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 Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/04/2025 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-5, 8, 10, and 12 are amended, Claims 6, 9, 11, and 13-39 are canceled, and Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, and 12 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-14, 16-17, 20-21, 24-25, 28-29 and 31-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2025.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04/21/2023 are acknowledged and accepted.
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.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20170315274 A1) in view of Ruben (US 20120161305 A1, foreign equivalent WO2012087369A1 of record in the IDS dated 06/15/2023).
With respect to Claim 10, Park discloses a device comprising:
a first substrate (Fig 1—element 200, upper glass; [0123]); and
a second substrate (Fig 1—element 100, core; [0123]) bonded to the first substrate (Fig 1—element 200, upper glass; [0123]) via a bond ([0144]: element 200 is bonded to element 100 via fusion), the second substrate (Fig. 4B-- element 102, second substrate; [0075]) comprising a through-hole;
a third substrate (Fig 1—element 300, lower glass; [0123]) fusion bonded ([0125]: element 300 is coupled to element 100 via the fusion bonds between element 200 and 100) to the second substrate (Fig 1—element 100, core; [0123]) opposite the first substrate (Fig 1—element 200, upper glass; [0123]);
a cavity (Fig 1—element 400, liquid lens; [0127]) defined by the first substrate (Fig 1—element 200, upper glass; [0123]), the third substrate (Fig 1—element 300, lower glass; [0123]), and a through-hole (Fig 1—element 120, hollow; [0130]) of the second substrate (Fig. 4B-- element 102, second substrate; [0075]); and
a liquid (Fig 4—elements 410 and 420, first and second liquid layers; [0136]) disposed within the cavity (Fig 1—element 400, liquid lens; [0127]);
Park does not explicitly disclose a device comprising: a second substrate bonded to the first substrate via a plurality of concentric fusion bonds; and
an innermost bond, an outermost bond, and at least one intermediate bond between the innermost bond and the outermost bond;
wherein each bond of the plurality of concentric fusion bonds is configured to fail at approximately a same pressure exerted upon the first substrate by the liquid.
Park and Ruben are related as both pertaining to the field of optical substrate devices. Ruben discloses a device comprising:
a first substrate (Fig. 4B-- element 100, first substrate; [0075]); and
a second substrate (Fig. 4B-- element 102, second substrate; [0075]) bonded to the first substrate (Fig. 4B-- element 100, first substrate; [0075]) via a plurality of fusion bonds comprising an innermost bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--innermost bond), an outermost bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--outermost bond), and at least one intermediate bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--intermediate bond) between the innermost bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--innermost bond) and the outermost bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--outermost bond);
wherein each bond of the fusion bonds (Fig 4B—element 136, enhanced bond; [0076]) is configured to fail at approximately the same pressure exerted upon the first substrate (Fig. 4B-- element 100, first substrate; [0075]) ([0121]: the enhanced bonds break when the substrates are pulled apart which is similar to the forces experienced by the two substrates as they are pressed apart by a fluid filled cavity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Park with the bonds of Ruben in order to create a device which has substrates bonded in a way that is transparent, mechanically strong, corrosion resistant, and may be used to form a hermetically sealed cavity.
However, Park and Ruben do not explicitly disclose wherein each bond of the plurality of bonds is arranged concentrically. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the plurality of bonds into a concentric pattern, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to Claim 12, Park and Ruben disclose the device of claim 10 and Park does not disclose wherein:
A width of each bond of the plurality of concentric bonds is approximately the same;
each pair of adjacent bonds is separated by approximately a same spacing; and
a ratio of the spacing to the width is 1 to 5.
Park and Ruben are related as both pertaining to the field of optical substrate devices. Ruben discloses a device comprising:
width of each bond of the plurality of bonds (Fig 4B—element 136, enhanced bond; [0076]) is approximately the same (Fig 4B— each od element 136 are approximately the same width); and
each pair of adjacent bonds (Fig 4B—element 136, enhanced bond; [0076]) is separated by approximately a same spacing (Fig 4B—element 136 are spaced approximately evenly apart); and
and there is a ratio of the spacing to the width (Fig 4B and [0076]: the bonds may be arranged in a pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose a ratio of the spacing to the width to be 1 to 5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Park with the bonds of Ruben in order to create a device which has substrates bonded in a way that is transparent, mechanically strong, corrosion resistant, and may be used to form a hermetically sealed cavity.
However, Park and Ruben do not explicitly disclose wherein each bond of the plurality of bonds is arranged concentrically. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the plurality of bonds into a concentric pattern, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 allowed.
With respect to Claim 1, Park discloses a device comprising:
a first substrate (Fig 1—element 200, upper glass; [0123]); and
a second substrate (Fig 1—element 100, core; [0123]) bonded to the first substrate (Fig 1—element 200, upper glass; [0123]) via a bond ([0144]: element 200 is bonded to element 100 via fusion).
Park does not explicitly disclose a device comprising: a second substrate bonded to the first substrate via a plurality of concentric fusion bonds;
an innermost bond, an outermost bond, and at least one intermediate bond between the innermost bond and the outermost bond, the at least one intermediate bond spaced radially apart from the innermost bond and the outermost bond; and
wherein strengths of the concentric fusion bonds increase sequentially from the innermost bond to the outermost bond.
PNG
media_image1.png
469
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park and Ruben are related as both pertaining to the field of optical substrate devices.
Ruben discloses a device comprising:
a first substrate (Fig. 4B-- element 100, first substrate; [0075]); and
a second substrate (Fig. 4B-- element 102, second substrate; [0075]) bonded to the first substrate (Fig. 4B-- element 100, first substrate; [0075]) via a plurality of bonds comprising an innermost bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--innermost bond), an outermost bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--outermost bond), and at least one intermediate bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--intermediate bond) between the innermost bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--innermost bond) and the outermost bond (See annotated Fig. 4B--outermost bond);
However, Park and Ruben do not explicitly disclose a second substrate bonded to the first substrate via a plurality of concentric fusion bonds; the at least one intermediate bond spaced radially apart from the innermost bond and the outermost bond. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the plurality of bonds into a concentric pattern, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
However, neither Park, Ruben, or any combination of the prior art discloses a
wherein strengths of the concentric fusion bonds increase sequentially from the innermost bond to the outermost bond in combination with all other limitations of Claim 1.
With respect to Claims 2-5 and 7-8, these claims are dependent on Claim 1 and are allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 3, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-8, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025, Page 8, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that neither Park nor Ruben disclose wherein each bond of the plurality of concentric fusion bonds is configured to fail at approximately a same pressure exerted upon the first substrate by a liquid in a cavity of the second substrate. Ruben does disclose, in paragraph [0121], the enhanced bonds break when the substrates are pulled apart which is similar to the forces experienced by the two substrates as they are pressed apart by a fluid filled cavity. Therefore, Ruben does disclose a plurality of bonds which are configured to fail at approximately the same pressure.
While, Park and Ruben do not explicitly disclose wherein each bond of the plurality of bonds is arranged concentrically. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the plurality of bonds into a concentric pattern, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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 MACKENZI BOURQUINE whose telephone number is (571)272-5956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 4:30 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/MACKENZI BOURQUINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872