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 2-6 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim is rendered indefinite, as the limitation of the internal transmittance at a thickness is not attached to a structure in the claim.
For purposes of examination, it assumed to be a internal transmittance of the optical glass plate at a thickness of the optical glass plate.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim is rendered indefinite, as the limitation of the thickness is not attached to a structure in the claim.
For purposes of examination, it assumed to be a thickness of the optical glass plate.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim is rendered indefinite, as a major axis of a main surface is not attached to a structure in the claim
For purposes of examination, it assumed to be a major axis of a main surface of the optical glass plate.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim is rendered indefinite, as a liquidus viscosity is not attached to a structure in the claim
For purposes of examination, it assumed to be a liquidus viscosity of the optical glass plate.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim is rendered indefinite, as a density is not attached to a structure in the claim
For purposes of examination, it assumed to be a density of the optical glass plate.
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, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amma (WO 2020/045417 A1) [translated and referenced via (US 2021/0179479 A1)].
Regarding Claim 1, Amma teaches an optical glass plate for use in VR/AR devices (Abstract; Paragraph 0003), where a composition is recited in Example 30. (Table 3). Example 30 teaches the optical plate composition is 4.3 mass% SiO2, 9.5 mass% of B2O3, 1.7 mass% of BaO, 0 mass% of ZnO, 5.9 mass% of ZrO2, 41.5 mass% of La2O3, 8.5 mass% of Gd2O3, 4.8 mass% of Nb2O5, 0 mass% of WO3, 18.4 mass% of TiO2, and 5.3 mass% of Y2O3. (Table 3). Amma teaches a Y3+/Gd3++Y3++Yb3+ ratio of 0.5, a refractive index of 2.01 and an Abbe number of 27. (Table 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Amma teaches making the optical glass plate into a thickness of 1 mm. (Paragraph 0180-0182).
Regarding Claim 4, Amma teaches making an 8- or 6-inch diameter glass plate. (Paragraph 0182).
Regarding Claim 6, Amma teaches the density of 4.9 g/cm3. (Table 3)
Regarding Claim 7, Amma teaches a light-guiding plate comprising the optical glass. (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 8, Amma teaches the lightguide plate can be used in wearable image display device of VR or AR displays devices and google displays. (Paragraph 0170).
Regarding Claim 9, Amma teaches a wearable image display device comprising the light-guiding plate. (Paragraph 0170-0171)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated or under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amma.
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, Example 30 does not specifically teach the internal transmittance or the liquidus viscosity. However, as Example 30 teaches a composition that lies within the claimed ranges, then Example 30 would inherently have the same properties as the claimed invention. 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. (MPEP §2112.01).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amma.
Regarding Claim 1, Amma teaches an optical glass plate for virtual reality and augmented reality devices (Abstract; Paragraph 0003) comprising 5 to 44 mol% of SiO2, 0 to 40 mol% of B2O3, 0 to 15 mol% of BaO, 0 to 5 mol% of ZnO, 0 to 20mol% ZrO2, 0 to 35 mol% of La2O3, 0 to 15 mol% of Gd2O3, 0 to 35 mol% of Nb2O5, 0 to 10 mol% of WO3, up to 80 mol% of TiO2, and 0 to 7 mol% of Y2O3. (Paragraph 0047-0078). These range overlap the composition range and the Y/Gd+Y+Yb cation range.
Amma teaches the glass should have a refractive index of 1.81 to 2.15 (Paragraph 0011) and an Abbe number of 60 or less. (Paragraph 0025). 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)
Regarding Claim 2, Amma does not specifically teach the internal transmittance at the claimed wavelength. However, given Amma teaches an overlapping range of the components of the claimed composition, then it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect the glass plate of Amma would also inherently have the same physical properties, including the internal transmittance, as the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, Amma teaches the glass plate has a thickness of 0.011 to 2 mm. (Paragraph 0029). 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 4, Amma teaches the glass plate can have a diameter of 8 inches. (Paragraph 0032). Therefore, Amma teaches the glass plate has a major axis of a main surface is greater than or equal to 100 mm.
Regarding Claim 5, Amma does not specifically teach the liquidus viscosity. However, given Amma teaches an overlapping range of the components of the claimed composition, then it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect the glass plate of Amma would also inherently have the same physical properties, including the liquidus viscosity, as the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Amma teaches the density can be 6.0 g/cm3 or less. (Paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 7, Amma teaches a light-guiding plate comprising the optical glass. (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 8, Amma teaches the lightguide plate can be used in wearable image display device of VR or AR displays devices and google displays. (Paragraph 0170).
Regarding Claim 9, Amma teaches a wearable image display device comprising the light-guiding plate. (Paragraph 0170-0171)
Claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amma in view of Marques et al. (US 2022/0073410 A1). [hereinafter Marques ‘10]
Regarding Claim 2, Amma does not teach the internal transmittance at the claimed wavelength.
Marques ‘10 also teaches a glass composition for use in VR/AR applications. (Paragraph 0003). Marques ‘10 teaches a sample having a thickness of 10 nm should have an internal transmittance at 460 nm to be greater than 90%. (Paragraph 0096). Having this high optical transmittance ensures improved optical performance, especially at the visible and near-UV range, is also very desirable. (Paragraph 0047, 0096). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure high internal transmittance of the glass of Amma at 460 nm and the wavelength region around 460 nm, the blue region which includes 450 nm, as it ensures proper light transmittance and improved optical properties when the glass is used in VR and AR applications as taught by Marques ‘10. (Paragraph 0003, 0096).
Claim 5 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amma in view of Marques et al. (US 2020/0172427 A1) [hereinafter Marques ’27).
Regarding Claim 5, Amma does not teach the liquidus viscosity of the glass plate.
Marques ’27 teaches a glass plate that can be used in virtual reality devices (Paragraph 0003) Marques ’27 teaches types of glasses should have a liquidus viscosity greater than 25 Poise (Paragraph 0027). 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) Marques ’27 teaches this liquidus viscosity range ensures the glass will be easier to process and ensure early crystallization will not occur, which reduces the changes of non-uniform optical properties or visible defects (Paragraph 0027). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the liquidus viscosity of Amma to the claimed range as taught by Marques ’27 to ensure proper glass formation without defects.
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