similarly, what is run length a measurement of? The claim is not clear as to what these variables are or what they reference structurally.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter et al (US 2023/0105927 A1) and Hoya (Introduction of FDS24-W, 2020 March 14, https://www.hoya-opticalworld.com/english/news/index.html#40 and the corresponding data sheet for FDS24-W, https://www.hoya-opticalworld.com/common/pdf2020/FDS24-W.pdf).
Ritter teaches:
1. A glass wafer for manufacturing a light guide plate (P0007), the glass wafer comprising:
a glass part in a thin sheet shape (P0007); and
a diffractive optical element part on two main surfaces of the glass part (P0018),
wherein one main surface of the glass part has an area of 1950 mm2 or greater (P0006),
the glass part has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less (P0010).
3. The glass wafer according to claim 1, wherein the glass part has a refractive index nd of 1.9 or greater (P0020).
5. A light guide plate (P0007) comprising:
a glass part (P0007); and
a diffractive optical element part on two main surfaces of the glass part (P0018),
wherein the glass part has a thickness of 3.0 mm or less (P0010).
7. The light guide plate according to claim 5, wherein the glass part has a refractive index nd of 1.9 or greater (P0020).
8. An image display device comprising the light guide plate according to claim 5 (title).
9. The image display device according to claim 8, wherein the image display device is a spectacle-type device (P0003).
In the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ritter does not teach expressly what the Young’s modulus or what the average linear expansion coefficient of the plate is.
Hoya teaches optical glass with a refractive index of 1.9 and with a Young’s modulus of 100 GPa or greater (115, see data sheet table Mechanical Properties) and linear expansion coefficient at -30-70 °C is 70 to 82 (see data sheet table Coefficient of Thermal Expansion).
Ritter and Hoya are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, glass wafers.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wafer of Ritter to use a material with the Young’s modulus and linear expansion coefficient taught by Hoya.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide durable glass with good transmittance characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to try an average linear expansion coefficient of the glass part at -30-70 °C to be 80x10-6K-1 or less, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). “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 Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Hoya teaches values of coefficient of thermal expansion around the claimed range therefore given this teaching a person of ordinary skill the art would discover optimum, workable ranges of average linear expansion in the claimed range.
Claims 2, 6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter and Hoya as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Saeki et al (US 2013/0186467 A1).
Ritter and Hoya teach the glass wafer previously discussed.
Ritter and Hoya do not teach expressly any details of the diffractive optical element.
Saeki teaches a diffractive optical element (110, Fig. 1), comprising:
2/6. The glass wafer according to claim 1/5, wherein the diffractive optical element part has a periodic uneven structure, and the uneven structure has a period of 500 nm or less (P0140).
10. The glass wafer according to claim 1, wherein the material of the diffractive optical element part is a transparent inorganic material (P0509).
11. The glass wafer according to claim 10, wherein the transparent inorganic material is titanium oxide (P0509).
12. The glass wafer according to claim 1, wherein the material of the diffractive optical element part is a transparent organic material (P0211-0216).
13. The glass wafer according to claim 12, wherein the transparent organic material is an ultraviolet-curable resin (P0211-0216).
In the case where the claimed ranges ''overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art'' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ln re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ritter, Hoya and Saeki are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, light guide plates.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the period of the diffractive element as taught by Ritter and Hoya to use the period and uneven structures taught by Saeki.
The motivation for doing so would have been to create a light guide plate with preferable light diffraction efficiency.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select known materials for light guide plates including the organic and inorganic materials taught by Saeki and that are known and widely used in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 14: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try having a difference between an effective area length and a run length be within 5% of a period of the diffractive part, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The closer to 0 this value is the more error in period is suppressed, therefore optimizing transmittance. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would identify a lower value of c -b and would expect a value under 5% would succeed in Ritter, Hoya and Saeki since efficient transmittance is valued in this art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874