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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 4/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/8/2026.
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, 6, 7, 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhagavatula et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0302649) [hereinafter Bhagavatula].
Regarding claim 1, Bhagavatula discloses a light-transmitting structure (Fig. 1) comprising a laminated glass substrate (100) comprising a core layer (102) and a first clad layer (104) fused to a first side (112) of the core layer (paragraph [0028]), the core layer comprising a core glass composition that is transparent and has core refractive index (nC; paragraph [0039]), the first clad layer (104) defining a first surface of the laminated glass substrate and comprising a first clad glass composition that is transparent and has a first clad refractive index (nCL1) that is lower than the core refractive index (paragraph [0039]), and a plurality of interdiffusion regions (132) extending from the core layer and through the first clad layer to define a light scattering surface interposed with the first surface, each interdiffusion region (132) comprising an interdiffusion composition that is transparent and has an interdiffusion refractive index (ni) that is higher than the first clad refractive index (paragraphs [0056-0063]), the first surface and the light-scattering surface defining an interface to an ambient environment (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Bhagavatula discloses nC – nCL1 >0.01 (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Bhagavatula discloses nCL1 < ni (paragraphs [0056-0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Bhagavatula discloses the interface comprising a plurality of peaks and valleys, and wherein the interdiffusion regions are configured to define the valleys (Figs. 1 and 9; paragraphs [0066-0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Bhagavatula discloses the valleys being configured as depressions that extend into the first clad layer (Fig. 9; paragraphs [0066-0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Bhagavatula discloses most of each interfusion region extends below a reference plane defined by the first surface (Figs. 1 and 6-9).
Regarding claim 10, Bhagavatula discloses at least 80% of each interdiffusion region extends below the reference plane (Figs. 1 and 6-9).
Regarding claim 11, Bhagavatula discloses the interfiffusion composition having an interdiffusion etch rate in an etchant that is faster than a clad etch rate of the first clad glass composition in the etchant (paragraph [0066-0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Bhagavatula discloses the core glass composition comprising a higher amount of alkali oxide, R2O, than the first clad glass composition, wherein R is at least one of Li, Na, and K (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Bhagavatula discloses the core glass composition has an average core coefficient of thermal expansion, CTEC, and the first clad glass composition has an average first clad coefficient of thermal expansion CTECL1 that is lower than the CTEC (claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Bhagavatula discloses the laminated glass substrate (100) comprising a second clad layer (106) fused to a second side of the core layer (102), the second clad layer comprising a second clad glass composition that is transparent and has a second clad refractive index that is lower than the core refractive index (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Bhagavatula discloses each interdiffusion region having a width measured in a lateral direction, normal to a thickness of the laminated glass substrate, as the largest distance between opposed sides of the interdiffusion region, the widths of the interdiffusion regions are in a range of from about 0.5 µm to about 40 µm (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0037] and [0057]).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhagavatula.
Bhagavatula discloses a first clad thickness of the first clad layer (104) and a second clad thickness of the second clad layer (106) being in a range from about 0.01 mm to about 0.3 mm (paragraph [0036]). However, Bhagavatula fails to specifically teach the first clad thickness of the first clad layer being less than the second clad thickness of the second clad layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicknesses of the first clad layer and the second clad layer in Bhagavatula to have the first clad thickness of the first clad layer being less than the second clad thickness of the second clad layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Bhagavatula fails to teach or reasonably suggest the distinct features recited in claims 4, 5 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights