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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 Ln 2, please amend to --the at least one conical [[resource]] recesses configured--.
Claim 12 Ln 5, please amend to --to [[a]] the lower side of the blank--.
Claim 12 Ln 2-3, please amend to -- as a through-[[opening]] hole are --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 8 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 Ln 4 states the limitation "are at least largely excluded”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term (largely) that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate.
Claim 17 Ln 5 states the limitation "are at least largely excluded”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term (largely) that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SEIKO EPSON CORP JP 2005152693 A, hereinafter Seiko. A machine translation is provided for use throughout of paragraph callouts.
Regarding claim 1, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) a substrate carrier (10) made of glass [0023] for processing a transparent or transmissive substrate by electromagnetic radiation (interpreted as intended use in accordance with MPEP 2111.02), the substrate carrier comprising:
a first upper side (depicted top side) serving as a substrate support (as stated above, interpreted as intended use); and
a lower side (depicted bottom side) facing away from the upper side,
wherein the substrate support and/or the lower side of the substrate carrier has a structuring (14, 16) produced by modifications in the substrate carrier [0043-0044] and a material removal by action of an etching medium (“hydrofluoric acid solution or … fluorine compound gas” [0029]) in respective regions of the modifications in the substrate carrier [0045],
wherein the structuring has a plurality of adjacent and/or merging conical recesses (depicted as conical in Fig. 5, [0009] indicates a plurality of recesses), and
wherein at least one of the conical recesses is configured as a through-hole of the substrate carrier between the substrate support and the lower side (Fig. 4 depicts a conical recess as a through hole [0041]), and a plurality of other ones of the conical recesses are configured as depressions (Fig. 5 depicts a conical recess as a depression [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) adjacent ones of the conical recesses are separated from one another by a common wall surface, at least a substantial portion of the common wall surface extending up to a common plane of the substrate support to form a partial and/or punctiform substrate support (fundamentally, the portion that separates two recesses is a wall; as depicted at least in Fig. 2, despite being a depiction of a groove, also applies to the recesses and depicts the common wall extending up to a common plane that was the original first side).
Regarding claim 3, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) a contact area of the substrate support with the substrate is less than 1% of areas bounded by a peripheral contour and/or of a projected area of the substrate support (claim 1 positively claims the substrate carrier, but does not positively claim an assembly of a support and the substrate; furthermore, as the laser process disclosed is “femtosecond laser light whose pulse width is on the order of femtoseconds” [0016-0017], the concentrations of recess within a square unit of area capable of less than 1%).
Regarding claim 5, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) the conical recesses configured as depressions are produced [0041] from different modifications than the at least one conical recess configured as a through-hole [0044], and undergo a common etching process [0045] under corresponding etching conditions such that the different structures arise due to the different modifications.
Regarding claim 6, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) different modifications for the conical recesses [0041] configured as depressions and the at least one conical recess configured as a though-hole [0044] are produced as a result of different focusing, pulse energy and/or power of a laser radiation used for this purpose.
Regarding claim 7, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) the conical recesses configured as depressions and the at least one conical resource configured as a through-hole have a corresponding size, area and/or geometry in a plane of the substrate support (depicted as corresponding in size or shape).
Regarding claim 10, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) the substrate support has, at least in sections, a surface (at least the first and lower sides), which is transparent or transmissive for the electromagnetic radiation [0003], and wherein the surface is produced by deposition on the substrate carrier (at least [0040] discloses depositing material on a surface), and has an electrical conductivity [0048].
Regarding claim 12, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) a glass blank (10) for producing the substrate carrier according to claim 1, wherein the conical recesses configured as depressions (Fig. 5 [0044]) and the at least one recess configured as a through-opening (Fig. 4 [0041]) are formed from different modifications, the modifications being set in such a way that individual ones of the conical recesses of the same size, shape and/or geometry of an entirety of the conical recesses (depicted as corresponding in size or shape) are produced in a predetermined plane parallel to a lower side of the blank using an etching treatment with matching parameters in a common etching bath [0045].
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 of this title, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiko.
Regarding claim 9, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) the conical recesses configured as depressions have an opening angle of more than 30°, and the at least one conical recess configured as a through-hole has an opening angle of less than 30°.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the conical recesses configured as depressions have an opening angle of more than 30°, and the at least one conical recess configured as a through-hole has an opening angle of less than 30°solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and
it appears that the undisclosed angles of Seiko would perform equally well with the conical recesses configured as depressions have an opening angle of more than 30°, and the at least one conical recess configured as a through-hole has an opening angle of less than 30°as claimed by applicant,
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the undisclosed angles of Seiko by utilizing the conical recesses configured as depressions have an opening angle of more than 30°, and the at least one conical recess configured as a through-hole has an opening angle of less than 30°as claimed for the purpose of providing flow of fluid therethrough [0002].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiko in view of MASUDA; Yukiyasu et al. US 20220157638 A1, hereinafter Masuda. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (working of glass by laser beams). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 13, Seiko discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that a device comprising the substrate carrier according to claim 1 for treatment and/or processing of the substrate by the electromagnetic radiation, and a suction and/or vacuum source assigned to the conical recesses. Instead, Seiko discloses an application of the substrate carrier as that of MEMS (micro electromechanical systems) technology.
Masuda discloses (Fig. 1-5) a device comprising
a substrate carrier (28) for treatment and/or processing of a substrate (11) by the electromagnetic radiation [0036], the substrate carrier made of glass [0060] for processing a transparent or transmissive substrate by electromagnetic radiation [0015], the substrate carrier comprising:
a first upper side (78c) serving as a substrate support [0073]; and
a lower side (78b) facing away from the upper side,
wherein the substrate support and/or the lower side of the substrate carrier has a structuring (82) produced by modifications in the substrate carrier [0063-0070] and a material removal by action of an etching medium in respective regions of the modifications in the substrate carrier [0071], and
a suction and/or vacuum source (“suction sources”, [0048, 0054, 0074]) assigned to the structuring.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (substrate carrier for the treatment and/or processing of a substrate application) for another (MEMS technology application), and the results of the substitution (providing a glass structure with micro-fluidic channels) would have been predictable. Because both Seiko and Masuda teach applications of working glass by lasers, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the substrate carrier for the treatment and/or processing of a substrate application for the MEMS technology application to achieve the predictable result of providing a glass structure with micro-fluidic channels.
To further clarify the modification, the modified glass structure of Seiko is used in the device/application of Masuda resulting in the claimed device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-16 are allowed
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Seiko discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that at least individual ones of the conical recesses configured as depressions with the at least one conical recess configured as a through-hole are connected to one another in a flow-conducting or flow-through manner in a state in which the substrate is in contact with the substrate carrier.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural connection between the depressions and through-hole. Although Seiko discloses a substrate carrier comprising depressions and through-holes, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Seiko to incorporate the details of at least individual ones of the conical recesses configured as depressions with the at least one conical recess configured as a through-hole are connected to one another in a flow-conducting or flow-through manner in a state in which the substrate is in contact with the substrate carrier, along with the other claimed components of the substrate carrier. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, as far as is determinate, Seiko discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that adjacent ones of the conical recesses are separated from one another by a common wall surface, and wherein the wall surfaces have such a small thickness due to the material removal of the etching treatment that regions with a surface-normal perpendicular to a plane of the substrate support are at least largely excluded.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural connection between the depressions. Although Seiko discloses a substrate carrier comprising depressions and through-holes, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Seiko to incorporate the details of adjacent ones of the conical recesses are separated from one another by a common wall surface, and wherein the wall surfaces have such a small thickness due to the material removal of the etching treatment that regions with a surface-normal perpendicular to a plane of the substrate support are at least largely excluded, along with the other claimed components of the substrate carrier. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Seiko discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 Seiko further discloses (Fig. 1-5) each of the substrate support and the lower side have the structuring [0041, 0044].
Seiko fails to explicitly state that the structuring of the lower side of the substrate carrier has the conical recesses configured as depressions forming a flow-conducting connection for application of suction and/or a vacuum opening to the at least one conical recess configured as a through-hole.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural connection between the through-holes and depressions. Although Seiko discloses a substrate carrier comprising depressions and through-holes, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Seiko to incorporate the details of the structuring of the lower side of the substrate carrier has the conical recesses configured as depressions forming a flow-conducting connection for application of suction and/or a vacuum opening to the at least one conical recess configured as a through-hole, along with the other claimed components of the substrate carrier. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Seiko discloses (Fig. 1-5) a method for producing a plate-shaped substrate carrier (10) with a first upper side (depicted top side) serving as substrate support (interpreted as intended use in accordance with MPEP 2111.02) and a lower side (depicted bottom side) facing away from the upper side, the method comprising:
producing different modifications (depressions: Fig. 5 [0044], through-holes: Fig. 4 [0041]) in the substrate carrier by laser radiation in each case along a beam axis; and then
producing conical recesses to form a structuring on the substrate support and/or the lower side of the substrate carrier by action of an etching medium (“hydrofluoric acid solution or … fluorine compound gas” [0029]) and by successive etching as a result of anisotropic material removal in respective regions of the modifications in the substrate carrier [0045], wherein the different modifications provide that at least one of the conical recesses being configured as a through-hole of the substrate carrier between the substrate support and the lower side [0041], and a plurality of other ones of the conical recesses being configured as depressions without perforations [0044].
Seiko fails to explicitly state that the different modifications provide that the conical recesses adjoin and/or merge into one another
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural connection between the conical recesses. Although Seiko discloses a substrate carrier comprising depressions and through-holes, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Seiko to incorporate the details of the different modifications provide that the conical recesses adjoin and/or merge into one another, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Claims 15-17 depend from claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 20220078920 A1, US 20180029924 A1, US 20210197320 A1, US 20090013724 A1, US 20230302741 A1, US 20220153632 A1, US 20220204393 A1, US 20200009691 A1, discloses modification of a glass blank via laser and etching to form recesses.
US 20170345700 A1, US 20070252970 A1, US 20130140838 A1 discloses a vacuum clamping device made of glass modified via laser and etching to form recesses.
US 8173038 B2 discloses modification of a glass blank via laser to form overlapping recesses but teaches away from subsequent etching.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights