DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 .
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
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 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikutani et al. (US 2013/0305786) in view of Kawanami (US 2015/0037594).
Regarding claim 1, Kikutani discloses a glass composition with 0 to 30% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO and up to 35% ZnO and MoO3, all in terms of mol % [0026, 0096 & 0097]; see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges. The reference further discloses the content of TeO2 is preferably 0 to 40 [0093].
Additionally, the reference discloses that Li2O+Na2O+K2O+Cs2O are not essential components [0095]. However, if at least one kind out of the alkali metal oxides is added in the glass composition, the adhesiveness of glass with a substance to be sealed can be enhanced [0095]. However, when the content of Li2O+Na2O+K2O+Cs2O is more than 20%, glass tends to devitrify at the time of firing [0095]. Note that when the denitrification and flowability are taken into consideration, the content of Li2O+Na2O+K2O+Cs2O is preferably 15% or less [0095]. Further, Li2O and Na2O out of the alkali metal oxides have a high effect of improving an adhesive force with a glass substrate, and hence Li2O and Na2O are desirably used [0095]. Note that when each of the alkali metal oxides is contained alone at 15% or more, glass tends to devitrify [0095]. Thus, when the content of the alkali metal oxides is set to at 15% or more, a plurality of the alkali metal oxides are preferably used in combination [0095]. Given the reference discloses that the Li2O and K2O may be used in combination with each other with a total amount of 20 mol %, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any amount of the two oxides including equal amounts and up to five times K2O so long as the total amount of alkali oxides did not exceed 20 mol %.
The reference fails to disclose the claimed amount of Te2O and Te2O as the largest in the glass composition.
Kawanami discloses TeO2 as present in a sealing glass in an amount from 30 to 90 mol% [0004 and 0030]. The reference further discloses that when a content of TeO2 is small, a softening point of a glass composition becomes high, making sealing at a low temperature difficult [0036]. On the other hand, when the content of TeO2 is large, vitrification becomes difficult and a thermal expansion coefficient becomes large [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention for the composition of Kikutani to include TeO2 in the amount of Kawanami in order to prevent the softening temperature and thermal expansion coefficient from becoming too high and vitrification from becoming difficult. Note that based on the range of Kawanami for TeO2, it is rendered obvious as the largest in the glass composition.
Regarding claim 2, Kikutani discloses a glass composition 0 to 30% of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, 0 to 20% Li2O+Na2O+K2O+Cs2O and up to 35% ZnO and MoO3, all in terms of mol % [0026, 0093-0097]; see MPEP 2144.05 I. The reference further discloses the content of TeO2 is preferably 0 to 40%, which overlaps the claimed range [0093]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses 0 to 20 mol % Li2O+Na2O+K2O+Cs2O, which renders obvious the claimed Li2O range [0026 & 0095]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 4, the reference discloses 0 to 30 mol % of MgO+CaO+SrO+BaO, which renders obvious the claimed range [0026]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 5, the reference discloses that the composition does not contain TiO2 and Al2O3, which renders obvious the claimed sum [0089-0097].
Regarding claim 6, the reference discloses including 0 to 10 mol % Al2O3 in glass compositions to lower the coefficient of thermal expansion without the softening temperature rising [0061].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the reference discloses up to 35% CuO and WO3 and 10 to 40% P2O5 in terms of mol % [0091 & 0097]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 9-11, the reference discloses the sealing glass composition as substantially free of filler, which corresponds to 100 vol% of glass powder [0100]. Note that since the filler is not present, the limitations of claims 10 and 11 are not required.
Regarding claim 12, note that the limitation “used for a crystal oscillator package” is deemed to be a statement with regard to intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikutani et al. (US 2013/0305786) in view of Kawanami (US 2015/0037594) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2013/0213852).
Kikutani in view of Kawanami discloses the sealing material with the glass composition of claim 1, see above discussion. The references, however, fail to disclose a sealing paste with the sealing material and a vehicle.
Yamazaki discloses a glass frit for hermetically sealing a gap between substrates so as to surround an electrical element, see abstract. The reference further discloses that the glass frit and a vehicle are kneaded and processed into a paste material to be used in order to enhance application workability and the like [0120].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the glass composition of Kikutani to be kneaded with a vehicle to form a paste in order to enhance application workability and the like.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot in view of a new combination of prior art.
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 LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights