DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the election received on 10/24/2025.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY on 11/05/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2023 has/have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (a process for producing a hermetically sealed enclosure) in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-21 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of species A (wherein the base substrate is in direct contact with the second substrate) in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the election is moot since applicant has elected Invention I (claims 1-15) as described above and only claims 18 and 19 have been indicated as being directed towards the identified species (argument ‘a’) and that the office has not cited any of the criteria listed in MPEP 808.02 for establishing a serious search burden (argument ‘b’). Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments.
Argument ‘a’ is not found persuasive because the requirement for restriction mailed on 08/26/2025 indicated that species A/B appeared to be directed to “at least claim 18/19”, respectively. However, this election is still deemed necessary. At least claims 1 and 8 appear to be generic to both identified species (see lines 4-5 of claims 1 and 8 requiring “first substrate and the second substrate being arranged directly against one another or on one another”. According to MPEP 808.01(a), “Election of species may be required prior to a search on the merits . . . (B) in applications containing both species claims (claims 18/19) and generic (claims 1 and 8) or Markush claims”. Applicant may, during the course of prosecution, present claims which are not generic and are specifically drawn to the identified species which would result in undue burden on the examiner were this restriction not required.
Argument ‘b’ is also not found persuasive as the examiner has cited criteria for establishing a serious search burden. The restriction requirement mailed on 08/26/2025 states on page 5 that “the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries)”. This is indicated in MPEP 808.02(C) as a demonstration of a serious search burden. The different required search queries are pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. In the instant case, the identified mutually exclusive subject matter of the species, as identified in the restriction requirement, necessitate different search queries corresponding to the distinct subject matter of each species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims submitted for consideration during prosecution may be withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (species B), should there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/24/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of species C (wherein the bond quality index is ascertained as Q1=1-(A-G)/A . . .”) in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the office has not cited any of the criteria listed in MPEP 808.02 for establishing a serious search burden. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments.
This argument is not found persuasive as the examiner has cited criteria for establishing a serious search burden. The restriction requirement mailed on 08/26/2025 states on page 5 that “the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries)”. This is indicated in MPEP 808.02(C) as a demonstration of a serious search burden. The different required search queries are pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. In the instant case, the identified mutually exclusive subject matter of the species, as identified in the restriction requirement, necessitate different search queries corresponding to the distinct subject matter of each species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim(s) 7 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/24/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities where proposed corrections have been bolded and underlined:
Claim 1, lines 5-6, “is formed between the at least one first substrate”;
Claim 8, lines 4-5, “is formed between the at least one first substrate”;
Claim 8, line 12, “hermetically connecting the at least one first substrate”;
Claim 8, line 13, “direct joining of the at least one first substrate”;
Claim 8, lines 15-16, “meltingly joins the at least one first substrate”.
The balance of claims are objected to at least for their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 3 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “quasi-monochromatic” in line 7 of claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quasi-monochromatic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It remains unclear how narrow the wavelength band of the selected radiative reflection needs to be in order to be considered “quasi-monochromatic” in relation to the claim. Monochromatic is defined as including only a single color. “Quasi-monochromatic” could be interpreted as encompassing only a few wavelengths from two adjacent color bands or could include a plurality of color bands surrounding a single color band. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this examination, any band of light selected from the radiative reflection, regardless of wavelength range, will be interpreted to read on “quasi-monochromatic”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “checking that Q2 satisfies the minimum requirements for ensuring the hermetic assembly” in the final two lines of the claim. Neither the claims, nor the specification, have defined what these requirements are. Claim 8, which claim 11 depends on directly, has defined Q2 as a second bond quality index with no further definition for Q2 provided in either claim 11 or the claims on which it depends. It is unclear if the “minimum requirements for ensuring the hermetic assembly” are some unspecified value of Q2, a relative change in the value from Q1 to Q2 after the bonding process has been performed, or if this is a qualitative check where Q2 is a simple true/false detection of gas leakage from the chamber and only a leakage of zero would indicate that Q2 satisfies the requirements for a hermetic assembly. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and claims 12-13 are rejected at least for their dependencies. For the purposes of this examination, any measurement of a Q2 value, wherein the cited prior art is intending to form a hermetic assembly, will be interpreted as reading on “checking that Q2 satisfies the minimum requirements for ensuring the hermetic assembly”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2015/0298256 A1; Maattanen, Antti; 10/2015; (‘Maattanen’) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2015/0298256 A1; Maattanen, Antti; 10/2015; (‘Maattanen’) in view of Newton’s Ring’s; Harvard Natural Sciences Lecture Demonstrations; 12/2016; (“Harvard”).
Regarding Claim 1. Maattanen discloses A process for producing and/or checking an assembly of a substrate stack (Figures 1-4, [0020]-[0024], welding two glass pieces together using a laser beam), the process comprising:
planarly arranging at least one first substrate (#1, Figure 2, first level surface piece) against a second substrate (#2, Figure 2, second level surface piece) to form the substrate stack ([0020], “first level surface piece 1 and under it another level surface piece 2 and they have been placed upon each other”, i.e. #1 is arranged on #2 to form a stack), the at least one first substrate and the second substrate being arranged directly against one another or on one another (Figure 2, #1 is directly on #2), so that at least one contact area is formed between the least one first substrate and the second substrate at which the at least one first substrate is in direct planar contact with the second substrate ([0020], Figures 2, the surfaces 2.1 and .2 are formed to contact one another and form a planar contact area), the at least one first substrate comprising a transparent material ([0020], “the transparent first piece 1”, i.e. #1 comprises a transparent material);
detecting a radiative reflection which comes about through irradiation of the substrate stack with a radiative input on the at least one contact area ([0023] describes that the quality of the contact between the pieces is made by observing for the presence of newton rings, interpreted to require detection of radiative reflection through irradiation with a radiative input on the contact area as supported by Harvard which teaches in the section “What it shows” that Newton rings are observed as interfering incident reflecting light waves resulting in a concentric ring dark/light interference pattern when the radiative input is monochromatic light); and
ascertaining a first bond quality index (Q1) of the contact area from the radiative reflection ([0023], “One way to detect that a sufficient straightness of the surfaces has been reached is to notice that the so called Newton rings have disappeared from between the together pressed glass sheets to be welded together”, i.e. the bond quality index is ascertained by the removal of any newton’s rings).
In the alternative, Maattanen may be interpreted as not teaching detecting a radiative reflection which comes about through irradiation of the substrate stack with a radiative input on the at least one contact area by teaching for the observation of Newton’s rings.
However, Harvard teaches in the “How it works” section that two glass pieces may be pressed together (convex lens and plane glass disk) in direct contact with one another, wherein the contact region is not perfectly planar due to imperfections in one of the substrates (i.e. a convex point in the convex lens), and detecting a radiative reflection which comes about through irradiation of the substrate stack with a radiative input on the at least one contact area (“What it shows” section, wave reflection interference pattern produced by monochromatic incident light).
Since Maattanen is silent regarding the procedure for bond quality observation beyond the monitoring of Newton’s rings, this would motivate one of ordinary skill to seek out teachings such as Harvard in order to practice the invention of using the observation of Newton’s rings to determine the quality of a contact surface between two substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to consider monitoring interference patterns of reflected monochromatic light from Harvard since doing so allows for “smoothing highest points of the surfaces to straighten the pieces to be welded together so that a certain welding can be performed without adjusting the laser beam focal point” as taught by Maattanen in [0023].
Regarding Claim 2. Maattanen in view of Harvard discloses The process of claim 1, wherein the first bond quality index Q1 is ascertained as Q1 = 1 – (A – G) / A, wherein A is an area of the at least one contact area and G is an acceptance area (Maattanen, Figure 2, let A be the contact area between #1 and #2 and let G be the area of the contact region identified as having no Newton’s rings due to sufficiently close contact of the substrates), wherein at least one the following is satisfied:
the acceptance area G describes an area for which the distance between the at least one first substrate and the second substrate is less than 5 µm; or the bond quality index Q1 is greater than or equal to 0.8 (Maattanen, [0023], “One way to detect that a sufficient straightness of the surfaces has been reached is to notice that the so called Newton rings have disappeared”, i.e. G is equal to A when Newton’s rings are removed, resulting in Q1=1 which is greater than 0.8).
Regarding Claim 3. Maattanen in view of Harvard discloses The process of claim 1, wherein one or more of the following is satisfied:
the process further comprises generating the radiative input by a monochromatic radiation source or generating the radiative input by a spectrally adapted radiation source (Harvard, “What it shows” section, “interference produces a concentric ring pattern of rainbow colors in white light, or dark and light rings in monochromatic light”, i.e. the radiative input may be monochromatic); and/or
the radiative input is a low-energy radiative input, wherein the radiative input has a radiant power which does not lead to melting or incipient melting of the at least one first substrate or the second substrate; and/or
the process further comprises selecting a monochromatic or quasi-monochromatic range from the radiative reflection (Harvard, “What it shows” section, “interference produces a concentric ring pattern of rainbow colors in white light, or dark and light rings in monochromatic light”, i.e. the radiative reflection may be monochromatic, or quasi-monochromatic, dark/light rings).
Regarding Claim 4. Maattanen in view of Harvard discloses The process of claim 1, further comprising reading off an interference pattern from the radiative reflection from superimposition of the radiative input with the radiative reflection on the at least one contact area (Harvard, “What it shows” section, “interference produces a concentric ring pattern of rainbow colors in white light, or dark and light rings in monochromatic light”, i.e. the concentric ring interference pattern is a superimposition of reflected and incident light waves present between the two substrates).
Regarding Claim 5. Maattanen in view of Harvard discloses The process of claim 4, wherein the pattern has an arrangement in which the pattern extends around one or more defects; and/or
wherein a defect is characterized in that a distance between the at least one first substrate and the second substrate is greater than 5 µm (Maattanen, [0023], “the loose contact of the surfaces caused by rubbish particles can be straightened sufficiently straight using the pressing force F”, the newtons rings extend in a circular pattern around a defect caused by impurities in the gap between the two substrates).
Regarding Claim 6. Maattanen in view of Harvard discloses The process of claim 1, wherein the substrate stack harbors at least one functional region, wherein the at least one functional region is configured as a harboring cavity (Maattanen, #5, Figure 3, enclosed space) for accommodating at least one harbored item (Maattanen, #6, Figure 3, third piece, being an optic apparatus according to [0020] which is harbored in the enclosed space #5); and/or
wherein the at least one first substrate has an outer flat side (Maattanen, #1.2, Figure 2, second surface which is planar and extends to an outer edge of #1) and an all-around narrow side (Maattanen, Figure 1, side of #1 which extends in the vertical/thickness direction of the substrate stack and is observed to extend all around #1 and is narrow relative to #1.2).
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0298256 A1; Maattanen, Antti; 10/2015; (‘Maattanen’) in view of Newton’s Ring’s; Harvard Natural Sciences Lecture Demonstrations; 12/2016; (“Harvard”) and further in view of US 2014/0230990 A1; Karam et al.; 08/2014; (“Karam”).
Regarding Claim 8. Maattanen discloses A process for producing a hermetically sealed enclosure (Figures 1-4, [0020]-[0024], welding two glass pieces together using a laser beam to form enclosed space #5), the process comprising:
planarly arranging at least one first substrate (#1, Figure 2, first level surface piece) against a second substrate (#2, Figure 2, second level surface piece) to form a substrate stack ([0020], “first level surface piece 1 and under it another level surface piece 2 and they have been placed upon each other”, i.e. #1 is arranged on #2 to form a stack), the at least one first substrate and the second substrate being arranged directly against one another or on one another (Figure 2, #1 is directly on #2), so that at least one contact area is formed between the least one first substrate and the second substrate at which the at least one first substrate is in direct planar contact with the second substrate ([0020], Figures 2, the surfaces 2.1 and .2 are formed to contact one another and form a planar contact area), and the at least one first substrate comprising a transparent material ([0020], “the transparent first piece 1”, i.e. #1 comprises a transparent material);
detecting a radiative reflection which comes about through irradiation of the substrate stack with a radiative input on the at least one contact area ([0023] describes that the quality of the contact between the pieces is made by observing for the presence of newton rings, interpreted to require detection of radiative reflection through irradiation with a radiative input on the contact area as supported by Harvard which teaches in the section “What it shows” that Newton rings are observed as interfering incident reflecting light waves resulting in a concentric ring dark/light interference pattern when the radiative input is monochromatic light);
ascertaining a first bond quality index Q1 of the at least one contact area from the radiative reflection ([0023], “One way to detect that a sufficient straightness of the surfaces has been reached is to notice that the so called Newton rings have disappeared from between the together pressed glass sheets to be welded together”, i.e. the bond quality index is ascertained by the removal of any newton’s rings);
hermetically connecting the least one first substrate and the second substrate to one another by direct joining of the least one first substrate and the second substrate with one another in a region of the at least one contact area (#7, Figures 3 and 4, [0020], totally hermetic welding is done via a laser to join #1 and #2 in their contact area), so that a joining zone is formed which reaches into the at least one first substrate and into the second substrate and which directly meltingly joins the least one first substrate and the second substrate to one another ([0021], the process of welding is performed at the interface of the common boundary of #1 and #2 which melts them together, see [0024] describing the melting of both materials to be joined);
In the alternative, Maattanen may be interpreted as not teaching detecting a radiative reflection which comes about through irradiation of the substrate stack with a radiative input on the at least one contact area by teaching for the observation of Newton’s rings.
However, Harvard teaches in the “How it works” section that two glass pieces may be pressed together (convex lens and plane glass disk) in direct contact with one another, wherein the contact region is not perfectly planar due to imperfections in one of the substrates (i.e. a convex point in the convex lens), and detecting a radiative reflection which comes about through irradiation of the substrate stack with a radiative input on the at least one contact area (“What it shows” section, wave reflection interference pattern produced by monochromatic incident light).
Since Maattanen is silent regarding the procedure for bond quality observation beyond the monitoring of Newton’s rings, this would motivate one of ordinary skill to seek out teachings such as Harvard in order to practice the invention of using the observation of Newton’s rings to determine the quality of a contact surface between two substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to consider monitoring interference patterns of reflected monochromatic light from Harvard since doing so allows for “smoothing highest points of the surfaces to straighten the pieces to be welded together so that a certain welding can be performed without adjusting the laser beam focal point” as taught by Maattanen in [0023].
Maattanen in view of Harvard do not teach detecting a further radiative reflection, which comes about through further irradiation of the substrate stack with the radiative input on the at least one contact area; and ascertaining a second bond quality index Q2 of the at least one contact area from the further radiative reflection.
However, Karam teaches a method for attaching a substrate cap to a substrate to form a stack (see Figure 2) in order to achieve bubble free hermetic bonds (see [0003]) wherein the method comprises checking the bond quality (#34, Figure 2) after the formation of the bond (#33, Figure 2) wherein the bond quality is assessed by the presence of Newton’s rings (see [0018]) as an interference pattern formation after the bond, the rings being indicative of poor bond quality (see [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider checking the bond quality after the formation of the bond in Maattanen in view of Harvard, as was done by Karam, by once again checking for Newton’s rings, entails detecting a further radiative reflection, which comes about through further irradiation of the substrate stack with the radiative input on the at least one contact area (see description above for the process of observing Newton’s rings and [0019] of Karam); and ascertaining a second bond quality index Q2 of the at least one contact area from the further radiative reflection (i.e. detecting a remaining presence of Newton’s rings). Performing the secondary check of Karam ensures a satisfactory bond is achieved or indicates whether successive bonding steps are necessary (see [0019] of Karam).
Regarding Claim 9. Maattanen in view of Harvard and Karam discloses The process of claim 8, wherein Q2 is ascertained as Q2 = 1 – (A – G) / A or Q2 = 1 – (N – G) / N, wherein A is an area of the at least one contact area, G is an acceptance area, and N is an area of a useful region area (Maattanen, Figure 2, let A be the contact area between #1 and #2 and let G be the area of the contact region identified as having no Newton’s rings due to sufficiently close contact of the substrates, i.e. the quality may be assessed by Q2 = 1 – (A – G) / A).
Regarding Claim 10. Maattanen in view of Harvard and Karam discloses The process of claim 8, wherein the second bond quality index Q2 is greater than or equal to 0.95 and/or wherein Q2 is greater than Q1 (Karam, [0019], “if the interference pattern remains visible over some significant fraction of the "bonded" area, or if pattern symmetry is poor, suggesting localized irregularities--a second bond may be created at step 35 between a second one of the plurality of fingers and a corresponding second predetermined portion of the substrate top surface . . .additional fingers may be successively bonded, one by one, to corresponding portions of the substrate top surface until either a satisfactory bond is achieved”, i.e. bonding is repeatedly performed until G is equal to A, leading to improved bond quality, when Newton’s rings are removed resulting in Q2=1 which is greater than 0.95).
Regarding Claim 11. Maattanen in view of Harvard and Karam discloses The process of claim 8, further comprising checking a hermetic assembly of the at least one first substrate and the second substrate by ascertaining a distance profile between the at least one first substrate and the second substrate and/or by checking that Q2 satisfies minimum requirements for ensuring the hermetic assembly (Both Maattanen and Karam aim to provide a hermetic assembly and Karam discloses further bonding steps to ensure hermetic bonding as described above for claims 8 and 10, i.e. the process further comprises checking that Q2 satisfies minimum requirements for hermetic assembly).
Regarding Claim 12. Maattanen in view of Harvard and Karam discloses The process of claim 11, further comprising: again checking a hermetic assembly of the at least one first substrate and the second substrate after the hermetic connecting of the at least one first substrate and the second substrate by ascertaining a second distance profile (Harvard, “How it works” section, assessing for the presence of Newton’s rings describes a distance profile of the air gap between the substrates, d, between the two surfaces which defines the structure of the interference pattern of Newton’s rings); and comparing the second distance profile to the distance profile (Karam, [0018]-[0019], the progressive removal of the interference pattern of the newton rings between successive bonding steps until the bond quality is sufficient, i.e. comparison of successive air gap profiles).
Regarding Claim 13. Maattanen in view of Harvard and Karam discloses The process of claim 11, further comprising:
specifying a maximum distance of the distance profile between the at least one first substrate and the second substrate (Harvard, “How it works” section, the presence of Newton’s rings is associated with the distance profile, both Maattanen and Karam disclose that sufficient contact/bonding is identified by the removal of the Newton’s rings, i.e. there is a set permissible maximum distance below which the Newton’s rings are no longer present); and
on exceedance of the maximum distance, undoing the enclosure, cleaning the enclosure, implementing an adaptive further joining step, and/or removing the enclosure from the process (Karam, [0021], “If necessary, additional fingers may be successively bonded, one by one, to corresponding portions of the substrate top surface until either a satisfactory bond is achieved, or the particular ring-cap assembly and device involved are abandoned”, i.e. failure to reduce the distance below the maximum value leads to removal of the enclosure).
Regarding Claim 14. Maattanen in view of Harvard and Karam discloses The process of claim 8, wherein hermetically connecting the at least one first substrate and the second substrate is carried out by a laser joining method (Maattanen, [0020], closed circular welding achieved via a focused laser beam), wherein the laser joining method comprises a laser generating a joining zone which reaches into the at least one first substrate and into the second substrate, and wherein the laser is guided all around the at least one first substrate and the second substrate and/or all around one or more cavities (Maattanen, [0020], #7, Figure 4, closed circular welding which extends all around the cavity for the third piece by creating a melted joining zone of the first (#1) and second (#2) pieces, see [0024] describing the melting of both materials to be joined).
Regarding Claim 15. Maattanen in view of Harvard and Karam discloses The process of claim 8, wherein the at least one first substrate is a covering substrate (Maattanen, #1, Figure 3, let the first piece be a covering substrate which covers the third piece (#6)) and the second substrate is a base substrate (Maattanen, #2, Figure 3, let the second piece be a base substrate which holds the third piece (#6)); and
the covering substrate lies directly and unmediatedly against the base substrate or the enclosure further comprises an intermediate substrate which is arranged between the covering substrate and the base substrate, the covering substrate being arranged directly and unmediatedly against the intermediate substrate and the base substrate being arranged directly and unmediatedly against the intermediate substrate (Figures 2 and 3, #1 may be disposed directly against #2 and a third piece #6 may be disposed between #1 and #2 with both #1 and #2 being in direct contact with #6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0344302 A1; Helie et al.; 12/2013 – Figures 1A-1F and [0060]-[0093] disclose a method of laser welding two substrates together to form an optical component wherein the bond quality is dependent on surface smoothness ([0061]) achieved through polishing and cleaning to reduce surface roughness below 10 angstroms and remove air pocket interference patterns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAMES WIEGAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/TYLER J WIEGAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2812