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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 9/18/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 19-21 are withdrawn, claims 22 is new and claims 1-18 and 22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maattanen et al (WO 2018/211176 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maattanen discloses an article (substrate stack; Fig. 8a #100; pg. 23) comprising a second piece (base substrate; Fig. 8a #120a; pg.23) and a third piece (cover substrate; Fig. 8a #120b; pg. 23); a first seam formed by laser welding to join the second piece to a first piece (at least one first laser weld for welding the base substrate and the cover substrate; Fig. 8a #J1a; pg. 23), a second seam formed by laser welding to join the third piece to the first piece (at least one second laser weld situated next to the at least one first laser weld; Fig. 8a #J1b; pg. 23) and wherein the first piece, the second piece and the third piece are formed of glass (pg. 26).
Since the structure of the article is the same as the structure of the substrate stack as recited in claim 1, the article of Maattanen would inherently improve mechanical stability of the substrate stack.
Regarding claim 2, Maattanen discloses an article (enclosure and substrate stack; Fig. 8a #100; pg. 23) comprising a second piece (base substrate; Fig. 8a #120a; pg.23) and a third piece (cover substrate; Fig. 8a #120b; pg. 23); a first seam formed by laser welding to join the second piece to a first piece (at least one first laser weld for welding the base substrate and the cover substrate; Fig. 8a #J1a; pg. 23), a second seam formed by laser welding to join the third piece to the first piece (at least one second laser weld situated next to the at least one first laser weld; Fig. 8a #J1b; pg. 23), wherein the first seam has a height that is perpendicular to its connecting plane (first weld line having a height in a direction perpendicular to its connecting plane; Fig. 8a #J1a; pg. 23), wherein the first piece, the second piece and the third piece are formed of glass (pg. 26) and wherein the first piece provides an open cavity (function zone situated such that it is partly enclosed in the enclosure; Fig. 8a; pg. 23).
Since the structure of the article is the same as the structure of the substrate stack as recited in claim 2, the article of Maattanen would inherently improve mechanical stability of the substrate stack.
Regarding claim 3, Maattanen discloses the article comprising laser welding being performed such that the cavity pressure is lower than the external pressure during welding reducing or minimizing residual internal stress of the material of the article (mechanical stress in the at least one first laser weld reduced by a stress reduction step; pgs. 22-23).
Regarding claim 4, Maattanen discloses the article comprising a first seam formed by laser welding to join the second piece to a first piece (at least one first laser weld for welding the base substrate and the cover substrate; Fig. 8a #J1a; pg. 23), a second seam formed by laser welding to join the third piece to the first piece (at least one second laser weld situated next to the at least one first laser weld; Fig. 8a #J1b; pg. 23) and laser welding being performed such that the cavity pressure is lower than the external pressure during welding reducing or minimizing residual internal stress of the material of the article (at least one second weld relieving the stress zone so that at least one of a stress-free zone is established; pgs. 22-23).
Regarding claim 5, Maattanen discloses the article comprising the first piece provides an open cavity (function zone is said cavity; Fig. 8a; pg. 23) and a first seam formed by laser welding the second piece to the first piece and around the cavity (at least two-dimensional laser weld line around the cavity for tempering edges of the cavity; Fig. 8b #J1a; pg. 23).
Regarding claim 6, Maattanen discloses the article comprising a distance of the first seam formed by laser welding the second piece to the first piece and around the cavity being double the height of less of the first seam (at least two-dimensional laser weld line around the cavity for tempering edges of the cavity; Fig. 8b #J1a; pg. 23)
Regarding claim 7, Maattanen discloses the article comprising one or more components hermetically enclosed in the cavity (enclosure providing hermetical sealing for the functional zone so that the enclosure if a hermetically sealed enclosure; Fig. 8b; pg. 23).
Regarding claim 8, Maattanen discloses the article comprising first piece being slightly deformed when exposed to external pressure (elastic or flexible layer so that the enclosure is deformable; pg. 28)
Regarding claim 9, Maattanen discloses the article comprising a first piece between the second piece and the third piece (inner coating zone; Fig. 8a #23).
Regarding claim 11, Maattanen discloses the article comprising a first piece between the second piece and the third piece (at least one intermediate layer positioned between the base substrate and the cover substrate; Fig. 8a #23).
Regarding claim 12, Maattanen discloses the article comprising the first piece providing an open cavity (function zone situated in the at least one intermediate layer; Fig. 8a; pg. 23) and the first piece between the second piece and the third piece (covered by the base substrate on its bottom side and by the cover substrate on its top side; Fig. 8a #23).
Regarding claim 14, Maattanen discloses the article comprising the first piece providing an open cavity (function zone is a cavity; Fig. 8a; pg. 23) and one or more components hermetically enclosed in the cavity (functional component arranged in the cavity to be protected by the enclosure; Fig. 8b; pg. 23).
Regarding claim 15, Maattanen discloses the article comprising the component comprising a CMOS detector (power semiconductor; pg. 27).
Regarding claim 16, Maattanen discloses the article comprising the first seam formed by laser welding to join the second piece to the first piece (laser weld line situated such that it extends into a base substrate; pg. 23) and the second seam formed by laser welding to join the third piece to the first piece (laser weld line situated such that it extends into a cover substrate; pg. 23).
The second piece and the third piece are considered to be two different substrates of the enclosure.
Regarding claim 17, Maattanen discloses the article comprising one or more pieces comprising electronic feedthrough for providing electronic connection from the outside of the article to the hermetically encapsulated component (at least one of the substrates comprising through vias for electrically contacting the function zone with a surrounding outside of the enclosure; pg. 23).
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.
Claims 10, 13, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen et al (WO 2018/211176 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Maattanen does not disclose the enclosure comprising at least one substrate provided as a multilayer compound.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the second piece or the third piece to have at least one substrate provided as a multilayer compound.
It has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced". Please see MPEP 2144.04 and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would be obvious to duplicate the second piece or the third piece since the mere duplication of the second piece or the third piece would produce a known and unexpected result which would be thicker substrates providing increased strength and durability.
Regarding claim 13, Maattanen does not disclose the enclosure comprising the substrates comprising a thickness of below 3 mm.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the second piece to be less than 3 mm and to adjust the thickness of the third piece to be less than 3 mm because doing so would provide the strength and durability for the second piece and the third piece while not being too thick so as to be more cost-effective.
Regarding claim 18, Maattanen does not disclose the enclosure comprising a size of 10 mm x 10 mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the size of the enclosure to be a size of 10 mm x 10 mm or less because doing so provides the desired size for enclosure components of a smaller size.
Regarding claim 22, Maattanen discloses an article (substrate stack; Fig. 8a #100; pg. 23) comprising a first seam formed by laser welding to join the second piece to a first piece (at least one first laser weld for welding the base substrate and the cover substrate; Fig. 8a #J1a; pg. 23) and a second seam formed by laser welding to join the third piece to the first piece (at least one second laser weld situated next to the at least one first laser weld; Fig. 8a #J1b; pg. 23).
Maattanen does not disclose the first laser weld line introducing a stress zone in the substrate stack; wherein the first laser weld line has a height HL in a direction perpendicular to its connecting plane and a width w within the connecting plane, and wherein the at least one second beam spot or second laser weld line is positioned such that a distance between the first laser weld line and the at least one second beam spot or second laser weld line in a direction perpendicular to the connecting plane is less than 5HL and is at least 1HL; and/or such that a distance between the first laser weld line and the at least one second beam spot or second laser weld line in a direction within the connecting plane is less than 5w and at least 0.5w.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the distance between the first laser weld line and the at least one second beam spot or second laser weld line in a direction perpendicular to the connecting plane to be less than 5HL and at least 1HL or to adjust the distance between the first laser weld line and the at least one second beam spot or second laser weld line in a direction within the connecting plane is less than 5w and at least 0.5w because doing so provides the desired connection between each of the glass pieces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Maattanen fails to disclose at least one second beam spot or at least one second laser weld line at least one of situated next to the at least one first laser weld line or positioned such that a stress reduction in the at least one first laser weld line is achieved by the at least one second beam spot or second laser weld line.
This argument is not persuasive as first seam #J1a and second seam #J1b are positioned adjacent to each other. Since both of these seams are positioned adjacent to each other, there would be a stress reduction achieved.
Applicants argue that there is no overlap between the first seam #J1a and second seam #J1b in Maattanen.
This argument is not persuasive as the first seam #J1a and the second seam #J1b are overlapping each other in Fig. #8a.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785