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 § 103
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amma. (WO 2020/045417 A1) [translated and referenced via US 2021/0179479 A1].
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, the Y/Gd+Y+Yb cation range and the Si4++B3+ 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)
Regarding Claim 10, 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, the Y/Gd+Y+Yb cation range and the SiO2+B2O3 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 11, 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 12, 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 13, 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 14, 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 15, Amma teaches the density can be 6.0 g/cm3 or less. (Paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 16, Amma teaches a light-guiding plate comprising the optical glass. (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 17, 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 18, Amma teaches a wearable image display device comprising the light-guiding plate. (Paragraph 0170-0171)
Claims 2 and 11 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 Claims 2 and 11, 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).
Claims 5 and 14 are 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 Claims 5 and 14, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Amma does not teach the Si4+ + B3+ range. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Amma teaches overlapping ranges of SiO2 and B2O3 that result in an overlapping cation range.
Applicant argues that Amma does not teach the SiO2+B2O3 range. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Amma teaches 5 to 44 mol% of SiO2 and 0 to 40 mol% of B2O3, which overlaps the claimed mass% range of SiO2+B2O3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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