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 notes
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 21-26 are currently pending. No claims have been amended and claim 27 is newly added.
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 1-6, 8-9, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choo (US 2012/0134627) in view of Ditizio (US 2011/0207323) and further in view of Eda (US 2012/0151967).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6 and 8, Choo discloses a spacer layer (200”) formed of glass (0054) and comprising a plurality of openings (250’) separated from one another and distributed in a grid (Fig. 21). Choo further teaches that the structure may be diced into at least one unit device region (0108), thus teaching severing section of the glass piece along separating lines between the multiplicity of openings as claimed.
Please note the recitation that the “spacer wafer is for producing frame-type spaces” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Choo disclose a spacer as presently claimed, it is clear that the spacer of Choo would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. producing frame-type spacers, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Choo does not teach that the multiplicity of opening comprise side walls with microstructuring having an average roughness value (Ra) of less than 0.5 µm (or less than 50 nm as claimed in claim 5 or 8) at a measurement distance of 500 µm; or less than 10 nm at a measurement distance of 50 µm as claimed in claim 6 and the microstructuring having a multiplicity of dome-shaped depressions.
Ditizio, in the analogous field of optical devices (0001), teaches an etch process for forming via holes in a substrate which minimizes/eliminates sidewall roughness (0007). Ditizio further teaches setting etch parameters to control the sidewall roughness (0063). The sidewall roughness having a microstructuring of a multiplicity of dome-shaped depressions (see e.g., Fig. 6).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed would have found it obvious to adopt the process of Ditizio, for formation of the through-holes in the spacer of Choo, minimizing surface roughness with high throughput and reduced manufacturing cost (0007).
Based on the disclosure of Ditizio a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious that sidewall roughness is optimizable and aim for minimizing the sidewall roughness (0004, 0007). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the average roughness to less than 0.5 µm (or less than 50 nm), at a measurement distance of 500 µm as claimed in claim 1, (or claims 5 or 8) and less than 10 nm at a measurement distance of 50 µm as claimed in claim 6, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Alternatively, Eda, in the analogous field of glass substrates for optical components (0001), discloses a glass blank where a roughness on the principal surface is 0.2 nm or less (0057). Overlapping the claimed 0.5 µm or less in claim 1, 50 nm or less in claim 5, 10 nm or less in claim 6, and satisfying at least one of the features of claim 8 e.g., roughness less than 0.4 or 0.25 µm.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the sidewalls of the glass wafer of Choo to have an average roughness value of less than 0.2 nm as taught by Eda, suppressing surface irregularity (0036).
Eda does not teach the roughness at a measurement distance of 500 µm (or 50 µm) however, an overlapping range would be expected as patentability is not based upon method of measurement but whether or not the property would have been obvious in view of the prior art i.e., the roughness would be overlapping all measurement wavelengths.
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, the side walls of each spacer has at least one planar section (Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 3, Ditizio discloses sidewall profiles having tapered profiles (E.g., Fig. 6b) where the edge face will enclose an angle α≠90o (Fig. 6b, 0089).
Regarding claim 4, Ditizio teaches the surface having a coating (0028).
Regrading claim 9, Choo teaches that the thickness of the spacer affects the efficiency of optical coupling between the optical device chip and optical fiber (0064), thus it would be obvious to optimize the thickness of the spacer layers including within the claimed ranges of from 100 µm to 3.5 mm or 200 µm to 3.0 mm since it has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Ditizio teaches etched depressions separated by ridges (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 25, Ditizio teaches the dome-shaped depression comprise concavely curved surface separated by a convexly curved surface (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 26, Ditizio does not expressly teach a ratio of an area of convexly curved surface to an area of concavely curved surface of at most 0.25. However, Ditizio teaches adjusting the cyclic and non-cyclic processes to produce a wanted shape in the sidewall profiles (0082). As there is no evidence indicating the ratio of area is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choo in view of Ditizio and Eda as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2019/0337119).
Regarding claim 9, while Choo teaches that the thickness of the spacer is optimizable, Choo does not expressly disclose a suitable thickness for the spacer.
Lin teaches a spacer having a thickness of 2.9 to 3.5 mm (0032), overlapping the claimed ranges of 100 µm to 3.5 mm or 200 µm to 3.0 mm.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the spacers in the spacer layer of Choo to have a thickness of 2.9 to 3.5 mm, as taught by Lin, to avoid the influence of the spacer on an abrasive element (0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 21-22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choo (US 2012/0134627) in view of Ditizio (US 2011/0207323).
Regarding claim 21, Choo discloses a spacer layer (200”) formed of glass (0054) and comprising a plurality of openings (250’) separated from one another and distributed in a grid (Fig. 21). Choo further teaches that the structure may be diced into at least one unit device region (0108), thus teaching severing section of the glass piece along separating lines between the multiplicity of openings as claimed.
Please note the recitation that the “spacer wafer is for producing frame-type spaces” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Choo disclose a spacer as presently claimed, it is clear that the spacer of Choo would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. producing frame-type spacers, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Choo does not disclose a side wall of at least one of the multiplicity of openings comprising an oblique edge face enclosing an angle α ≠ 90o with a lower side of the transparent glass plate, wherein the oblique edge face is a laser ablated face and a coating is on at least a part of the oblique edge face.
Ditizio, in the analogous field of optical devices (0001), teaches an etch process for forming via holes in a substrate which minimizes/eliminates sidewall roughness (0007).The side walls including oblique edge faces enclosing an angle α≠90o (Fig. 6b, 0089), being laser ablated (claim 4) and comprising a coating (0028).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed would have found it obvious to adopt the side wall structure of Ditizio, for the surface of the spacer of Choo, as these surfaces can be produced to minimize surface roughness with high throughput and reduced manufacturing cost (0007).
Regarding claim 22, Choo discloses a spacer layer (200”) formed of glass (0054) and comprising a plurality of openings (250’) separated from one another and distributed in a grid (Fig. 21). Choo further teaches that the structure may be diced into at least one unit device region (0108), thus teaching severing section of the glass piece along separating lines between the multiplicity of openings as claimed.
Please note the recitation that the “spacer wafer is for producing frame-type spaces” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Choo disclose a spacer as presently claimed, it is clear that the spacer of Choo would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. producing frame-type spacers, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Choo does not disclose a side wall of at least one of the multiplicity of openings comprising an oblique edge face enclosing an angle α ≠ 90o with a lower side of the transparent glass plate, wherein the oblique edge face comprises an optical structure selected from the group consisting of a concave mirror, beam-scattering element and a microlens.
Ditizio, in the analogous field of optical devices (0001), teaches an etch process for forming via holes in a substrate which minimizes/eliminates sidewall roughness (0007).The side walls including oblique edge faces enclosing an angle α≠90o (Fig. 6b, 0089), and for CMOS formation comprise a microlens (0138).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed would have found it obvious to adopt the side wall structure of Ditizio, for the surface of the spacer of Choo, as these surfaces can be produced to minimize surface roughness with high throughput and reduced manufacturing cost (0007).
Regarding claim 27, Ditizio teaches diffusion barrier coatings including metals (0049 e.g., metallic coating).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the flatness/roughness values in Eda are achieved by polishing which cannot be used on the sidewalls of openings.
Foremost it is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Ditizio provides a process to minimize sidewall roughness (0004) as well as the motivation. Eda is provided as evidence indicating that applicant’s ranges exist and are known in the field of the invention. Supporting the rejection over Ditizio.
Applicant argues that Fig. 11C, having a wave-shape, of Eda is the grinding surface and intended to be removed.
Eda is not used to teach the dome-shape.
Applicant argues that Ditizio discloses a silicon substrate and the etching process cannot be successfully combined with Choo alone or in combination with Eda.
Ditizio expressly teaches that the substrate may be glass and is etched (0051and 0084).
Applicant argues that Ditizio does not teach or suggest a dome-shape as required by claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, the "scalloped sidewall" as argued by Applicant includes dome-shaped indentations. That the overall profile of Ditizio is not dome-shaped, or that Ditizio refers to its sidewalls as "scalloped," does not negate Ditizio's clear depiction of indentations which are dome-shaped (i.e., indentations including a dome shape).
Applicant argues that Ditizio is directed to a method for processing through holes having a high roughness, eliminating the need for a low roughness. Applicant submits that the modification by Ditizio is adapted for a high surface roughness, and therefore, Ditizio teaches away from the average roughness of claim 1.
Ditizio notes that a low sidewall roughness has the benefit of reducing the need for non-volatile passivation layers (0081). Ditizio also stresses the need to control sidewall roughness (0063). The constraints of a high roughness surface argued by Applicant also only appear in one specific embodiment of Ditizio. Taking the Ditizio reference as a whole, it remains clear to a person of ordinary skill that sidewall roughness is optimizable, with situations in which higher or lower roughnesses may be alternatively desired.
Applicant argues that Ditizio is non-enabled for forming a laser ablated face, and instead, only teaches laser etching.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A laser etched face is a form of a laser ablated face (i.e., the process of using a laser to etch, or "remove" material, is the same as "ablation," or, removal of material).
Applicant argues that Ditizio does not disclose or suggest sidewalls enclosing an angle with respect to a lower side of the substrate.
Ditizio depicts sidewalls at an angle which is not 90 degrees, such that the angles are located on both sides of a horizontal surface (52; i.e., lower surface).
Applicant argues that Ditizio does not disclose the micro-lenses provided on the oblique edge face as claimed.
As noted by applicant paragraph 0138 of Ditizio does not expressly teach the micro-lenses on the oblique edge face. However, the parylene coating is applied to the edge face (0028) and paragraph 0138 is discussing processing of the sidewalls. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that in a paragraph the micro-lenses are on the on the sidewalls.
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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781