DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant has corrected Definiteness issues via amendment and has overcome the prior 35USC112 rejection. However, the arguments regarding the 35USC103 rejection are not persuasive. Applicant amended the previously and solely rejected claim 35 with a purported recitation of allowable subject matter and arguments relate to that matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has amended the claims but has not included the totality of the prior recited allowable subject matter. The prior limitation that the reasons were based on (Applicant arguments page 11) regarding the oblique positioning was removed from the claims thereby broadening the claims. Therefore, it appears the prior art now anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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) 22-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0350201 to Amitai. In view of US 2004/0168682 to Hammer et al.
As to claim 35, Amitai discloses in the abstract and figures 8-12, a method for fabricating blanks for light guide elements, wherein the method comprises:
cutting slices (178) from the compound glass stack along parallel cutting planes (107); and
aligning the compound glass stack to the cutting planes so that the light reflecting layers have a defined orientation with respect to the side faces of the slices after cutting (paragraph 49), wherein:
the compound glass stack has a plane having a defined orientation with respect to the light reflecting layers within the compound glass stack, so that the light reflecting layers within the slices are correctly oriented when the cutting planes run parallel to the plane of the compound glass stack (figures 8-12); and
However, Amitai fails to explicitly disclose the alignment of the compound glass stack to the cutting planes comprises:
adjusting the tilt angles of the plane of the compound glass stack with respect to the cutting planes using an autocollimator; and
adjusting the position of the compound glass stack in a direction obliquely, preferably perpendicular to the cutting planes, wherein the compound glass stack is held fixed to a holder in its aligned orientation and cut into slices, the slices forming blanks for light-guide optical elements.
As to claim 38, a camera and monitoring is not disclosed.
Hammer discloses in paragraphs 6 and 36, the tilting of the cutting apparatus to optimize an optimum angle for cutting with a wire saw that is rotatable and perpendicular and further having a monitoring camera (14).
Remaining claims relate to adjustments of the cutting plates, stacks and corrections. These would be optimized for the manufacturing process.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a tilt angle adjustment for rotation in order to provide an added axis for cutting to minimize misalignment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-41 would be allowed with inclusion of limitations recited before the current amendment broadening claims. These claims require specific method steps of cutting slices along parallel cutting planes where the stack has a defined orientation and where the alignment adjustment tilts the plane of the glass stack with respect to the cutting planes and further adjusting the position obliquely wherein the glass stack is fixed. Claims 23-34 and 36-41 are allowable by virtue of dependency.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights