DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-2, 6-7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (WO 2022/026348) in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP WO2005034594 machine translation provided), Kobayashi et al. (CN 106458734 machine translation provided) and Kuramochi (2019/0198427). Regarding claims 1-2, Cai discloses a method of manufacturing a glass substrate having a penetrating structure, such as holes, the method comprising preparing a glass substrate that has a first surface and second surface opposite to each other, and includes 5-15 mol% B2O3 ([0008]), irradiating the glass substrate with a laser from a first surface side to form an initial penetrating structure (figures 2a, 3A, 4, 5B, [0073]), wherein the initial penetrating structure are damage tracks or holes ([00108]), and wet etching the glass substrate having the initial penetrating structure formed ([0071], [0128]). Cai also teaches the etching results in a slightly textured surface from imperfect uniformity in the etching process, but doesn’t specify a polishing step. Hashimoto also teaches a method for manufacturing a glass substrate having a penetrating structure, such as holes (abstract). Hashimoto teaches preparing a glass substrate having an initial penetrating structure, and wet etching the glass substrate having an initial penetrating structure to produce a through hole in the glass substrate (paragraph bridging pages 4-5, bottom two paragraphs on page 5). Hashimoto further teaches polishing the first surface side and the second surface of the etched glass substate with abrasive grains to produce a polished glass substrate (first paragraph on page 6) and cleaning the polished substrate (2nd paragraph on page 6, 4th paragraph on page 6). As mentioned, Cai teaches the etching steps leaves an undesirable surface texture on the glass substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at that time of the invention to employ a polishing and cleaning step after etching, for removing a portion of the surfaces of the glass substrate, i.e. the texture surface of the etched substrate of Cai, and cleaned surfaces having no remaining abrasive grains.
Furthermore, Hashimoto suggests abrasive grains such as cerium oxide, alumina, silica, and titanium oxide, but doesn’t specify using an abrasive including acid-soluble abrasive grains and cleaning with an acid solution. Kobayashi teaches it is well known to employ abrasive particles for polishing glass substrates, and common abrasive particles include cerium oxide, alumina particles, silica particles, titanium oxide particles, zirconium oxide particles, and manganese oxide particles (2nd to last passage on page 5), wherein manganese oxide is an acid soluble abrasive grain. Kobayashi further teaches cleaning the glass substrate after polishing using an acid (last passage on page 5 to 3rd passage on page 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively employed any of the known abrasive grains, such as manganese oxide particles, and an acid for cleaning, in the process of Cai, as Kobayashi teaches it is a known alternative to the grains suggested by Hashimoto, and it predictably provides for successful polishing and cleaning of the glass substrate.
Cai teaches glass substrates with holes are useful for electronics applications, such as interposers, wherein the holes are filled with conducting material to produce metalized holes ([0004]). Cai teaches producing final through holes in the glass substrate having a diameter in the range of 30-100µm ([0071]), but doesn’t specify an opening on the first surface of the initial penetrating structure having a diameter of greater than or equal to 50 µm from the laser irradiation. Kuramochi also teaches a method for producing a glass substrate with holes to be used in electronic applications, such as interposers ([0003]). Kuramochi also teaches forming initial penetrating structure in the glass substrate by irradiating with a laser and etching the glass substrate to produce a glass substrate having through holes that is approximately circular ([0042]) and having a radius (Sd) in the range of 35 µm – 45 µm, which provides for a diameter of 70-90 µm ([0055]-[0056]). Kuramochi further explains the resulting through holes in these examples provide for good metallization of the holes ([0092]). It appears Cai and Kuramochi teaches similar size through holes in glass substrate (i.e. 90µm), as a result of laser irradiation and etching. While Cai provides smaller initial holes with the laser and focuses on controlling etching conditions to enlarge the initial holes into final holes, i.e. from 1 µm to 90-95 µm ([00126]-[00128]), Kuramochi teaches adjusting irradiation conditions and producing a larger initial hole first with the laser irradiation and etching only a little to produce the final hole (i.e. 70 µm-90 µm). Kuramochi teaches the shape of the final hole can closely mimic the shape of the initial hole and can be shaped by controlling the irradiation conditions ([0090]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have alternatively provide for initial penetrating structures with openings that are approximately circular and having a diameter of greater than 50 µm, such as 70-90 µm, from the laser irradiation (before wet etching) by controlling irradiation conditions, to provide control over the final desired shape of the final hole, with a reasonable expectation of success, as demonstrated by Kuramochi.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Kobayashi teaches after grinding the surface has a surface roughness of 0.2nm or less (2nd to last passage on page 5), which suggests the surface after cleaning is less than 1 nm.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, as mentioned above, Kobayashi teaches the abrasive grains contains manganese oxide (2nd to last passage eon page 5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (WO 2022/026348), Hashimoto et al. (JP WO2005034594 machine translation provided), Kobayashi et al. (CN 106458734 machine translation provided), and Kuramochi (2019/0198427) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (DE 10392942 machine translation provided). Kobayashi doesn’t specify a polishing amount. Takahashi teaches performing fine polishing on a glass substrate to remove roughened surfaces resulting from etching, wherein the fine polishing removes 0.2-0.5 µm (3rd-4th paragraphs on page 4). As mentioned above, Cai teaches the etching results in a slightly textured surface from imperfect uniformity in the etching process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a polishing amount of about 0.2-0.5 µm to remove surface roughness resulting from etching, as taught by Takahashi.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (WO 2022/026348), Hashimoto et al. (JP WO2005034594 machine translation provided), Kobayashi et al. (CN 106458734 machine translation provided), and Kuramochi (2019/0198427) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Isobe et al. (2020/0130105). Cai doesn’t specify the laser used for producing the holes. Isobe teaches a similar process of producing holes in a glass substrate (abstract) and teaches well known lasers suitable for forming holes include CO2 lasers, Nd:YAG lasers, He-Ne laser, amongst others ([0053]). Isobe teaches a CO2 laser is preferred because it operates in the infrared region which is absorbed by glass substrates ([0054]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a CO2 laser for producing the holes in the method of Cai, and it is easily absorbed by glass substrates, as taught by Isobe.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (WO 2022/026348), Hashimoto et al. (JP WO2005034594 machine translation provided), Kobayashi et al. (CN 106458734 machine translation provided), and Kuramochi (2019/0198427) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaramillo et al. (2018/0068868). Cai doesn’t specify the surface roughness of glass substrate before the polishing step. Jaramillo teaches a similar method of manufacturing a glass substrate having a penetrating structure, such as holes, by irradiating the glass substrate with a laser from a first surface side and wet etching the glass substrate having the penetrating structure ([0178], [0180]). Jaramillo teaches the etching process impacts the surface roughness of the glass surface depending on the etching conditions, wherein surface roughness values of greater than 1nm can be expected especially when using HF and/or HNO3 as the etchant ([0177], figure 17). Cai similarly teaches etching using HF and/or HNO3 ([0128]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have expected the glass substrate to have a roughness value on the first surface side to be greater than 1nm as Cai utilizes a similar etching step.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (WO 2022/026348), Hashimoto et al. (JP WO2005034594 machine translation provided), Kobayashi et al. (CN 106458734 machine translation provided), and Kuramochi (2019/0198427) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Masuda et al. (JP 2000109817 machine translation). As mentioned above, Hashimoto and Kobayashi suggest abrasive grains such as cerium oxide, alumina, silica, titanium oxide, zirconium oxide particles, and manganese oxide particles. However, they do not suggest calcium carbonate. Masuda also teaches polishing a glass substrate using an abrasive including a metallic oxide particles comprising aluminum and silicon, a basic compound comprising calcium, such as calcium carbonate, and basic compound comprising aluminum, as such a combination provides for an abrasive that can give a clean ground surface with no deposits attached to the surface and with no defects such as pits and scratches (abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have additionally used abrasive grains including calcium carbonate, as it assist in polishing without producing pits and scratches, while preventing deposits from attaching to the surface, as taught by Masuda.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 5, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Cai, Hashimoto, Kobayashi, and Kuramochi have been fully considered. Applicant is correct regarding the examples C1-C3 in table 4 of Kuramochi. These examples employed a second condition for producing the holes, comprising laser irradiation and etching. However, Kuramochi also teaches (in [0055]-[0056]) examples made according to a first condition of just laser irradiation and such holes can expect to have an initial penetrating structure with at radius in the range of 35-45 µm (70-90 µm diameter). Note, figures 11-13 provide for initial penetrating structures made according to the first condition, having an opening on the first surface side with a radius of greater than 40µm (diameter greater than 80 µm). Thus, Kuramochi does teach an initial penetrating structure with an opening on the first surface side before etching with a diameter of greater than 50 µm.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 on 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741