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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (JP2019055889A with reference to the machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Nagano).
Regarding claim 1, Nagano makes obvious a glass (see Nagano at the Abstract, disclosing a glass), comprising following components in molar percentage of cations: P5+: 51-72% (see Nagano at the Abstract, disclosing P5+ from 1 to 70%, 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); Al3+: 0-10% (see Nagano at the Abstract, disclosing Al3+ from 7 to 50%, which overlaps with the claimed range.); Cu2+: 5-25% (see Nagano at the Abstract, disclosing Cu2+ 0.1 to 15%, which overlaps with the claimed range.); Rn+: 5-25% (see Nagano at the third page of the machine translation, disclosing Li+ is preferably 0 to 30%, which overlaps with the claimed range.); R2+: 1-18% (see Nagano at the third page of the machine translation, disclosing Mg2+ content is preferably 0 to 20%, which overlaps with the claimed range.); Ln3+: 0-8% (see Nagano at the fourth page of the machine translation, disclosing La3+, Gd3+, and Y3+ from 0 to 3%, which overlaps with the claimed range.), wherein Rn+ is one or more of Li+, Na+, and K+, R2+ is one or more of Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, and Ba2+, and Ln3+ is one or more of La3+, Gd3+, and Y3+; and comprising following components of anions: O2- and F-, wherein a total content of O2- and F- (O2-+ F-) is more than 98% (see Nagano at the fourth page of the machine translation, disclosing the composition of the anionic component is F- to 10 to 90% and containing O2- from 10 to 90%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 2, Nagano makes obvious further comprising following components in molar percentage of cations: Zn2+: 0-10%; and/or Si4+: 0-5%; and/or B3+: 0-5%; and/or Zr4+: 0-5%; and/or Sb3++Sn4++Ce4+: 0-1% (see Nagano at the fourth page of the machine translation, disclosing Zn2+ is 0 to 10%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 3, while Nagano does not explicitly disclose Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) is 0.4-10.0, Nagano discloses a range of Li, Mg, and Al values as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. These ranges overlap with the claimed Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) range, which can be demonstrated by selecting a point within the ranges disclosed by Nagano, performing the Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) conversion, and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 15.6 % Li+, 8.3% Al3+, and 6.9% Mg2+ is within the range disclosed by Nagano as detailed by Nagano No. 1, and provides a value of Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) of 15.6/(8.3+6.9)= 1.03, which is within the claimed range. therefore, the Li, Mg, and Al ranges disclosed by Nagano overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, while Nagano does not explicitly disclose Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) is 0.4-10.0, Nagano discloses a range of Li, Mg, and Al values as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. These ranges overlap with the claimed Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) range, which can be demonstrated by selecting a point within the ranges disclosed by Nagano, performing the Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) conversion, and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 15.6 % Li+, 8.3% Al3+, and 6.9% Mg2+ is within the range disclosed by Nagano as detailed by Nagano No. 1, and provides a value of Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) of 15.6/(8.3+6.9)= 1.03, which is within the claimed range. therefore, the Li, Mg, and Al ranges disclosed by Nagano overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, while Nagano does not explicitly disclose Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) is 0.4-10.0, Nagano discloses a range of Li, Mg, and Al values as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. These ranges overlap with the claimed Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) range, which can be demonstrated by selecting a point within the ranges disclosed by Nagano, performing the Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) conversion, and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. In the instant case, the point 24.5 % Li+, 9.2% Al3+, and 3.1% Mg2+ is within the range disclosed by Nagano as detailed by Nagano No. 7, and provides a value of Li+/(Mg2++Al3+) of 24.5/(9.2+3.1)= 1.99, which is within the claimed range. therefore, the Li, Mg, and Al ranges disclosed by Nagano overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Nagano makes obvious wherein the components in molar percentage of the glass further comprises: P5+: 56-68%; and/or Al3+: 0.5-8%; and/or Cu2+: 6-20%; and/or Rn+: 7-20%; and/or R2+: 3-16%; and/or Ln3+: 0.1-6%; and/or Zn2+: 0-5%; and/or Si4+: 0-2%; and/or B3+: 0-2%; and/or Zr4+: 0-2%; and/or Sb3++Sn4++Ce4+: 0-0.5%, wherein Rn+ is one or more of Li+, Na+, and K+, R2+ is one or more of Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, and Ba2+, and Ln3+ is one or more of La3+, Gd3+, and Y3+ (see Nagano at the Abstract, disclosing P5+ from 1 to 70%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 7, Nagano makes obvious wherein the components in molar percentage of the glass further comprises: P5+: 60-65%; and/or Al3+: 1-5%; and/or Cu2+: 8-15%; and/or Rn+: 10-17%; and/or R2+: 5-14%; and/or Ln3+: 0.5-4%; and/or Zn2+: 0-2%; and/or Si4+: 0-1%; and/or B3+: 0-1%; and/or Zr4+: 0-1%; and/or Sb3++Sn4++Ce4+: 0-0.1%, wherein Rn+ is one or more of Li+, Na+, and K+, R2+ is one or more of Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, and Ba2+, and Ln3+ is one or more of La3+, Gd3+, and Y3+ (see Nagano at the Abstract, disclosing P5+ from 1 to 70%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Nagano makes obvious wherein the components in molar percentage of the glass further comprises: Li+: 5-25%; and/or Na+: 0-10%; and/or K+: 0-10%; and/or Mg2+: 0-15%; and/or Ca2+: 0-10%; and/or Sr2+: 0-10%; and/or Ba2+: 0-10%; and/or La3+: 0-5%; and/or Gd3+: 0-5%; and/or Y3+: 0-6% (see Nagano at the third page of the machine translation, disclosing Li+ is preferably 0 to 30%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 9, Nagano makes obvious wherein the components in molar percentage of the glass further comprises: Li+: 10-16%; and/or Na+: 0-2%; and/or K+: 0-2%; and/or Mg2+: 2-8%; and/or Ca2+: 0-2%; and/or Sr2+: 0-2%; and/or Ba2+: 1-6%; and/or La3+: 0-2%; and/or Gd3+: 0-2%; and/or Y3+: 0.5-3% (see Nagano at the third page of the machine translation, disclosing Li+ is preferably 0 to 30%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 10, Nagano makes obvious further comprising following components in molar percentage of anions: Cl-+Br-+I-: 0-2% (Nagano does not disclose Cl-, Br-, or I-, which is 0%, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 11, Nagano makes obvious wherein the components in molar percentage of the glass further comprises: O2-: 85-99.5%; and/or F-: 0.5-15% (see Nagano at the fourth page of the machine translation, disclosing the composition of the anionic component is F- to 10 to 90% and containing O2- from 10 to 90%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 12, Nagano makes obvious wherein the components in molar percentage of the glass further comprises: O2-: 91-98%; and/or F-: 2-9% (see Nagano at the fourth page of the machine translation, disclosing the composition of the anionic component is F- to 10 to 90% and containing O2- from 10 to 90%, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 13, while Nagano does not explicitly disclose a density ρ is less than 3.3g/cm3, the density of a glass is a function of the composition of a glass. The glass of Nagano has a composition substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed by the claims above. As such, the glass of Nagano would inherently possess the claimed density. 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 14, while Nagano does not explicitly disclose a density ρ is less than 3.0 g/cm3, the density of a glass is a function of the composition of a glass. The glass of Nagano has a composition substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed by the claims above. As such, the glass of Nagano would inherently possess the claimed density.
Regarding claim 15, Nagano makes obvious a glass element, comprising the glass (see Nagano at page 6 of the machine translation, disclosing a glass plate, which Examiner notes is a glass member.).
Regarding claim 16, while Nagano does not explicitly disclose an optical filter, Examiner notes this does not patentably distinguish the claimed subject matter from the art of Nagano because Nagano discloses a glass with the composition as claimed above, and would be capable of use as an optical filter because Nagano teaches all the structural limitations claimed. 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 (See MPEP 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 17, Nagano makes obvious a device, comprising the glass (See Nagano at the Title, disclosing a solid-state imaging device.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20150230476.
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