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
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima (US4726652, hereinafter referred to as Tajima) as evidenced by Ranasinghe et al. (Ranasinghe, Kisa S., et al. "Evidence of the coexistence of multivalence cerium oxide nano-particles in a sodium borate glass." Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 515 (2019): 75-81, hereinafter referred to as Ranasinghe).
Regarding claim 1, Tajima discloses a glass material (see Tajima at the Abstract, disclosing a glass) comprising, in mol%, from 10% to 90% of Tb2O3, (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 18.8 mol% Tb2O3) from 1% to 89% of B2O3+Al2O3+SiO2+P2O5 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 22.2 mol% B2O3, 19.8 mol% Al2O3, 30.2 mol% SiO2, and 0% P2O5 for a sum total of 72.2 mol%), and further comprising, as an external proportion, from 0.001% to 1% of CeO2 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1.0 mol% Ce2O3. Examiner notes Ce2O3 coexists with CeO2 in glass as evidenced by Ranasinghe at the Abstract, which discusses the coexistence of multivalent states of cerium oxide in borate glass when doping a glass with cerium (IV) oxide to form both trivalent cerium oxide and tetravalent cerium oxide. As such, the cladding of Example 5 of Tajima would inherently possess CeO2 within the claimed range.) 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
While the cladding of Example 5, Table 1 does not explicitly disclose from 0.01 ppm to 100 ppm of FeO+Fe2O3 because Example 5 does not disclose the iron content, Tajima at col. 3, lines 17-19 discloses Fe2O3 ... in the proportion of 0 to 1 wt.%. Tajima at col. 3, lines 16-17 teaches a cladding mode absorber such as ... Fe2O3 ... can be added, which overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed range when practicing the invention of the cladding of Example 5 from Table 1 to include Fe2O3 within the overlapping claimed range as disclosed by Tajima with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a cladding mode absorber as taught by Tajima. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Tajima discloses comprising, in mol%, from 0% to 70% of B2O3 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 22.2 mol% B2O3), from 0% to 70% of Al2O3 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 19.8 mol% Al2O3), from 0% to 70% of SiO2 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 30.2 mol% SiO2), and from 0% to 10% of P2O5 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% P2O5).
Regarding claim 3, Tajima discloses comprising, in mol%, more than 12% to 40% of B2O3 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 22.2 mol% B2O3), from 1% to 20% of Al2O3 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 19.8 mol% Al2O3), from 0% to 40% of SiO2 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 30.2 mol% SiO2), and from 0% to 5% of P2O5 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 0% P2O5).
Regarding claim 4, Tajima discloses comprising, in mol%, less than 5% of Pr2O3 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 mol% Pr2O3), and less than 5% of Dy2O3 (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising 1 mol% Dy2O3).
Regarding claim 5, Tajima discloses wherein a proportion of Tb3+ to total Tb is 55% or more in mol% (see Tajima at Table 1, Example 5 the cladding, disclosing an example of a glass comprising Tb2O3. Examiner notes for Tb2O3, all Tb is 3+).
Regarding claim 6, while Tajima does not explicitly disclose a light transmittance is 70% or more at a wavelength of 1064 nm, this is a property which depends upon the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0018], which states when the content of Tb2O3 is too large ... the light transmittance of the glass tends to decrease. Because the composition of the glass of Tajima is substantially identical to the instantly claimed glass, the glass of Tajima would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 7, Tajima discloses a magnetic optical element comprising the glass (see Tajima at Col. 1, lines 10-22, disclosing a material ... for measurement of a magnetic field. see also Tajima at the Title, disclosing an optical fiber, which Examiner notes is an optical element).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (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 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights