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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamimura et al. (US20030147157, hereinafter referred to as Kamimura).
Regarding claim 1, Kamimura discloses an optical glass, (See Kamimura at the Abstract, disclosing an optical glass) and an S value obtained by the following equation (1) is 0.70 × 106 or more and less than 1.03 × 106 (Pa/°C), S = E · α/(1-ν) ... Equation (1), in which E is Young's modulus (unit: GPa), α is an average coefficient of linear expansion in a temperature range of 100°C to 300°C (unit: 10-7°C-1), and ν is Poisson's ratio (See Kamimura at Table 2, Example CEx. 1, disclosing an example of a glass with a Young's modulus of 79 GPa, a Poisson's ratio of 0.21, and a coefficient of thermal expansion of 82 x 10-6/°C, which provides an S value of 0.82 × 106 which is within the claimed range.).
while Kamimura does not explicitly disclose the refractive index of CEx. 1 from Table 2, the refractive index of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0054] of PGPub, disclosing BaO is a component that ... increases the refractive index of a glass. The glass of CEx. 1 of Table 2 from Kamimura contains 1 mol% BaO, which is within the range disclosed by [0054] of the instant PGPub of from 0-30 mol% BaO and is substantially identical to example 2 from Table 1 of the instant specification. Therefore, because the glass of Kamimura has a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition, the glass of Kamimura would inherently possess the claimed refractive index. 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 Kamimura does not explicitly disclose the ISO color contribution index ISO/CCI is 0.00 for blue (B), 0.80 or less for green (G), and 0.80 or less for red (R) of CEx. 1 from Table 2, the color of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0059], which states TiO2 causes coloration of a glass, and at [0060] disclosing Nb2O5, Bi2O3, and WO3 cause coloration of a glass, and at [0074], disclosing Sb2O3 suppresses coloration. The glass of CEx. 1 of Table 2 from Kamimura contains Sb2O3 and no TiO2, Nb2O5, Bi2O3, and WO3, and is substantially identical to example 2 from Table 1 of the instant specification. Therefore, because the glass of Kamimura has a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition, the glass of Kamimura would inherently possess the claimed color.
Regarding claim 2, while Kamimura does not explicitly disclose the refractive index of CEx. 1 from Table 2, the refractive index of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0054] of PGPub, disclosing BaO is a component that ... increases the refractive index of a glass. The glass of CEx. 1 of Table 2 from Kamimura contains 1 mol% BaO, which is within the range disclosed by [0054] of the instant PGPub of from 0-30 mol% BaO and is substantially identical to example 2 from Table 1 of the instant specification. Therefore, because the glass of Kamimura has a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition, the glass of Kamimura would inherently possess the claimed refractive index.
Regarding claim 3, while Kamimura does not explicitly disclose the ISO color contribution index ISO/CCI is 0.00 for blue (B), 0.70 or less for green (G), and 0.70 or less for red (R) of CEx. 1 from Table 2, the color of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by the instant specification at [0059], which states TiO2 causes coloration of a glass, and at [0060] disclosing Nb2O5, Bi2O3, and WO3 cause coloration of a glass, and at [0074], disclosing Sb2O3 suppresses coloration. The glass of CEx. 1 of Table 2 from Kamimura contains Sb2O3 and no TiO2, Nb2O5, Bi2O3, and WO3, and is substantially identical to example 2 from Table 1 of the instant specification. Therefore, because the glass of Kamimura has a composition which is substantially identical to the instant composition, the glass of Kamimura would inherently possess the claimed color.
Regarding claim 4, Kamimura discloses the S value is 0.73 × 106 or more and less than 1.00 × 106 (Pa/°C) (See Kamimura at Table 2, Example CEx. 1, disclosing an example of a glass with a Young's modulus of 79 GPa, a Poisson's ratio of 0.21, and a coefficient of thermal expansion of 82 x 10-6/°C, which provides an S value of 0.82 × 106 which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, Kamimura discloses a total content of a TiO2 component, a Nb2O5 component, a Bi2O3 component, and a WO3 component is 10.0% or less by mol% in terms of oxide (See Kamimura at Table 2, Example CEx. 1, disclosing an example of a glass with a TiO2+Nb2O5+Bi2O3+WO3 content of 0%).
Regarding claim 6, Kamimura discloses comprising, by mol% in terms of oxide: 30.0 to 80.0% of a SiO2 component (See Kamimura at Table 2, Example CEx. 1, disclosing an example of a glass with a SiO2 content of 72.0 mol%); and 0.00 to 30.0% of a B2O3 component, in a sum that does not exceed 100.0% (See Kamimura at Table 2, Example CEx. 1, disclosing an example of a glass with a B2O3 content of 11.0 mol%).
Regarding claim 7, Kamimura discloses an optical element, comprising: the optical glass (see Kamimura at Fig. 1, showing an optical element comprising the optical glass).
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kamimura.
Regarding claim 8, while Kamimura does not explicitly disclose the optical element is used with a transparent resin plate or a curable resin material, an intended use of the claimed glass does not patentably distinguish the glass from the prior art. The intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Please note that where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (See MPEP 2112(III)). Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, while Kamimura does not explicitly disclose the optical element is used in a wearable device or a mobile device, an intended use of the claimed glass does not patentably distinguish the glass from the prior art. The intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Please note that where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (See MPEP 2112(III)). Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20170283305.
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