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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-2 & 20 remaining withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim(s) 3-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian (WO2018137354A1 - corresponding U.S PG Pub 20200123040A1 used for citations), Hogan (U.S PG Pub 20140034218A1), Dennis (U.S PG Pub 20130305785A1), and Zhu (CN207143124U – see machine translation attached).
Regarding claims 3-4, 14, 18-19, Lian drawn also to the art of a vacuum insulating glass (VIG) (Abstract), discloses a method of manufacturing a VIG, wherein two glass substrates (101, 102) are laminated with a peripheral seal (4) located in between and spacers (2) located between the glass suberates, as well as a metallic getter (3) disclosed between the substrates and radially inward of seal (4) ((Figures 4 & 5; [0274-0286]). Lian discloses oxides, nitrides reacting with getter [0101]. Lian does not explicitly disclose laser ablating to activate the getter, however, this is known in the art from Hogan.
Hogan, drawn also to the art of making a VIG and activating getter (Abstract), discloses using a laser beam to activate getter, and discloses the getter having an ablated and non-ablated part [0025]. Hogan further discloses that the laser beam is responsible for heating the getter to activation temperature and further creates cracks in the getter surface to activate the surface [0025], while also disclosing operating the laser beam for different time periods [0025]. Thus, the length of time of application or the power/frequency of the laser beam is a result effective variable, and as such it is within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the laser ablation/activation conditions, in order to appropriately activate the particular getter and create cracks on the getter surface (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
With regards to the limitation of the activation step of the getter taking place after sealing of the cavity, Hogan has disclosed in [0020] that after the evacuation process the pump-out tube (8) is sealed by a laser or the like by melting its tip. Further, in [0025] Hogan has disclosed that during and/or at the end of evacuation process a laser (30) is used to seal the tip of the pump-out tube (8) and then the same laser is used to heat the getter in order to activate the getter [0025].
Further, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Lian, with the step of laser activating the getter, as disclosed by Hogan, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to activate the getter at lower temperatures [0001].
Further, with regards to the specific conditions of laser ablation, it is known from Dennis for the conditions of laser ablation to be a result effective variable.
Dennis, draw also to the art of making a VIG (Abstract), discloses that faster laser processing and continuous laser processing in a single manner can lead to drawbacks of potentially super heating the glass and potentially boiling off the top layer of the glass [0010], and thus Dennis suggest the using sequential multiple applications of laser energy using various power settings, diameters, and exposure times [0011].
Thus, as established by Hogan, and as further established by Dennis, the power settings, diameters, exposure times of a laser beam irradiation are result effective variables, which can have adverse effects on the glass, and thus, as such it is within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the laser beam irradiation settings to be able to suitably activate a particular getter and not damage the glass (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Finally, with regards to the limitations of wherein said laser ablation comprises scanning the pulsed laser over the getter in a laser pattern, this limitation is disclosed by Zhu.
Zhu, drawn also to the art of vacuum glass (Abstract), discloses activating getter material with a pulsed laser activation [0042]. The disclosure of pulsed laser activation would mean scanning a laser over the getter in a pattern, and thus would meet the instant limitations.
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Lian, Hogan, and Dennis, with the step of scanning a pulsed laser i.e. a laser in a pattern to activate the getter material, as disclosed by Zhu, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to further improve and maintain the vacuum degree in the vacuum glass [0055].
Regarding claims 5-11, as explained above, the laser beam irradiation settings, as pertaining to the power, diameter, exposure times, are result effective variables, and as such it is within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the laser beam irradiation settings to be able to suitably activate a particular getter and not damage the glass (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Regarding claims 12, 16-17, Lian has disclosed the instant dimensions for the getter ([0262 & 0269]; [0160-0162]). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 15, Lian has disclosed the getter being a metallic element as claimed [0106].
Regarding claim 21, as established above in the rejection of claim 3, Lian as modified by Hogan and Dennis, establish that the power settings, diameters, exposure times of a laser beam irradiation are result effective variables, which can have adverse effects on the glass, and thus, as such it is within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the laser beam irradiation settings to be able to suitably activate a particular getter and not damage the glass (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian (WO2018137354A1 - corresponding U.S PG Pub 20200123040A1 used for citations), Hogan (U.S PG Pub 20140034218A1), Dennis (U.S PG Pub 20130305785A1), Zhu (CN207143124U – see machine translation attached), and McKinnell (U.S PG Pub 20060083896A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lian has not explicitly disclosed an uneven structure for the getter, however, this limitation is known from McKinnell.
McKinnell, drawn also to the art of a vacuum insulated package with getter ([0006]; Abstract), discloses a getter having increased surface roughness [0004-0005]; [0017-0019], and discloses the roughened region of the getter having mean spacing between 0.5 to 1 microns ([0019 & 0024 & 0025]; Figures 2,5-6). Thus, McKinnell has disclosed the spacing to be in the claimed range. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Lian, with the getter surface being uneven and having mean spacing as claimed as disclosed by McKinnell, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to increase area for adsorption of gaseous molecules [0004-0005]; [0017-0019].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hogan does not teach a sealed cavity and that getter activation takes place after the cavity is sealed.
Examiner disagrees. While one embodiment of Hogan discloses the getter being activated first and then the pump out tube being sealed by the same laser, as used for activation, as is pointed out by the applicant, this is just one embodiment of Hogan. Hogan also discloses in [0020] and [0025] the steps of sealing the pump-out tube first and then activating the getter. Further, Hogan has discloses applying the laser to the getter in situations wherein the getter is not positioned under a pump-out tube [0029], which further lends credence to the fact that the pump-out tube is sealed first or can be sealed first, prior to getter activation by the laser. With the pump-out tube being sealed, a sealed cavity is obtained.
The examiner also notes that the instant claim 3, as currently recited, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not claim explicitly the steps of sealing the cavity first and then activating the getter, the instant claim merely claims separately a step of providing a sealed cavity with a getter inside and then a separate step of activating the getter with a laser. The instant claim does not explicitly recite simultaneous or sequential steps of sealing a cavity and then activating a getter placed inside a sealed activity in that order. Further, there is not support in the instant specification for such a recitation of method steps.
The examiner further notes that according to the instant specification, page 2, lines 8-9, it is disclosed that “traditionally, the getter is activated by means of induction heating during production of the VIG unit, e.g. before, during or after the cavity is sealed and evacuated”, which would amount to an admission of prior art that the order of activation relative to sealing provides the same predictable result regardless of when it is performed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S PG Pub 20210270084A1.
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 ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746