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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 06/10/2026. Currently claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Naka et al. (JPH 10-25132 A), hereafter, referred to as “Naka”, in view of Bahat et al. (US Patent Number 3,578,470), hereafter, referred to as “Bahat”.
Regarding claim 1, Naka teaches a glass material, wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, comprising: 43-63% of SiO2; 0-15% of B2O3; 2-15% of Al2O3; 11-30% of BaO; 3-18% of CaO; by teaching an alkali-free glass and teaching in Example 2, (Table 3) that said glass comprises the following components in following wt. %:
Components
Wt. %
SiO2
55.7
B2O3
9
Al2O3
11
BaO
13.2
CaO
5
SrO
5
MgO
0
RO
23.2
ZnO
1
Sulfate Clarifier
0.3
Chloride Clarifier
0.2
But Naka fails to explicitly teach that BaO/Al2O3 is 1.5-10.0. However, Bahat teaches in Example 11, a thermally crystallizable glasses having compositions: SiO2 17.0, Al2O3 17.0, BaO 27.0, and Ta2O5 39.0, thereby explicitly teaching BaO/Al2O3 ratio of 1.588 (Table 1). Bahat further teaches in its broadest terms, melting a batch for a glass consisting essentially, in weight percent on the oxide basis, of about 10-30% BaO, 5-30% Al2O3, 15-50% SiO2, and 5-60% M2O5, wherein M2O5 consists of 0-50% Nb2O5 and 0-60% Ta2O5 (column 2, lines 53- 58), resulting a ratio of BaO/Al2O3 in the 2-6 range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Bahat, and use a BaO/Al2O3 ratio of 1.5-10, because that would ensure that there are enough barium ions to fully act as charge compensators for the aluminum ions within the silicate/aluminate network, resulting in improved physical properties, and preventing aluminum from weakening the glass, and maintaining high viscosity and workability (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with glass manufacturing, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Naka teaches a glass material, wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, further comprising: 0-12% of SrO; and/or 0-8% of Zr02; and/or 0-10% of MgO; and/or 0-8% of Rn2O; and/or 0-8% of Ln2O3 ; and/or 0-8% of ZnO; and/or 0-5% of TiO2; and/or 0-5% of P205 ; and/or 0-2% of clarifying agent; the Rn2O is one or more of Li2O, Na2O, and K2O, Ln2O3 is one or more of La2O3 , Gd2O3 , Y2O3 , and Yb2O3 , and the clarifying agent is one or more of Sb2O3 , SnO2, and CeO2; by teaching in Example 2, (Table 3) that said glass comprises of 5% SrO.
Regarding claim 3, Naka teaches a glass material, wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, comprising: 46-60% of SiO2; and/or 0.5-10% of B2O3; and/or 4-13% of Al2O3; and/or 15-25% of BaO; and/or 5-15% of CaO; and/or 0.5-10% of SrO; and/or 0-5% of ZrO2; and/or 0-5% of MgO; and/or 0-5% of Rn2O; and/or 0-5% of Ln2O3; and/or 0-5% of ZnO; and/or 0-3% of TiO2; and/or 0-3% of P2O5 ; and/or 0-1% of clarifying agent; the Rn2O is one or more of Li2O, Na2O, and K2O, Ln2O3 is one or more of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3, and the clarifying agent is one or more of Sb2O3 , SnO2, and CeO2; by teaching in Example 2, (Table 3) that said glass comprises of 55.7% SiO2.
Regarding claim 4, Naka teaches a glass material, wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, comprising: 49-56% of SiO2; and/or 1-7% of B2O3 ; and/or 6-11% of Al2O3 ; and/or 17-23% of BaO; and/or 7-12% of CaO; and/or 1-7% of SrO; and/or 0-2% of ZrO2; and/or 0-2% of MgO; and/or 0-1 % of Rn2O; and/or 0-2% of Ln2O3; and/or 0-2% of ZnO; and/or 0-1 % of TiO2; and/or 0-1 % of P2O5 ; and/or 0-0.8% of clarifying agent; the Rn2O is one or more of Li2O, Na2O, and K2O, Ln2O3 is one or more of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3, and the clarifying agent is one or more of Sb2O3, SnO2, and CeO2; by teaching in Example 2, (Table 3) that said glass comprises of 55.7% SiO2.
Regarding claim 5, Naka teaches a glass material, wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, satisfies the condition RO is 16-60%; by teaching in Example 2, (Table 3) that said glass comprises of 23.2% RO.
Regarding claim 6, Naka teaches a glass material, wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, satisfies the condition RO is 20-50%; by teaching in Example 2, (Table 3) that said glass comprises of 23.2% RO.
Regarding claim 7, Naka teaches a glass material, wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, satisfies the condition (Al2O3+CaO)/SiO2 is 0.2-0.5; by teaching in Example 2, (Table 3) that said glass comprises of components, wherein (Al2O3+CaO)/SiO2 = 0.287.
Regarding claim 8, Naka teaches a glass material, wherein components thereof are represented by weight percentage, satisfies the condition (Al2O3+CaO)/SiO2 is 0.25-0.45; by teaching in Example 2, (Table 3) that said glass comprises of components, wherein (Al2O3+CaO)/SiO2 = 0.287.
Regarding claim 9, Naka teaches a glass material, wherein components thereof do not contain MgO; and/or do not contain ZnO; and/or do not contain P2O5 ; and/or do not contain TiO2; and/or do not contain Rn2O; and/or do not contain Ln2O3, the Rn2O is one or more ofLi2O, Na2O, and K2O, and Ln2O3 is one or more of La2O3, Gd2O3, Y2O3, and Yb2O3;; by teaching in Example 2, (Table 3) that said glass composition comprises of no MgO.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Naka et al. (JPH 10-25132 A), in view of Bahat et al. (US Patent Number 3,578,470), in view of Mao et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0238081 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Mao ‘081”.
Regarding claims 10-11, Naka teaches a glass material, in Example 2 (Table 3). But Naka fails to explicitly teach that the thermal expansion coefficient of the glass material ranges between 50 x 10-7 /K to 68 x 10-7 /K and/or viscosity of below 250 dPaS (at 1450 °C). However, Naka teaches that SiO2, which is a component of the glass-forming network in the glass material, if present in less than 40%, chemical resistance deteriorates and strain point becomes lower and heat resistance becomes worse, if SiO2 is more than 70%, high-temperature viscosity becomes larger and melt becomes worse, and devitrification of cristobalite easily precipitates. Naka also teaches that CaO is a component that reduces the high temperature viscosity without lowering the strain point to ease the melting of the glass, and more than 15%, the buffer hydrofluoric acid resistance of the glass is significantly reduced. Naka further teaches that BaO is a component that increases the chemical resistance of glass and improves devitrification, and if BaO is more than 30%, the strain point decreases and the heat resistance deteriorates (para. [0014]. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that, silicon oxide can also reduce the glass expansion coefficient, and alkaline earth oxides increase the expansion coefficient of the glass. Additionally, Mao ‘081 teaches a glass and teaches that that the addition of an appropriate amount of alkaline earth oxides to a glass can increase the Young's modulus of the glass, reduce the high temperature viscosity of the glass, while balancing the glass components to improve the melting properties of the glass (para. [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Mao ‘081, with that of Naka, and use a reasonable adjustment of the relative content of the above-mentioned components to optimize the requirements of the glass for the various physical, chemical and thermal properties, based on knowing the effects of the above-mentioned components on the properties of the glass, such as the Young's modulus, the expansion coefficient, and the high-temperature viscosity. Therefore, maintaining the thermal expansion coefficient of the glass material that ranges between 50 x 10-7 /K to 68 x 10-7 /K and viscosity of below 250 dPaS (at 1450 °C) (as claimed in claim 10), and thermal expansion coefficient of the glass material that ranges between 52 x 10-7 /K to 64 x 10-7 /K and viscosity of below 200 dPaS (at 1450 °C) (as claimed in claim 11), would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Naka et al. (JPH 10-25132 A), in view of Bahat et al. (US Patent Number 3,578,470), in view of Mao et al. (CN 110885187 A), hereafter, referred to as “Mao ‘187”.
Regarding claims 12-14, Naka teaches a glass material, in Example 2 (Table 3). But Naka fails to explicitly teach a packaging carrier, a glass element and a device. However, Mao ‘187 teaches an alkali-free glass and discloses that the alkali-free glass of the present invention can be applied in semiconductor packaging and semiconductor manufacturing processes, for making packaging materials and/or encapsulants, etc., due to its excellent properties (para [0106] of machine translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing a claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Mao ‘187, and manufacture packaging carrier, a glass element and a device using the alkali-free glass. Additionally, the manufacturing of packaging carrier, a glass element and a device are also matters of intended application from the alkali-free glass as taught by Naka.
Responses to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Because the rejections are being maintained on the amended independent claim, and since there is no substantive arguments on the rejections against the references applied against rest of the dependent claims, these rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights