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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-13 and 21-25 are pending in the application. Claims 14-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-25 have been added.
Amendments to the claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 11-13, filed on 28 January 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 28 January 2026, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed unpersuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 28 January 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed unpersuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 28 January 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections made of record over Jaramillo, have been fully considered and are deemed unpersuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 28 January 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record over Esemann, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants argue that the basis for inherency relied upon in the rejections are erroneous as being inconsistent with the law and facts of the present application, wherein the assertions are unsupported by the references themselves. Specifically, Esemann being directed towards channels through glass for microfluidics, not for surface features, lacks any hint or suggestion of controlling the roughness of the surface in the ranges claimed. Applicants' further argue that the process of the claimed invention is a very different process ([0034]-[0037] of published specification) than that of Esemann, the process reciting features entirely absent from those of Esemann. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, while the prior art of Esemann uses the glass for microfluidics, the intermediate product of the glass element (ref. #3) after the laser-assisted etching process disclosed by Esemann would possess both --an elevation that is higher than the first surface and has a feature-- and --an average roughness value-- as claimed, because it discloses forming a platelike glass element by the same process using the same materials as applicants' invention (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann would inherently possesses the claimed --elevation that is higher than the first surface and has a feature selected from a group consisting of: a height of less than 5 µm, a height greater than 0.05 µm, a height greater than 0.5 µm, a height greater than 1 µm, a height greater than 10 µm, a height less than 20 µm, a height less than 15 µm, a height less than 12 µm, and combinations thereof, and wherein the first surface has an average roughness value that is greater than 15 nm and less than 100 nm-- {instant claim 1}. (Note: It is further noted that the applicants' own disclosure further recites that --by establishing a relatively high ablation rate, more particularly of more than 2 µm per hour, an average roughness value (Ra) of between 15 nm and 100 nm can be achieved-- ([0046] of the published specification); wherein since Esemann not only uses the same materials and the same process, but also teaches a removal rate (ablation rate) that is preferably less than 8 µm per hour ([0032] of Esemann). It is reasonable to assert that the platelike glass element would inherently possess said average roughness value as claimed.) Furthermore, the same rational is presented with respect to the inherency arguments presented for claims 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
Therefore, in light of applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record over Esemann are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --has an elevation is higher than-- in line 7, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "has an elevation that is higher than".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Esemann et al. (US 2019/0329252 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Esemann teaches a platelike glass sheet (ref. #3) comprising a first surface and opposing second surface, and channels (ref. #41) extending through the sheet from the first surface to the second surface (figures 6 to 8, [0079]-[0083] of Esemann).
Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has an elevation that is higher than the first surface and has a feature selected from a group consisting of: a height of less than 5 µm, a height greater than 0.05 µm, a height greater than 0.5 µm, a height greater than 1 µm, a height greater than 10 µm, a height less than 20 µm, a height less than 15 µm, a height less than 12 µm, and combinations thereof, and wherein the first surface has an average roughness value that is greater than 15 nm and less than 100 nm--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process using the same material as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses a first surface, at least partially around the hole, having an elevation that is higher than the first surface and has a feature selected from a group consisting of: a height of less than 5 µm, a height greater than 0.05 µm, a height greater than 0.5 µm, a height greater than 1 µm, a height greater than 10 µm, a height less than 20 µm, a height less than 15 µm, a height less than 12 µm, and combinations thereof, and an average roughness value of the first surface that is greater than 15 nm and less than 100 nm as claimed. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 2: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the average roughness value is greater than 40 nm and less than 60 nm--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the average roughness value of the first surface of greater than 40 nm and less than 60 nm as claimed. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 3: Esemann teaches that the hole perforates the second surface (figures 6 to 8 and [0079]-[0084] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 4: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the elevation further comprises a feature selected from a group consisting of: a plateau-like elevation shape, completely surrounds the hole, a side of the elevation facing the hole is an extension of a wall of the hole, an inside face that faces the hole being at an acute angle to an outside face that faces away from the hole, an outside face that faces away from the hole being at an obtuse angle to the first surface, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than 5 µm, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than 8 µm, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than 10 µm, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than zero and less than 5 mm, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than zero and less than 3 mm, and dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than zero and less than 1 mm, and combinations thereof--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses a feature selected from a group consisting of: a plateau-like elevation shape, completely surrounds the hole, a side of the elevation facing the hole is an extension of a wall of the hole, an inside face that faces the hole being at an acute angle to an outside face that faces away from the hole, an outside face that faces away from the hole being at an obtuse angle to the first surface, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than 5 µm, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than 8 µm, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than 10 µm, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than zero and less than 5 mm, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than zero and less than 3 mm, and dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than zero and less than 1 mm, and combinations thereof. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 6: Esemann teaches that the hole has a wall with a multiplicity of domelike indentations (figures 10 to 11 and [0091] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 7: Esemann teaches that the hole is a channel that extends through the glass element from the first surface to the second surface and perforates both the first and second surfaces (figures 6 to 8 and [0079]-[0084] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 8: Esemann teaches the platelike glass element further comprising a plurality of the channels that directly border one another to define an edge, the edge being an outside edge or an inside edge (figures 6 to 9 and [0079]-[0090] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 9: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the elevation has a height that runs parallel to the longitudinal direction and transverse to the first surface--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses a height that runs parallel to the longitudinal direction and transverse to the first surface. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 10: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the elevation has a symmetrical shape or an asymmetrical shape--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the elevation having a symmetrical shape or an asymmetrical shape. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 11: Esemann teaches that the hole comprises an inside edge with a multiplicity of domelike indentations (figures 6 to 9 and [0079]-[0090] of Esemann), but does not explicitly recite --the first and second surfaces have a dome-free configuration--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the first and second surfaces having a dome-free configuration. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 12: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --an inside edge with a second average roughness that is higher than the average roughness of the first surface--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses an inside edge with a second average roughness that is higher than the average roughness of the first surface. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 13: Esemann teaches that the platelike glass element is configured for a use selected from a group consisting of a microfluidic cell ([0002] and [0055] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 21: Esemann teaches a platelike glass sheet (ref. #3) comprising a first surface and opposing second surface, and channels (ref. #41) extending through the sheet from the first surface to the second surface (figures 6 to 8, [0079]-[0083] of Esemann).
Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the first surface having an average roughness value that is greater than 15 nm and less than 100 nm; and an elevation on the first surface at least partially around the hole and having a height along the transverse direction of greater than 0.05 µm and less than 20 µm, wherein the elevation is generated during etching of glass of the platelike glass element at the first surface during widening of a filamentary channel in the glass into the hole--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process using the same material as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the first surface having an average roughness value that is greater than 15 nm and less than 100 nm; and an elevation on the first surface at least partially around the hole and having a height along the transverse direction of greater than 0.05 µm and less than 20 µm as claimed. See MPEP §2112.
With Regards to Claim 21: The limitation of --wherein the elevation is generated during etching of glass of the platelike glass element at the first surface during widening of a filamentary channel in the glass into the hole-- is treated as a product-by-process limitation; wherein only the distinctive structural characteristics imparted to the final structure (i.e., "an elevation on the first surface at least partially around the hole and having a height along the transverse direction of greater than 0.05 µm and less than 20 µm" and "a first surface having an average roughness value that is greater than 15 nm and less than 100 nm") are given weight. See MPEP §2113(I).
Regarding Claim 22: Esemann teaches that the hole perforates the second surface (figures 2 to 8 and [0079]-[0083] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 23: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the elevation has a symmetrical shape or an asymmetrical shape--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the elevation having a symmetrical shape or an asymmetrical shape. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 24: Esemann teaches a multiplicity of domelike indentations on a wall of the hole (figures 10 to 11 and [0091] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 25: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the elevation has a dimension along the longitudinal direction of greater than 5 µm and less than 5 mm--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figures 6 to 8, [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the elevation having a dimension along the longitudinal direction of greater than 5 µm and less than 5 mm as claimed. See MPEP §2112.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (WO 2020/194040 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 21: Yamada teaches a microstructured glass substrate having a thickness of 50 µm to 2000 µm having holes that are open on a first main surface, and the holes extend through the substrate to open on an opposing second main surface (figure 1 and [0009] of Yamada). Yamada also teaches that the holes are formed by irradiating the glass substrate with a pulsed laser, followed by wet etching ([0009] of Yamada). Yamada further teaches that the first surface has an annular protrusion around the hole with a height of 0.7 µm (example 14 of Tables 1 and 3 of Yamada); which anticipates the claimed ranges. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Yamada teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the first surface has an average roughness value that is greater than 15 nm and less than 100 nm--. However, the platelike glass element of Yamada is made by the same process using the same material as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figure 1, Table 1, Table 3, [0009], [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0062]-[0063], [0083], and [0094]-[0095]) of Yamada and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the first surface of the platelike glass element of Yamada inherently possesses an average roughness value that is greater than 15 nm and less than 100 nm. See MPEP §2112.
With Regards to Claim 21: The limitation of --wherein the elevation is generated during etching of glass of the platelike glass element at the first surface during widening of a filamentary channel in the glass into the hole-- is treated as a product-by-process limitation; wherein only the distinctive structural characteristics imparted to the final structure (i.e., "an elevation on the first surface at least partially around the hole and having a height along the transverse direction of greater than 0.05 µm and less than 20 µm" and "a first surface having an average roughness value that is greater than 15 nm and less than 100 nm") are given weight. See MPEP §2113(I).
Regarding Claim 2: Yamada teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the average roughness value is greater than 40 nm and less than 60 nm--. However, the platelike glass element of Yamada is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figure 1, Table 1, Table 3, [0009], [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0062]-[0063], [0083], and [0094]-[0095]) of Yamada and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Yamada inherently possesses the average roughness value of the first surface of greater than 40 nm and less than 60 nm as claimed. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claims 3 and 22: Yamada teaches that the hole perforates the second surface (figure 1 of Yamada).
Regarding Claim 4: Yamada teaches that the elevation has a second feature selected from a group consisting of: a side of the elevation facing the hole is an extension of a wall of the hole, an inside face that faces the hole being at an acute angle to an outside face that faces away from the hole, an outside face that faces away from the hole being at an obtuse angle to the first surface, dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than 5 µm (e.g., 65 µm), dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than 8 µm (e.g., 65 µm), dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than 10 µm (e.g., 65 µm), dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than zero and less than 5 mm (e.g., 65 µm), dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than zero and less than 3 mm (e.g., 65 µm), dimensions along the longitudinal direction that are greater than zero and less than 1 mm (e.g., 65 µm), and combinations thereof (figure 1, Tables 1 and 3 of Yamada); which anticipates the claimed ranges. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 5: Yamada teaches that the platelike glass element further comprises a thickness of 50 µm to 2000 µm (e.g., 400 µm) (Table 1 and [0009] of Yamada); which anticipates the claimed ranges. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 6: Yamada teaches the platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the hole has a wall with a multiplicity of domelike indentations--. However, the platelike glass element of Yamada is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figure 1, Table 1, Table 3, [0009], [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0062]-[0063], [0083], and [0094]-[0095]) of Yamada and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Yamada inherently possesses a wall with a multiplicity of domelike indentations. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 7: Yamada teaches that the hole is a channel that extends through the glass element from the first surface to the second surface and perforates both the first and second surfaces (figure 1 of Yamada).
Regarding Claim 9: Yamada teaches that the platelike glass element has a height that runs parallel to the longitudinal direction and transverse to the first surface (figure 1 of Yamada).
Regarding Claims 10 and 23: Yamada teaches that the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the elevation has a symmetrical shape or an asymmetrical shape--. However, the platelike glass element of Yamada is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figure 1, Table 1, Table 3, [0009], [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0062]-[0063], [0083], and [0094]-[0095]) of Yamada and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Yamada inherently possesses the elevation having a symmetrical shape or an asymmetrical shape. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 11: Yamada teaches that the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the hole comprises an inside edge with a multiplicity of domelike indentations, wherein the first and second surfaces have a dome-free configuration--. However, the platelike glass element of Yamada is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figure 1, Table 1, Table 3, [0009], [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0062]-[0063], [0083], and [0094]-[0095]) of Yamada and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Yamada inherently possesses the hole comprises an inside edge with a multiplicity of domelike indentations, wherein the first and second surfaces have a dome-free configuration. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 12: Yamada teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --an inside edge with a second average roughness that is higher than the average roughness of the first surface--. However, the platelike glass element of Yamada is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figure 1, Table 1, Table 3, [0009], [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0062]-[0063], [0083], and [0094]-[0095]) of Yamada and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Yamada inherently possesses an inside edge with a second average roughness that is higher than the average roughness of the first surface. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 24: Yamada teaches the platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --a multiplicity of domelike indentations on a wall of the hole--. However, the platelike glass element of Yamada is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element with a thickness of greater than 10 µm and/or less than 4 mm, the platelike glass element is a silicate glass having an alkali metal oxide content of less than 17% by weight, the etchant being an acidic or basic etching media (e.g., HF, KOH, NaOH), the etching being performed at a temperature higher than 40 °C and/or lower than 150 °C, the etching having a relatively high ablation rate of more than 2 µm per hour, and the laser being an ultrashort pulse laser; see (figure 1, Table 1, Table 3, [0009], [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0033]-[0034], [0037], [0062]-[0063], [0083], and [0094]-[0095]) of Yamada and ([0024], [0034], [0036]-[0040], [0042], [0043], [0045], [0046]) of the published specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Yamada inherently possesses a multiplicity of domelike indentations on a wall of the hole. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 25: Yamada teaches that the elevation has a dimension along the longitudinal direction of 65 µm (figure 1 and Table 1 of Yamada); which anticipates the claimed range of --greater than 5 µm and less than 5 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esemann et al. (US 2019/0329252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5: Esemann discloses that the platelike glass sheet have a thickness of at most 300 micrometers ([0123] of Esemann); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --a group consisting of greater than 10 µm, greater than 15 µm, greater than 20 µm, greater than zero and less than 4 mm, greater than zero and less than 2 mm, greater than zero and less than 1 mm, and combinations thereof-- . Esemann differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Esemann, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin et al. (US 2017/0103249 A1) teaches a glass-based substrate with vias.
Applicants' 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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights