Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/835,494

Glass-To-Metal Seal

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 08, 2022
Examiner
FRANKLIN, JODI COHEN
Art Unit
1741
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Te Connectivity Sensors Germany GmbH
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
455 granted / 739 resolved
-3.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
795
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/01/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18 recites, “The assembly of claim 1, wherein the metal member contains a glass distinct from the glass member and distinct from the glass-forming component in the pre- bonded state contains the glass-forming component and the glass before the glass member is bonded to the metal member. “ There is no support for the metal member containing another glass distinct from the claimed glass forming component. For the purpose of this examination the distinct glass is considered any oxide formed from the glass forming component. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1 is rejected because it recites, 1. (Currently Amended) An assembly, comprising: a metal member containing a glass-forming component and a glass; and a glass member bonded to the metal member containing the glass-forming component in a glass-to-metal seal in a bonded state, the glass-forming component is distributed in the metal member in a pre-bonded state in which the metal member is separate from and not bonded to the glass member. Claim 1 is written as directed to an assembly of a metal member containing a glass forming component bonded to a glass. Claim 1 also recites the limitation of the metal and glass prior to bonding. It is unclear how this can be part of the assembly when it is a limitation regarding prior to the assembly. Furthermore, claim 20 depends from claim 1 and recites “an inner region of the metal member has no glass-forming components in the pre-bonded state” It is unclear how the glass-forming component is distributed in the metal member in a pre-bonded state but also has no glass-forming component in the pre-bonded state. Claims 2-9,18, are rejected as being indefinite for depending from claim 1. 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. Claim(s) 1-9, 18 and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro et al. (US 4711826). Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, and 18, Edward discloses an assembly (10), comprising: a wire (14) metal member of an iron nickel alloy comprising aluminum (Col 3; line 63) (Col 4; lines 19-45) containing a glass-forming component of (silicon -Col 4; lines 1-6, boron Col 4; line 43) a glass member (16/24) bonded to the metal member containing the glass-forming component in a glass-to-metal seal in a bonded state (Fig 1), the glass-forming component is distributed in the metal member in a pre-bonded state (Col 3; line 63) (Col 4; lines 19-45) Regarding claim 3, a concentration of the glass- forming component of silicon in the metal is 0.5-3% (Col 3; line 69-Col 4; line 1) in the pre-bonded state, the concentration region is described at all of the metal thus adjacent to the glass-to-metal seal in the bonded state in the broadest reasonable interpretation. The concentration between the pre-bonded state and concentration region adjacent to the glass-to-metal seal in the bonded state are not differentiated in the claim. Regarding claim 4, Shapiro discloses (Col 2; lines 21-29) the addition of the silicon causes oxide bonds to form between the metal and glass during heating thus the glass forming members at the interface yield a concentration of the glass-forming component in the metal member increases toward the region between the metal member and the glass member as the bonds form. Regarding claim 7, Shapiro discloses a coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass member differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the metal member (Col 1; lines 30-40, Col 2; lines 29-33). Regarding claims 8-9, Shapiro discloses the metal comprises a glass stabilizer of iron (Col 2; line 36) and may also have zirconium or manganese (claim 3) Regarding claim 18, Shapiro discloses the metal member comprises silicon and when chemically bonded to the metal forms a silicon oxide thus a distinct glass. Regarding claim 20, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the concentration of the claimed glass forming components that increase glass to metal sealing (Col 2; lines 29-43) in the portion of the metal (18) that is sealed to the glass (16/24) Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP0175361 calcium, iron and nickel known to improve glass to metal seals- glass matrix of the sealing glass composite of the invention is preferably a complex lead borate type glass matrix generally also containing one or more other glass components, such as bismuth, zinc, aluminum, silicon, barium, arsenic, tin, and tellurium the exemplary alloy consists essentially of from about 1 to 10% aluminum, 0.001 to 3% silicon and optionally, element selected from the group consisting of iron up to 4.5%, chromium up to 1%, zirconium up to 0.5%, cobalt up to 1% and mixtures of these grain refining elements and the balance copper. Forms: metal or metal alloy of the present invention is a copper or copper base alloy capable of forming a thin refractory oxide layer on at least the surface which is bonded to the glass metals or alloys which have a CTE between about 110 to about 220 x 10.sup.-7 in/in/°C. Preferably, the CTE would be between about 140 to about 180 x 10-7 in/in/°C. A copper-nickel-aluminum alloy (called B-27 herein) which has been demonstrated to be suitable is disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 4,434,016 to Saleh et al. The alloy consists essentially of from about 10% to about 15% nickel, from about 1% to about 3% aluminum, up to about 1% manganese, from about 0.05% to less than about 0.5% magnesium and the balance copper. Suitable metals: US 3698964, US 3810754, US 3676292 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 pm. 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 Hindelang 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. JODI COHEN FRANKLIN Primary Examiner Art Unit 1741 /JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 08, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 21, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 29, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600657
Rotary Batch Preheater
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590026
MANUFACTURING TUNGSTEN BRONZE GLASS CERAMIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583788
METHODS OF COOLING GLASSES POST-ION EXCHANGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565437
IMPROVED GLASS TRANSPORT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552699
LAMINATED GLAZING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+25.8%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 739 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