DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 18-20, 22, and 25-27 in the reply filed on 4-07-2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leighton et al., US 2012/0219749 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Leighton teaches an optical component (Abstract, Fig. 4) comprising first and second glass layers (any layer 14 of Fig. 4), a polymer layer between the glass layers (18 of Fig. 4), and a seal (12 of Fig. 4) comprising a barrier layer (22 of Fig. 4) that seals a peripheral edge of the polymer layer and is attached to the first and second glass layers, the barrier layer comprising a metal ([0045]). As Leighton teaches that the purpose of the sealing layer is to prevent liquids or vapors from entering ([0013]), the sealing layer is considered “hermetic.”
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Leighton teaches that the seal 12 may comprise an elastomeric buffer for supporting the barrier layer (24 of Fig. 4, [0047]) and teaches the claimed geometry (Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Leighton teaches that the barrier layer may have a polymer substrate (20 of Fig. 4) that is covered by the metal layer (22 of Fig. 4), the metal layer positioned on the polymer layer.
Regarding claim 12, the glass layers in the product of Leighton feature outer surfaces and opposing inner surfaces that face each other (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Leighton teaches that the barrier layer may be bonded to the outer surface of the first and second glass layers (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Leighton teaches that the barrier layer may be attached to the glass surfaces via an adhesive layer in some areas and directly attached in other areas (Fig. 4), the two areas corresponding to the claimed “first type” and “second type” of bond.
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, 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.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leighton et al., US 2012/0219749 A1, as applied above, in view of Veerasamy et al., US 2015/0184446 A1.
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Leighton differ from the present invention in that although Leighton teaches that the metal portion of the barrier may be in contact with the glass surface, Leighton does not specifically teach that metal is welded to the surface. Veerasamy, however, teaches that soldering via heating (ie, welding) may be used to attach metal sealing layers to glass surfaces in order to achieve a strong bond (Abstract, [0042], [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to weld the metal of Leighton to the surface of the glass because doing so would result in a strong bond.
Claims 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leighton et al., US 2012/0219749 A1, as applied above, in view of Virnelson et al., US 6457294 B1.
Regarding claims 18-20, Leighton teaches an optical component as discussed above. The teachings of Leighton differ from the present invention in that Leighton does not explicitly teach a first and second connection type for the edge seal. Virnelson, however, teaches that it is advantageous to provide such structures with a first hermetic sealing region and a second non-hermetic structural sealing region, because doing so allows the product to have both hermetic sealing properties and improved structural stability (col. 3 ln. 1-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the edge sealing layer of the product of Leighton with two types of bonds, one structural and the other hermetic, because doing so would allow the product to have both hermetic sealing properties and improved structural stability.
Regarding claim 22, although neither Leighton nor Virnelson teaches a specific geometry for the non-hermetic bond areas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate geometry for the non-hermetic bonding areas based on the geometry of the product and the desired structural properties.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gierens et al., US 2017/0139109 A1, in view of Leighton et al., US 2012/0219749 A1.
Regarding claim 25, Gierens teaches an electronic device comprising a support structure and an optical component supported by the support structure (Abstract, [0224]).
The teachings of Gierens differs from the present invention in that Gierens does not teach a hermetic sealing structure. Leighton, however, teaches that such optical components may comprise a seal (12 of Fig. 4) comprising a barrier layer (22 of Fig. 4) that seals a peripheral edge of the polymer layer and is attached to the first and second glass layers, the barrier layer comprising a metal ([0045]). Leighton teaches that the purpose of the sealing layer is to prevent liquids or vapors from entering. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the product of Gierens with the sealing structure of Leighton, as doing so would protect the product of Gierens from vapor or moisture intrusion.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gierens et al., US 2017/0139109 A1, in view of Leighton et al., US 2012/0219749 A1 as applied above, and further in view of Virnelson et al., US 6457294 B1.
Regarding claim 26, the teachings of Gierens and Leighton Leighton differ from the present invention in that Leighton does not explicitly teach a first and second connection type for the edge seal. Virnelson, however, teaches that it is advantageous to provide such structures with a first hermetic sealing region and a second non-hermetic structural sealing region, because doing so allows the product to have both hermetic sealing properties and improved structural stability (col. 3 ln. 1-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the edge sealing layer of the product of Gierens with two types of bonds, one structural and the other hermetic, because doing so would allow the product to have both hermetic sealing properties and improved structural stability.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gierens et al., US 2017/0139109 A1, in view of Leighton et al. and Virnelson et al. as applied above, and further in view of Veerasamy et al., US 2015/0184446 A1.
Regarding claim 27, the teachings of Gierens and Leighton differ from the present invention in that Gierens and Leighton do not specifically teach that metal is welded to the surface. Veerasamy, however, teaches that soldering via heating (ie, welding) may be used to attach metal sealing layers to glass surfaces in order to achieve a strong bond (Abstract, [0042], [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to weld the metal of Gierens to the surface of the glass because doing so would result in a strong bond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights