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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US20080248941, hereinafter referred to as Fu).
Regarding claim 1, Fu discloses a glass having a refractive index of 1.94 or more (see Fu at the Abstract, disclosing a glass with a refractive index (nd) of 1.80 to 2.20, which overlaps with 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 (see MPEP 2144.05), an internal transmittance of 70% or more with respect to light having a wavelength of 440 nm at a plate thickness of 10 mm (see Fu at [0101], disclosing the transmittance of 70% (λ70%) ... is most preferably no longer than 500 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
While Fu does not explicitly disclose a degradation degree AT of 2.2% or less in an ultraviolet irradiation test, wherein the degradation degree AT in the ultraviolet irradiation test is obtained by formula (1) below: AT (%) ={ (To - Ti) /To} 100 (1) where the transmittance Ti is an external transmittance of the glass with respect to light having a wavelength of 470 nm after a surface of the glass having a thickness of 1 mm is irradiated with ultraviolet rays having a wavelength of 365 nm at a UV illuminance of 50 mW/cm2 for ten minutes, and the transmittance To is an external transmittance of the glass at a wavelength of 470 nm before the irradiation with ultraviolet rays, the degradation degree of a glass is a function of the composition of the glass as detailed by Table 1-1 and 1-2 from the instant specification. Example 1-31 have a degradation degree within the claimed range, while Example 32 does not meet the claimed degradation degree. Example 32 appears to be unique among Examples 1-32 in that it is the only example comprising a Nb2O5 content greater than 8 mol%, and therefore the Nb2O5 content appears to be a compositional variable which controls the degradation degree when present in excess of 8 mol%. Fu at [0073] discloses the Nb2O5 component is preferably less than 5%, which is less than 8 mol %. Additionally, Fu has a composition substantially identical to the instantly claimed composition as detailed in the rejections below. As such, Fu would inherently possess the claimed property. 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).
Regarding claim 2, Fu discloses a content of Nb2O5 is 0% or more and less than 15% in terms of oxide-based mol% (see Fu at [0073], disclosing the Nb2O5 component is preferably less than 5%, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 3, Fu discloses a content of Nb2O5 is 0% or more and less than 15% in terms of oxide-based mol% (see Fu at [0073], disclosing the Nb2O5 component is preferably less than 5%, which is within the claimed range.), a content of TiO2 is 0% or more and 30% or less in terms of oxide-based mol% (see Fu at [0087], disclosing the content of the TiO2 component is preferably 30% ... as the upper limit, on the basis of oxides, which is the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Fu discloses a parameter A defined by formula (A) is 270 or less in terms of oxide- based mol%:A=c (P2O5)2+c (Nb2O5)2 - c (TiO2)2 (A) where c(P2O5) is a content (%)of P2O5 in terms of oxide- based mol%, c (Nb2O5) is a content (%) of Nb2O5 in terms of oxide- based mol%, and c(TiO2) is a content (%) of TiO2 in terms of oxide- based mol% (see Fu at Table 1, Example 30, disclosing an example of a glass with a P2O5 content of 0, a Nb2O5 content of 0, and a TiO2 content of 0, for an A value of (0)2 + (0)2 - (0)2 = 0, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 5, Fu discloses a parameter B defined by formula (B) is 2.5 or less in terms of oxide- based mol%:B=0.13455 -2.7183(.014912 -A) (B) (see Fu at Table 1, Example 30, disclosing an example of a glass with a P2O5 content of 0, a Nb2O5 content of 0, and a TiO2 content of 0, for an A value of (0)2 + (0)2 - (0)2 = 0, which provides a B value of .13455*2.7183(0) = 0.13455, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 6, Fu discloses the glass comprising boric acid or phosphoric acid (see Fu at [0103], disclosing a redetermined amount of each starting raw material (oxide, carbonate, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate, fluoride salt, etc.) was weighted and then mixed uniformly.).
Regarding claim 7, Fu discloses comprising, in terms of oxide-based mol%, P2O5: 0% or more and 30% or less (See Fu at [0039], disclosing P2O5 in 0 mol % to 10 mol %, which is within the claimed range.), TeO2: 0.1% or more and less than 40% (see Fu at [0070], disclosing the content of the TeO2 component is preferably 0.2% ... as the lower limit ... and most preferably less than 45.0% as the upper limit, which overlaps with the claimed range.), B2O3: 0% or more and 40% or less (See Fu at [0067], disclosing the optical glass of the present invention contains no less than 5 mol % and no more than 60 mol % of B2O3 component, which overlaps with the claimed range.), Li2O: 0% or more and 15% or less (see Fu at [0035], disclosing Rn2O (Rn represents at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K and Cs) in 0 mol % to 15 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.), Na2O: 0% or more and 15% or less (see Fu at [0035], disclosing Rn2O (Rn represents at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K and Cs) in 0 mol % to 15 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.), K2O: 0% or more and 15% or less (see Fu at [0035], disclosing Rn2O (Rn represents at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K and Cs) in 0 mol % to 15 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.), TiO2: 0% or more and 32% or less (see Fu at [0044], disclosing TiO2 in 0 mol % to 30 mol %, which is within the claimed range.), Ta2O5: 0% or more and 20% or less (see Fu at [0041], disclosing Ta2O5 in 0 mol % to 10 mol %, which is within the claimed range.), WO3: 0% or more and 15% or less (Fu does not disclose WO3, which corresponds to 0% WO3, which is within the claimed range), Nb2O5: 0% or more and less than 15% (see Fu at [0073], disclosing the Nb2O5 component is ... 20% as the upper limit ... it is preferably 1%... as the lower limit.), ZrO2: 0% or more and 20% or less (see Fu at [0042], disclosing ZrO2 in 0 mol % to 10 mol %, which is within the claimed range.), Bi2O3: more than 15% and 45% or less (see Fu at [0075], disclosing the content of the Bi2O3 component is preferably 30% ... as the upper limit ... and most preferably 3% as the lower limit, which overlaps with the claimed range.) ZnO: 0% or more and 20% or less (see Fu at [0074], disclosing the ZnO component is ... most preferably 30.0% as the upper limit ... and preferably 1.0% ... as the lower limit, which overlaps with the claimed range.), SrO: 0% or more and 20% or less (See Fu at [0036], disclosing RO (R represents at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Ba, Sr, Ca and Mg) in 0 mol % to 20 mol %, which overlaps with the claimed range.), La2O3: 0% or more and 30% or less (see Fu at [0072], disclosing La2O3 is ... more preferably 30% ... as the upper limit ... it is preferably 1% ... as the lower limit, which is within the claimed range.), and SiO2: 0% or more and 30% or less (see Fu at [0037], disclosing SiO2 in 0 mol % to 20 mol %, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Fu discloses a total content of Fe, Cr and Ni is less than 4 ppm in terms of a mass (see Fu at [0093], disclosing the coloring components such as V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Mo, Eu, Nd, Sm, Tb, Dy, Er and the like are liable to deteriorate the desired characteristics as an optical glass, and therefore are preferably not contained in the optical glass of the present invention.).
Regarding claim 9, while Fu does not explicitly disclose a thickness of 0.01 mm or more and 2.0 mm or less and a surface area of 8 cm2 or more, it is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts to form a glass into any desired thickness and surface area, including within the claimed thickness and surface area. See MPEP 2144.04, disclosing where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 10, while Fu does not explicitly disclose the glass is used as a light guide plate, using the glass in a particular way does not patentably distinguish the glass over the prior art. See MPEP 2114(II), disclosing a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In the instant case, Fu discuses all the structural limitations of the claims as detailed in the rejections above, and would therefore claim 10 does not differentiate the claimed glass from the prior art of Fu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2014015384A.
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