Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/774,959

TWO-PART REACTION VESSELS MADE OF GLASS, PRODUCTION METHOD AND ANALYTICAL METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 06, 2022
Examiner
SNELTING, ERIN LYNN
Art Unit
1741
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lpkf Laser & Electronics AG
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
563 granted / 808 resolved
+4.7% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
843
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§112
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 808 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 01-26-2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 19-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2022/0347796 A1 (Liu). 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) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurachi ‘805 (US 2009/0075805 A1) in view of Liu ‘796 (US 2022/0347796 A1) and Krulevitch ‘686 (US 2002/0174686 A1). Regarding claim 1, Kurachi ‘805 teaches: providing a first glass plate with recesses having a depth extending through a full thickness of the first glass plate (member 24, 34 with concave parts 21, 31, Figs. 3-5; ¶ [0128]-[0129]) connecting a second plate to a surface of the first glass plate (plate 23, 33, Figs. 3-5; ¶ [0128]-[0129]) the connecting is performed by bonding the second surface of the first glass plate to the second plate (Figs. 3-5; ¶ [0128]-[0129]). Kurachi ‘805 is silent regarding irradiating punctiform laser pulses of a wavelength for which the first glass plate is transparent onto locations of a first surface of the first glass plate at which each of the recesses is to be formed, wherein punctiform irradiated laser beams are arranged in the plane of the first surface of the first glass plate at a distance of exactly a diameter of one of the reaction vessels plus a thickness of a wall between the reaction vessels, and etching the first glass plate for a period of time sufficient to create the recesses at the locations, the etching being performed until the recesses have a depth extending through a full thickness of the first glass plate, wherein the first glass plate is subjected to etching without a mask and without etch resist. However, Kurachi ‘805 also does not particularly limit how the disclosed recesses are formed. In analogous art of forming recesses in a glass plate, Liu ‘796 suggests: irradiating punctiform laser pulses of a wavelength for which a first glass plate is transparent onto locations on a first surface of the first glass plate at which each of the recesses is to be formed, wherein punctiform irradiated laser beams are arranged in the plane of the first surface of the first glass plate at a distance of exactly a diameter of one hole plus a thickness of a wall between the holes (¶ [0002], [0010], [0013], [0059], [0066], [0073], [0116]-[0117], [0123]; Claims 56, 59; Figs. 12-13 - wherein the annular beam pulses at the disclosed scale are considered to be punctiform) etching the first glass plate for a period of time sufficient to create the recesses at the locations, the etching being performed until the recesses have a depth extending through a full thickness of the first glass plate, wherein the first glass plate is subjected to etching without a mask and without etch resist (¶ [0010], [0013], [0118]; Figs. 12 - wherein no mask or resist are described as being used or required). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kurachi ‘805 by forming the recesses by irradiating punctiform laser pulses of a wavelength for which the first glass plate is transparent onto locations of a first surface of the first glass plate at which each of the recesses is to be formed, wherein punctiform irradiated laser beams are arranged in the plane of the first surface of the first glass plate at a distance of exactly a diameter of one of the reaction vessels plus a thickness of a wall between the reaction vessels, and etching the first glass plate for a period of time sufficient to create the recesses at the locations, the etching being performed until the recesses have a depth extending through a full thickness of the first glass plate, wherein the first glass plate is subjected to etching without a mask and without etch resist, as a known manner of forming recesses extending through a full thickness of a glass plate, as suggested by Liu ‘796. Kurachi ‘805 is silent regarding the connecting being performed by placing the second surface of the first glass plate directly against the second plate and conducting heating or anodic bonding of the second surface of the first glass plate to the second plate. In analogous art of glass bonding, Krulevitch ‘686 suggests that glass plates may be connected by placing a second surface of a first glass plate having recesses therein directly against a second plate and conducting heating or anodic bonding of the second surface of the first glass plate to the second plate (¶ [0015], [0016], [0018]-[0019], [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kurachi ‘805 by performing the connecting by placing the second surface of the first glass plate directly against the second plate and conducting heating or anodic bonding of the second surface of the first glass plate to the second plate, as suggested by Krulevitch ‘686, as a known alternative manner for connecting a first glass plate to a second plate. Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kurachi ‘805 is silent regarding a specific depth of the recesses, or regarding a specific depth to diameter aspect ratio of the recesses. Liu ‘796 suggests forming recesses that extend through glass of up to 2 mm (2000 µm), thus having a depth that is greater than 30 µm (¶ [0080]). Liu ‘796 also suggests that the recesses have a diameter of 5-60 µm (¶ [0073]), which includes aspect ratios of at least 2. It has been held that a change in size or proportion of an element is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, in Kurachi ‘805, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to select a depth of the recesses, and a depth to diameter aspect ratio of the recesses, that enables use of the product as a bioanalytical device, as desired by Kurachi ‘805 (¶ [0001]). Regarding claim 5, Kurachi ‘805 further teaches the second plate consists of glass, silicon, sapphire, ceramic metal, or a combination of at least two layers thereof (¶ [0128]-[0129]). Regarding claim 6, Liu ‘796 suggests the laser pulses as described above, and further suggests that the laser pulses are irradiated at a plurality of spaced-apart positions at the locations (¶ [0004], [0122]-[0123]). Regarding claim 7, Liu ‘796 further suggests at a first share of positions, laser pulses are irradiated into the first glass plate up to a first thickness section, and at a second share of the positions, laser pulses are irradiated deeper than at the first share of the positions into the first glass plate up to an adjacent second thickness section, wherein during etching, the recesses are forming including recesses extending over the first thickness section, and partial recesses space by partial walls and extending over the second thickness (¶ [0121]; Figs. 12G-H). Regarding claim 8, Kurachi ‘805 and Liu ‘796 are silent regarding some of the positions being arranged at a distance of at most 10 µm, and at least three of the positions being spaced at least 20 µm apart. However, it has been held that a change in size or proportion of an element is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. In Kurachi ‘805, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to select spacing of the positions that enables use of the product as a bioanalytical device, as desired by Kurachi ‘805 (¶ [0001]). Regarding claim 9, Liu ‘796 further suggests a focal position of the laser pulses is adjusted such that laser pulses penetrate into the first glass plate only up to a thickness section which does not extend over the entire thickness of the glass plate (¶ [0121]; Figs. 12G-H). Regarding claim 10, Liu ‘796 suggests irradiating as described above, and further suggests irradiating a laser beam along a circumferentially closed path at the locations (Figs. 12; ¶ [0117]). Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurachi ‘805 (US 2009/0075805 A1) in view of Liu ‘796 (US 2022/0347796 A1), Krulevitch ‘686 (US 2002/0174686 A1), and Lee ‘510 (US 2019/0055510 A1). Regarding claim 19, Kurachi ‘805 is silent regarding connecting a third plate having third recesses extending through its full thickness to a first surface of the first glass plate with the third recesses matching the recesses of the first glass plate. In analogous art of reaction vessels, Lee ‘510 suggests forming a reaction vessel from a plurality of layers including a first plate with recesses extending therethrough (layer 3, Fig. 16C; ¶ [0506]-[0507]), a second plate connected to the first plate (glass layer, Fig. 16C; Fig. 16C; ¶ [0506]-[0507]), and a third plate having recesses extending through its full thickness, connected to a first surface of the first plate, with the third recesses matching the recesses of the first plate (layer 2, Fig. 16C; ¶ [0506]-[0507] - wherein recesses of layer 2 and layer 3 are aligned) for the benefit of forming a reactor that allows circulation of experimental materials therethrough (¶ [0506]-[0507]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kurachi ‘805 by connecting a third plate having third recesses extending through its full thickness to a first surface of the first glass plate with the third recesses matching the recesses of the first glass plate, for the benefit of forming a reactor that allows circulation of experimental materials therethrough, as suggested by Lee ‘510. Regarding claim 20, Kurachi ‘805 is silent regarding the second plate comprises second recesses, and the connecting comprising connecting the second plate to the first glass plate with its second recesses adjacent to the recesses of the first glass plate. In analogous art of reaction vessels, Lee ‘510 suggests forming a reaction vessel from a plurality of layers including a first plate with recesses extending therethrough (layer 2, Fig. 16C; ¶ [0506]-[0507]), a second plate comprising second recesses that is connected to the first plate, with its second recesses adjacent to the recesses of the first plate (layer 3, Fig. 16C; Fig. 16C; ¶ [0506]-[0507]), and a bottom plate connected to the second plate (glass layer, Fig. 16C; Fig. 16C; ¶ [0506]-[0507]) for the benefit of forming a reactor that allows circulation of experimental materials therethrough (¶ [0506]-[0507]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kurachi ‘805 by making the second plate comprise second recesses, and making the connecting comprise connecting the second plate to the first glass plate with its second recesses adjacent to the recesses of the first glass plate, for the benefit of forming a reactor that allows circulation of experimental materials therethrough, as suggested by Lee ‘510. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 11, there is no motivation for modifying Kurachi ‘805 and Liu ‘796 to form the circumferentially closed path by laser beam pulses irradiated side by side because a single laser beam pulse as suggested by Liu ‘796 already forms the circumferentially closed path. Regarding claims 15-17, the prior art does not fairly teach or suggest applying strip conductors in the manners claimed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0005922 A1 (Levesque) describes bonding a glass plate to a semiconductor plate by anodic bonding, irradiating the glass plate with punctiform laser pulses of a wavelength for which the glass plate is transparent, and etching the glass plate to create recesses extending through the glass plate at the locations of the laser irradiation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00. 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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. /ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 06, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 21, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 21, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 26, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600676
POLYMER-DERIVED CERAMIC FIBERS AND METHODS OF PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577171
PROCESS FOR OBTAINING COMPOSITE, ULTRA-REFRACTORY, FIBRE-REINFORCED CERAMIC MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577140
VERTICAL MELTING FURNACE FOR IGNEOUS ROCK FIBER MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565439
METHOD FOR PRODUCING AN OPTICAL ELEMENT OF GLASS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565441
OPTICAL FIBER MANUFACTURING METHOD AND OPTICAL FIBER MANUFACTURING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.7%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 808 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month