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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I shown in the embodiment of figure 3 in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant identified claims 1-14, 16, 19-22 and 24-26 are corresponding to the elected Species I. However, the Examiner finds claims 19-22 do not correspond to the elected Species I in the embodiment of figure 3. The elected Species I is an embodiment that has only one glass ceramic substrate and only one metal foil. Claims 19-21 requires a second metal foil. This is an unique feature only present in Species III (figure 11) and not in the elected Species I (figure 3). Claim 22 requires a second glass ceramic substrate presented only in Species IV (figure 12) and not in the elected Species I (figure 3).
Accordingly, claims 15 and 17-23 are withdrawn from consideration as they are directed to non-elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 2/13/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The copies of the NPL, especially documents numbered 3, 5 and 6 in the IDS are in extremely poor quality and are not legible. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, “wherein the first glass substrate a transmission greater than or equal to 50%” should be corrected to “wherein the first glass substrate has a transmission greater than or equal to 50%.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WIPO Publication WO 2023/083957).
As per claim 1, Thomas discloses a method of laser bonding glass ceramic to metal foil, the method comprising: contacting a first surface of a first glass ceramic substrate with a first surface of a first metal foil to create a first contact location between at least a portion of the first surface of the first glass ceramic substrate and the first surface of the first metal foil (functional area (first contact location) between metal foil and the contact surface of the first substrate (glass); paragraphs [0051], [0064]); and conducting a first welding step by directing a laser beam (82) on at least a portion of the first contact location (2) to bond the first glass ceramic substrate (4) to the first metal foil (3) and form a first bond location (6) and a package (as shown; figure 9c), wherein the laser beam comprises a pulsed laser comprising a wavelength greater than or equal to 250 nm and less than or equal to 2 μm (in the range between 1000nm and 1100 nm; paragraph [0047]).
Thomas does not explicitly teach wherein the first glass ceramic substrate has a thickness greater than or equal to 20 μm and less than or equal to 250 μm. Although Thomas does not explicitly teach the exact thickness of the glass ceramic substrate, Thomas teaches the hermetically sealed assembly can be used for various metal-glass transition applications including biophysics, medical implants, sensor technology, watch cover, micro-optics and etc. (machine translation paragraphs [0007], [0008]). For a given application, it would only require routine experimentation to find an optimal or workable thickness of glass substrate. For some of the examples of applicability listed by Thomas, it would require glass substrate to be relatively thin to be compact and lightweight but not too thin to cause the structure weak. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be required to find an optimal or workable thickness range of the glass substrate for the appropriate application. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Thomas’ glass substrate to incorporate a thickness between 20 μm to 250 μm via routine optimization to make the device compact, lightweight but also durable.
As per claim 2, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first glass ceramic substrate has a transmission greater than or equal to 50% at a wavelength greater than or equal to 250 nm and less than or equal to 2 μm (first substrate 4 is transparent (over 50% transmission) in the range of the laser wavelength used; paragraph [0108]; joining laser has a wavelength range of 1000 nm to 1100 nm or 500 to 550 nm; paragraph [0047]).
As per claim 3, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first glass ceramic substrate comprises an alumina ceramic substrate or a zirconia ceramic substrate (paragraph [0053]).
As per claim 4, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first metal foil comprises an aluminum foil (paragraph [0050]).
As per claim 5, Thomas discloses the method of claim 4, and further discloses, wherein the first metal foil further comprises a metal other than aluminum (metal foil may also comprise an alloy, i.e., further comprises another metal; paragraph [0050]).
As per claim 6, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first metal foil has a thickness greater than or equal to 10 μm and less than or equal to 100 μm (metal foil having minimum thickness of 10 μm; paragraph [0025]; please note that while the machine translation denotes the unit of pm, page 7 of the original document having the corresponding translation correctly uses the unit μm instead of pm).
As per claim 8, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the pulsed laser is a nanosecond pulsed laser, a picosecond pulsed laser, or a femtosecond pulsed laser (ultrashort pulse laser with pulse length of 1 ps; paragraph [0047]).
As per claim 10, Thomas discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the pulsed laser has a pulse width greater than or equal to 10 ps (pulse length in the range of 50ps or smaller; paragraph [0047]).
As per claim 11, Thomas discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the pulsed laser has a pulse width less than or equal to 1 ps (1ps or less than 500 fs; paragraph [0047]).
As per claim 12, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1. Thomas does not explicitly teach wherein the pulsed laser has a repetition rate greater than or equal to 1 kHz and less than or equal to 800 kHz. While Thomas teaches it uses ultrashort pulsed laser, i.e., laser pulsed in repetition (paragraph [0047]), it does not teach the exact pulse repetition rate. However, the person of ordinary skill in the laser welding art would know that the repetition rate is directly related to the power of the radiation for a pulsed laser. Therefore, discovering the optimum repetition rate of a pulsed laser is within routine skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, for the purposes of providing a laser suitable for bonding glass substrate to a metal foil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Thomas’ laser to incorporate a repetition rate between 1 kHz and 800 kHz since discovering the optimum or workable range is not inventive.
As per claim 13, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the pulsed laser has a spot size greater than or equal to 10 μm and less than or equal to 200 μm (tack point corresponds to the width W of the laser; paragraph [0127]; laser joining line or the tack points comprise a re-solidified zone having width of 30 μm; paragraphs [0033], [0035]; please note that while the machine translation denotes the unit of pm, page 9 of the original document having the corresponding translation correctly uses the unit μm instead of pm).
As per claim 14, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the package has a bond strength greater than or equal to 3 MPa (bond streanth greater than 10 N/mm2; paragraph [0045]).
As per claim 16, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first bond location has a maximum bond depth less than or equal to 2 μm (in the laser joining line, there is a mixing zone having a thickness of 1 μm; paragraph [0024]; please note that while the machine translation denotes the unit of pm, page 7 of the original document having the corresponding translation correctly uses the unit μm instead of pm).
As per claim 24, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the metal foil comprises a melting point less than or equal to 1200° C (aluminum foil has melting point of 660 C; paragraph [0050]).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WIPO Publication WO 2023/083957) in view of Adam (GB 2,583,090A).
As per claim 7, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1. Thomas does not explicitly teach wherein the pulsed laser has a power density less than or equal to 6 J/cm2.
Adam (GB 2,583,090A) is a related prior art in that it also deals with joining glass to metal using laser. Adam teaches if the pulse fluence (power density) is too high, then the substrates may crack. Therefore, although Thomas has not disclosed the exact power density, from the teachings of Adam, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Thomas’ laser to incorporate a low power density such as the power density less than equal to 6 J/cm2, because it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) and Adam teaches that if the pulse fluence is too high, then the substrate may crack which leads to an obvious decision of selecting a low power density to prevent breaking.
As per claim 9, Thomas discloses the method of claim 8. Thomas does not explicitly teach wherein the pulsed laser has a pulse width greater than or equal to 1 ns and less than or equal to 30 ns. Adam teaches wherein the pulse width may be in the range of 20ns to 10,000 ns (page 4, line 10). Adam further teaches femtosecond or picosecond lasers are very expensive and process speeds are relatively slow (page 1, 4th paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Thomas’ pulsed laser to incorporate Adam’s pulse width greater than 1 ns because as Adam teaches, femtosecond or picosecond lasers are very expensive and process speeds are relatively slow (page 1, 4th paragraph).
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WIPO Publication WO 2023/083957) in view of Ruben (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0161305).
As per claims 25-26, Thomas discloses the method of claim 1. Thomas does not explicitly teach wherein the laser beam is directed at an oblique angle of incidence relative to the first glass ceramic substrate and wherein the oblique angle of incidence is less than or equal to 45°.
Ruben (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0161305) teaches wherein the laser beam is directed at an oblique angle of incidence relative to the first glass ceramic substrate and wherein the oblique angle of incidence is less than or equal to 45° (scanning laser system 144 directing laser radiation 108 at angle less than 45°; figure 4D). Ruben teaches the scanning system is capable of heating a larger area than a single beam (paragraph [0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Thomas’ laser to incorporate Ruben’s scanning laser system scanning an area by varying the angle of incidence because the scanning system can heat a larger area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grenier (U.S. Patent No. 12,466,766) teaches a method of bonding glass to metal foil using laser.
Dejneka (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0047542) teaches laser welding to bond two substrates.
A new sealing technology for ultra-thin glass to aluminum alloy by laser transmission welding method by Min et al. teaches laser transmission welding of glass and aluminum alloy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745