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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The claims is drawn to a product and the claims acted upon in the rejection 06/06/2025 are drawn to a method of manufacture.
The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case In the present instance the product can be manufactured using a laser with an ultrafast burst or different pulse rate or power range. The product may be manufactured with a step of preheating, chemical tempering, a laminated substrate, with multiple laser beams, an Nd:YAG laser and or CO2 laser.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 recites, “The method of claim 6, wherein the perforation contour circumscribes the ablation track”
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines circumscribe as:
1
a
: to constrict (see constrict sense 1) the range or activity of definitely and clearly
his role was carefully circumscribed
b
: to define or mark off carefully
a study of plant species in a circumscribed area
2
a
: to draw a line around
circumscribed the misspelled words
b
: to surround by or as if by a boundary
fields circumscribed by tall trees
3
: to construct or be constructed around (a geometrical figure) so as to touch as many points as possible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is rejected as being indefinite because claim 1 indicates the pulsed focal line offset from the perforation contour and dependent claim 11 claims the beam spot of the ablation beam spot (as indicated in claim 10) overlaps the perforation contour. It is unclear how the perforation contour and
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) 1-8, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieland (US 20180105451).
Regarding claims 1, 15, 19, Wieland discloses a method of forming a feature in a substrate, the method comprising:
forming a perforation contour, for example 2c/ or22 [0029]-[0031] Fig3B-1-Fig 3B-4,
the contour comprising a plurality of perforations, or individual defect zones/ damage tracks, or defect lines [0040]/ [0072] along a parting line (24) by directing a pulsed laser beam focal line into the substrate (20) at a plurality of locations [0072].
Wieland uses the pulsed laser beam focal line generating an induced absorption within the substrate at each of the locations [0040] Fig3B-1-Fig 3B-4 or [0072] Fig 8C, the induced absorption producing one of the plurality of perforations [0072]; and directing another ablation laser beam into the substrate along an ablation track (28) or 22 offset from the perforation contour [0074], the ablation laser beam ablating the substrate along the ablation track at least Fig 8C.
Regarding claim 9, Wieland discloses the ablation track is offset from the perforation contour by a spacing in a range from about 50 to 300 microns for example [0073]-[0074]. Wieland discloses
The function of the nano perforation contour is to contain damage that is caused by the ablation process. The nano perforations will stop, deflect, or arrest cracks that are formed in the interior plug, and prevent them from propagating out into the exterior region of the cover glass [0077]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dimension between the pulsed laser beam focal line and ablation track because [W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) furthermore a skilled artisan has reason to expect the claimed distance to maintain the cease in cracks that are formed in the interior plug, and prevent them from propagating out into the exterior region of the cover glass.
Regarding claim 2, the substrate (1/20) is glass (title [0002]-[0010], [0040]/[0074]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Wieland discloses the pulsed laser beam focal line is formed from a quasi- non-diffracting beam of a Bessel beam or a Gauss-Bessel beam [0040], [0072]-[0074], [0088]-[0094].
Regarding claim 5, Wieland discloses the perforations have a length that is less than a thickness of the substrate as depicted in Fig 2A-3B-4.
Regarding claim 6, Wieland discloses the perforation contour is closed (see closed circles 22 in Fig 1-Fig 8C).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Wieland appears to show the ablation track circumscribes the perforation contour [0073]-[0074] Fig 8C.
MPEP 2144.04 states: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)
It would be obvious to alternate the two cutting lines of the ablation track and damage track with the expected results of removing the glass plug to be cut out.
Regarding claim 8, the substrate has a surface of incidence through which the pulsed laser beam focal line enters the substrate and the ablation laser beam is focused to a beam spot BS within the substrate as shown in Fig. 7B, the position of part of the beam spot is less than 50% of a thickness of the substrate from a surface of the substrate opposite the surface of incidence (See Fig 7B).
Regarding claim 10, Wieland discloses a spot size of about 100 microns to physically ablate what is in the desired hole [0074]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dimension of the spot size because [W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) furthermore it would be obvious to optimize the spot size of the laser as motivated to ablate the desired portion of glass.
Regarding claim 11, the beam spot BS overlaps the perforation contour [0064]-[0065].
Regarding claim 13, Wieland discloses the laser parameters adjusted to ablate the material to yield an ablation groove [0074]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the spot size of the ablation laser as motivated to melt or ablate and remove the desired amount of materials [0074]
Regarding claim 14, Wieland discloses a perforation groove of defects and ablation both to remove a portion of material [0040]-[0049], [0070]-[0079]. The contours are considered spaced apart as shown in Fig 8B OR it would be obvious to use both methods of separating glass by using the well-known defects/damages along a contour desired to be split followed by ablation spaced apart throughout the thickness of the glass substrate.
Regarding claim 16, having a roughness Ra less than 0.5 microns [0028], [0087].
Regarding claims 17-18, Wieland does not disclose chips thus overlapping with the claimed ranges of claims 17-18 given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 20, Wieland discloses a feature of holes and slots of a size less than 3.0 mm [0029].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wieland discloses the ablation track is offset from the perforation contour by 50-300 microns in [0073] and does not disclose the claimed range of 5-25 micron spacing
Applicant argues it would not be obvious to optimize the spacing to the claimed range because a they would finally arrive at the value within the disclosed range of Wieland of 50-300 microns.
Examiner disagrees because Wieland solely gives the range of 50-300 microns as an example hence “e.g.” in (e.g., about (50 to 300 microns, e.g., 100 μm, 150 or 200 microns) inside the contour). In [0073] of Wieland. As stated in MPEP 2123 Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
The broader disclosure of Wieland discloses two pieces of glass are physically distinct, the central portion of glass (plug) can be removed in a variety of ways. The primary goal is to limit the thermal damage to underlying components of the device and can be done with laser processing as indicated in at least [0072] the laser processing overall depends on the material. his can also be done by choosing a laser pulse duration that is sufficiently short to limit thermal damage. An example is a highly focused laser which is focused to a spot and is used to ablate the material inside the hole, by tracing out the approximate path situated slightly to the interior of the perforation contour and avoid thermal damage. Wieland specifically states in [0077] this method of forming the perforated contour and an ablation laser offset from the perforated contour is to contain damage that is caused by the ablation process. The nanoperforations will stop, deflect, or arrest cracks that are formed in the interior plug, and prevent them from propagating out into the exterior region of the cover glass [0077].
Applicant has not indicated the spacing yields unexpected results or proven the claimed range is critical. Prior art reference must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. KSR Int’/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
Thus, Examiner maintains that the teaching of MPEP 2144.05 uphold the rejection that a skilled artisan would be inclined to find the desirable workable ranges while preventing cracking from extending.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
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 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