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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 August 2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 19-32 are pending in the application. Claims 5, 10, and 12-18 have been cancelled. Claims 31 and 32 have been added.
Amendments to the claim 21, filed on 27 August 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 27 August 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections made over Yamada, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections made over Yamada have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 27 August 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made over Esemann, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections made over Esemann have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 31, and 32 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.
With Regards to Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 31, and 32: Instant claim 1 recites the limitation --an inside edge with a second average roughness that is higher than an average roughness of the first surface-- in lines 11 to 13. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention, because the limitation can have several conflicting interpretations which render the claim indefinite: (1) said "inside edge" is with respect to some edge of the "hole"; (2) said "inside edge" is with respect to some edge of the "height deviation". For the purposes of examination, all the aforementioned interpretations will be read on the limitation of the claim.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 31, and 32, which depend from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 19-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castle et al. (WO 2016/201027 A2).
Regarding Claim 19: Castle teaches an etched glass substrate (ref. #700) comprising a first surface (ref. #702), an opposing second surface (ref. #704), a through-feature (ref. #706) extending from the first surface to the second surface in a direction that extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction transverse to the first surface, wherein the first surface at least partially around the through-feature has a deviation in thickness or depression (ref. #708) having a surface (ref. #712) recessed from a first plane (ref. #710) by a distance (ref. "D1"), wherein the surface (ref. #712) forms a sink having a face that is at an obtuse angle to the first surface (figure 6 to 7A, and [0076] of Castle).
Regarding Claim 20: Castle teaches that the hole perforates the second surface (figure 7A of Castle).
Regarding Claim 21: Castle teaches that the sink is an indentation (figure 7A of Castle).
Regarding Claim 22: Castle teaches that the sink has a symmetrical shape (figures 5A to 5C and [0091] of Castle).
Regarding Claim 23: Castle teaches that the sink has an asymmetrical shape (figures 5D to 5F and [0091] of Castle).
Regarding Claim 24: Castle teaches that the sink has a height of about 0.01 µm to about 0.2 µm and a lateral dimension of less than about 0.1 µm (figure 6 and [0077] of Castle); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm-- and --greater than 0 and less than 5 mm, greater than 0 less than 3 mm, and greater than 0 and less than 1 mm--, respectively. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 25: Castle teaches that the first surface has an average roughness value that is less than or equal to 0.9 nm (figure 8 and [0079] of Castle); which anticipates the claimed range of --less than 15 nm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 27: Castle teaches a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface; a second surface opposite the first surface; and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, wherein the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has an indentation, wherein the indentation has an asymmetrical shape or a symmetrical shape (figure 5A to 7A, [0076], and [0091] of Castle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castle et al. (WO 2016/201027 A2) in view of Esemann et al. (US 2019/0329252 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Castle discloses an etched glass substrate (ref. #700) comprising a first surface (ref. #702), an opposing second surface (ref. #704), a through-feature (ref. #706) extending from the first surface to the second surface in a direction that extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction transverse to the first surface, wherein the first surface at least partially around the through-feature has a deviation in thickness or depression (ref. #708) having a surface (ref. #712) recessed from a first plane (ref. #710) by a distance (ref. "D1"), wherein the surface (ref. #712) forms a sink having a face that is at an obtuse angle to the first surface (figure 6 to 7A, and [0076] of Castle). Castle also discloses a distance (ref. "d1") between the first surface and the surface recessed from the first plane is 0.2 µm or less (e.g., 0.05 µm, 0.1 µm, 0.12 µm, 0.18 µm, 0.45 µm, and 0.75 µm) ([0076], [0077], and [0092] of Castle); which anticipates the claimed range of --greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I). Specifically, Castle provides for --a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface; a second surface opposite the first surface; a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, wherein the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is a shortening of a wall of the hole, and wherein the height deviation has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm--.
Castle fails to disclose --the hole has a wall with a multiplicity of domelike indentations and/or an inside edge with a second average roughness that is higher than an average roughness of the first surface--.
Esemann discloses a platelike glass sheet (ref. #3) comprising a first surface and opposing second surface, and the formation of channels (ref. #41) extending through the sheet form the first surface to the second surface (figures 6 to 8 and [0079]-[0083] of Esemann). Esemann further discloses that during the formation of the channels, the topography of the walls of the holes can be controlled to express dome-shaped depressions (ref. #37) (figures 10 to 13, 15, [0098]-[0099], [0103], [109], [0118], and [0120] of Esemann).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the through-features (channels) of Esemann with the holes of the platelike glass element disclosed by Castle in order to have --a wall with a multiplicity of domelike indentations--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the through-features (channels) of Esemann, from the stand-point of improving wettability of the cavity (i.e., the surface of the hole wall) ([0099] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 2: Castle in view of Esemann discloses that the hole perforates the second surface
Regarding Claim 3: Castle in view of Esemann discloses the height deviation has a further feature selected from a group consisting of: the height deviation completely surrounds the hole, the height deviation has a face that is at an obtuse angle to the first surface, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are 20 µm, 50 µm, and 90 µm (figure 7, [0076], and [0092] of Castle); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 5 µm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 8 µm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 10 µm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 0 and less than 5 mm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 0 less than 3 mm, and the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 0 and less than 1 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 4: Castle in view of Esemann discloses a thickness of 0.2 mm ([0088] of Castle); which anticipates the claimed range of --between 10 µm and 4 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 6: Castle in view of Esemann discloses 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 7 of Castle).
Regarding Claim 7: Castle in view of Esemann discloses that the platelike glass element further comprises 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 8 and [0079]-[0084] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 8: Castle in view of Esemann discloses that the height deviation has a symmetrical shape or an asymmetrical shape (figures 5A to 5F and [0091] of Castle).
Regarding Claim 11: Castle in view of Esemann discloses that the platelike glass element is configured for a use selected from a group consisting of a microfluidic cell ([0002] and [0055] of Esemann).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 31, and 32 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Castle et al. (WO 2016/201027 A2): Castle teaches --a platelike glass element--, wherein Castle's platelike glass element further comprises the structure --an etched glass substrate (ref. #700) comprising a first surface (ref. #702), an opposing second surface (ref. #704), a through-feature (ref. #706) extending from the first surface to the second surface in a direction that extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction transverse to the first surface, wherein the first surface at least partially around the through-feature has a deviation in thickness or depression (ref. #708) having a surface (ref. #712) recessed from a first plane (ref. #710) by a distance (ref. "D1"), wherein the surface (ref. #712) forms a sink having a face that is at an obtuse angle to the first surface-- (figure 6 to 7A, and [0076] of Castle). However, Castle does not teach that --the hole has a wall with a multiplicity of domelike indentations and/or an inside edge with a second average roughness that is higher than an average roughness of the first surface-- {instant claim 1} along with --further comprising an inside edge with a multiplicity of domelike indentations, wherein the first and second surfaces have a dome-free configuration-- {instant claim 9}, -- further comprising an edge with a multiplicity of domelike indentations and a plurality of channels that directly border one another-- {instant claim 31}, or --the second average roughness of the inside edge is higher than an average roughness of the second surface-- {instant claim 32}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Castle with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Castle in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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