DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 10-15 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. Each of said claims recites limitations to percentages of various compositional components, but does not specify if the percentages are given in weight percent or molar percentage. As such, the scope of the claim coverage is impossible to ascertain from the claim language itself, and the claims are indefinite under USC 112.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Momono (WO 2019131123 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Momono teaches an optical glass comprising La2O3, SiO2, B2O3, TiO2, Nb2O5, and WO3 each falling within the corresponding range of the instant claims, and further wherein the B2O3/SiO2 mass ratio is less than 1.000 (see Table 1 at paragraph 0072). Momono teaches that the Y2O3/(Y2O3+La2O3+Gd2O3+Yb2O3) mass ratios of the exemplary embodiment glasses are greater than 0.020, and that the indices of refraction of said exemplary glasses are greater than 2.00000 (ibid.). Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of Momono, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 3, Momono teaches glasses having ratios TiO2/(SiO2+B2O3) that fall within the range of the instant claim (see Table 2, examples 12-13).
Regarding claim 4, the total contents SiO2+B2O3 of Momono example glasses are below 30.00 wt%.
Regarding claim 5, Momono teaches exemplary embodiments wherein the index of refraction is greater than 2.08 (see Table 2, examples 12-13).
Regarding claims 6-7, the temperature Tl of the claim is interpreted to be the liquidus temperature of the glass, as this is the point at which the glass would be switched to a melt. Momono teaches embodiments wherein the liquidus (Tl) temperature of the inventive glasses is less than 1245 °C (see Table 2).
Regarding claim 10, the Momono glasses contain B2O3 and SiO2 in amounts falling within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, the SiO2+B2O3 contents of the Momono glasses fall within the 1.00-30.00 wt% range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, the contents of TiO2, Nb2O5, and WO3 of the Momono glasses each fall within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim (see Tables 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, the total contents TiO2+Nb2O5+WO3 of the Momono glasses each fall within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim (see Tables 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 14, the contents of La2O3 and Y2O3 of the Momono glasses each fall within the corresponding ranges of the instant claim (see Tables 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, the contents Y2O3+La2O3+Gd2O3+Yb2O3 of the aforementioned exemplary embodiment glasses each fall within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned Momono exemplary embodiment glasses have indices of refraction in the range of 2.00000 to 2.20000.
Regarding claim 17, the Abbe’s number values for the Momono exemplary embodiment glasses fall within the range of the instant claim (see Tables 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 18, Momono teaches that the inventive optical glass is formed into optical elements.
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.
Claims 2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momono (WO 2019131123 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the claim differs from Momono as applied above because Momono does not teach that any of the exemplary embodiments have a ratio Y2O3/(Y2O3+La2O3+Gd2O3+Yb2O3) of 0.010-0.100. However, the ranges for each of the components Y2O3, La2O3, Gd2O3, and Yb2O3 significantly overlap the corresponding ranges disclosed instantly, and as discussed above, the Momono compositions are substantially equivalent to those of the instant Specification. Momono teaches that the aforementioned ratios in the exemplary embodiments are each over 0.100 by a small amount. These teachings indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able, through routine optimization and experimentation, to form glasses according to the Momono teachings that also have a Y2O3/(Y2O3+La2O3+Gd2O3+Yb2O3) ratio falling within the range of the instant claim 2. Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As such, each limitation of claim 2 is met by the Momono teachings, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 8-9, as discussed above, routine optimization and experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art would lead to glasses having Y2O3/(Y2O3+La2O3+Gd2O3+Yb2O3) ratios falling within the range of the instant claim. Momono teaches glasses having ratios TiO2/(SiO2+B2O3) that fall within the range of the instant claim (see Table 2, examples 12-13), and each exemplary embodiment taught has a B2O3+SiO2 content of less than 12.00 wt%. Momono further teaches exemplary embodiments wherein the index of refraction is greater than 2.08 (see Table 2, examples 12-13). As also discussed above, the temperature Tl of the claim is interpreted to be the liquidus temperature of the glass, as this is the point at which the glass would be switched to a melt, and Momono teaches embodiments wherein the liquidus (Tl) temperature of the inventive glasses is less than 1245 °C (see Table 2). Each limitation of claims 8-9 is thus met by the Momono teachings, and the claims are obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Momono (WO 2019131123 A1) in view of Sawasato et al (WO 2021085271 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the claim differs from Momono as applied above because while Momono teaches that the inventive glasses are used as optical elements, it does not teach a light guide plate made from said glasses. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Momono in view of Sawasato et al in order to use the Momono glasses in such an application because Sawasato et al teaches a similarly composed glass (see Tables 1 and 2) in order to produce an index of refraction with an equivalently high value, and teaches that the glasses are advantageously used to form light guide plates. This teaching would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that glasses of the type taught by Momono can be used successfully to form such articles/products, and as such one would have had motivation to use the Momono glasses in such a commercial application. Because of the aforementioned similarities between the glasses taught by Momono and Sawasato et al, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification. As such, each limitation of instant claim 19 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 20, Sawasoto et al teaches an image display device wherein the light guide functions to guide light emitted from the image display element.
Conclusion
13. No claim is allowed.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 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.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW24 June 2026
Prosecution Insights